Challenging a Liability Order

[outlawla]

Could local authorities be adopting unlawful, underhand strategies by tricking householders into paying their CTAX prematurely?

 

Stoke-on-Trent council error summons 6,000 to court

 

They blatantly have no shame in finding "positives" for wasting an estimated £3,000 of taxpayer's money in postage, for mistakenly sending out 6,000 summonses.

"

But the council said the mistake had benefitted the authority with some people clearing debts immediately......

 

"Despite the error, we've actually witnessed a beneficial impact in the sense that a lot of people who have been reminded of a debt have either paid in full or made a payment arrangement on the back of the correspondence, which is good news for the council and the individual because they have avoided costs."

EDIT:

 

This is Staffordshire has a similar statement demonstrating council's "trade mark" inability to be apologetic.

"

The council declined to say what the technical error was or whether the 6,000 people included every debtor in the city. But officials say if residents don't pay what they owe, they could soon face genuine court summonses.

Edited May 22, 2013 by outlawla

[suffering]

Its becoming common knowledge councils hire a court room and then have their own staff act as ushers then try to get you to agree to make a payment plan to prevent the "court" issuing a liability order. The point being the judge is hired by the council therefore accepted a payment to preform a duty therefore the judge is not in a position to be fair.

Can you imagine trying to hire a court and judge to overturn the decision i may be tempted to phone the court and ask them how much they charge

Edited May 25, 2013 by ims21

[Consumer dude]

Its becoming common knowledge councils hire a court room and then have their own staff act as ushers then try to get you to agree to make a payment plan to prevent the "court" issuing a liability order. The point being the judge is hired by the council therefore accepted a payment to preform a duty therefore the judge is not in a position to be fair.

Can you imagine trying to hire a court and judge to overturn the decision i may be tempted to phone the court and ask them how much they charge

 

I am very interested in this issue, as my own council tax is being challenged. What evidence is there that the council pays the judge ?

Edited May 25, 2013 by ims21

[suffering]

if you go to this thread it will give you an insight

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=383394&goto=newpost

but basically its not the real court used by the council. it is their own court with-in the court buildings with hired room and staff including the judge.

When you go to "court" the real ushers and counter staff do not want to get involved, they point you to the councils own staff

i know it sounds a bit shifty thats because it is . welcome to the modern United Kingdom

[Consumer dude]

if you go to this thread it will give you an insight

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=383394&goto=newpost

but basically its not the real court used by the council. it is their own court with-in the court buildings with hired room and staff including the judge.

When you go to "court" the real ushers and counter staff do not want to get involved, they point you to the councils own staff

i know it sounds a bit shifty thats because it is . welcome tthe modern United Kingdom

 

I Would like to test this out. I'm just waiting for a summons to attend court..

[suffering]

who can issue a liability order I cannot find the answer to this question. The L.O. that has been sent by email to me, by the council are not on headed paper so could have been issued by anyone they are signed by justice of the peace but should they be issued by a court or can the council issue their own

Further more the L.o. is a general open one not issued to me personally but refers to the table attached which i received a page with 4 other names and information blanked out. The page number was 455 (of 663) with the total written as 981 so nearly a thousand people rubber stamped in one go

BUT WHO CAN LEGALLY ISSUE A LIABILITY ORDER IS IT A COURT OR A PERSON

Edited May 28, 2013 by suffering

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The Local Authority issues Liability Orders the court process is usually to deal with these in bulk, the magistrate deals with as laid down in various Acts of Parliament.

[outlawla]

Might be some answers in this Freedom of Information request: "Court Summons", made to the Ministry of (in)Justice.

[ss002d6252]

The Local Authority issues Liability Orders the court process is usually to deal with these in bulk, the magistrate deals with as laid down in various Acts of Parliament.

 

A liability order isn't issued as such, its granted.

 

The council will issue the summons and apply for a liability order. The court grant the liability order in respect of the summons and records that it has been issued. That is the end of the road regarding the granting of the order.

 

After the order has been granted the council then have the powers to take recovery action - usually they will issue a 'request for information' form under regulation 36 and a 14 day notice of potential bailiff action (the 14 day notice does have to warn that a liability order has been previously granted).

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Ohh one is so sorry for the one word error:jaw:

[ss002d6252]

Ohh one is so sorry for the one word error

 

Not really one word , you stated:

 

The Local Authority issues Liability Orders

 

I merely pointed out that the court deals with the granting of the liability order.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not really one word , you stated:

 

 

 

I merely pointed out that the court deals with the granting of the liability order.

 

 

 

 

Take 2 brownie points and don't call me in the morning:madgrin:

Edited May 29, 2013 by BRIGADIER2JCS

[suffering]

Back down to business. I faced the councils solicitor in court and got an adjurnment i raised concerns that they are bending the rules and law to breaking point and using the court room to carry out their process, they had also cocked up the amounts on the liability order and they did not tally with what was suggested to be owed The solicitor to the council has issued this statement / challenge;

I can advise that the correct procedures in applying for a liability order under the council tax (Administration and enforcement) regulation 1992, have been followed. However if you are not happy with the proceedure used tio obtain the liability order, any challenge should be sent to Kirklees Magistrats court and they will advise what options you have in this regard.

As with most laws they are wide open to interpretation that is why even the best barrister relies on case law to back up his argument..

But i will throw anything at them if armed with the right argument and i am open to suggestions

[outlawla]

Whether or not this would be relevant to argue (as it's specifically about costs), it's something worth bearing in mind nonetheless.

 

The applications process is definitely flawed as conflicting responses highlight. Just compare these two sources for example:

 

Leicestershire Magistrates’ Courts made this statement in a Freedom of Information request:

 

The level of costs is approved by the Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates’ Court....(Justices’ Clerk) who refers the request to the bench Chairmen who consider data provided by the authorities and satisfy themselves that the sum sought is reasonable. Where a request is made to increase costs, the authorities must provide information justifying the increase.

 

Now this:

 

Cabinet Report of the Head of Revenue and Benefits in a Council Tax & NNDR review of court costs for Eastleigh Borough Council.

 

Proposals for Future Charges

 

8. Previously any increases in costs charged by the Council needed the approval of the Clerk to the Magistrates Court to ensure that the costs being levied were reasonable.

 

9. After contacting the Clerks to the Magistrates’ Court they have now confirmed that it is for the Council to decide on an appropriate level of fees in order to cover their costs and no approval is required from them.

[suffering]

"A law upon to themselves" comes to mind.

The thing that is surfacing here is that councils / mp's have hi-jacked the liability act and given themselves special priviledges to weight the law heavily in their favour, and although it is clear for all to see that the system is not clear and transparent, they are just about working within the flimsy boundries of the law, because it has been worded (Or mis-worded) to allow such actions, and was deliberately designed to do just what its purpose was, when written up in 1992 for the hated polltax. But the question still to be answered is, if a private company tried to use the same liability law the same way it could not get away with it.

[outlawla]

Keep an eye out for the answer to a request, put to the DCLG.

 

Communities and Local Government minister, Baroness Hanham, stated the following in the House of Lords on 24 July 2012 in a Local Government Finance Bill debate:

"

Under the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, bailiffs can be used to recover unpaid council tax-that is, levy distress-only where a magistrates' court has made a liability order.....

 

The local authority is allowed to apply for only reasonable costs, and those are capped at £70

...

If what the Local Government minister stated was true, then Kirklees Council will be breaching the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 on two counts. Firstly, by claiming £19 over and above the cap of £70 costs for a summons (£89), and secondly by claiming another £20 on top when the liability order is granted.

 

In all, the costs claimed by Kirklees Council are £39 over and above that stated by Baroness Hanham as the capped amount.

 

However, it's my opinion that the Government minister made a mistake by stating a cap of £70 exists – the legislation she was referring to would be the Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rating (Amendment) (Wales) Regulations 2011, and would probably not apply to English Local Authorities.

 

Regulation 3 of the Welsh Amendment:

 

Amendment of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

 

3.—(1) The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 are amended as follows.

 

(2) In regulation 34 (application for liability order)—

(a) in paragraph (7)(b), after “the order” insert “(which costs, including those of instituting the application under paragraph (2), are not to exceed the prescribed amount of £70)”;

 

(b) in paragraph (8), after “the application” insert “(which costs, including those of instituting the application under paragraph (2), are not to exceed the prescribed amount of £70)".

 

If, as I suspect the amendment only applies to Welsh Local Authorities, you must wonder why not English as well?

Edited June 2, 2013 by outlawla

[ss002d6252]

If, as I suspect the amendment only applies to Welsh Local Authorities, you must wonder why not English as well?

 

It applies only to Wales - the Welsh government used their delegated powers.

[outlawla]

It applies only to Wales - the Welsh government used their delegated powers.

 

I thought probably so. Just shows they're not that choosy about who they allow in the Lords. Even more evident with the shower hitting the headlines at the moment.

[ss002d6252]

Just shows they're not that choosy about who they allow in the Lords.

 

It shows a distinct lack of research from the Baroness and her staff.

[suffering]

I ASKED THESE QUESTIONS TO THE COUNCIL UNDER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND HERE ARE THEIR ANSWERS

I am reliably informed that you hire Huddersfield Magistrates Court on a regular basis for Council Tax hearings. Is that so and can you advise of cost?

The Council does book court dates for Liability Order hearings. There is no cost

Is it also true that you appoint the "magistrate/s" for these hearings?

No the court appoint the Magistrates

Have they taken the same sworn oath as Magistrates for all other civil actions?

The Council does not hold this information. For detailed information regarding the oaths taken by Magistrates we suggest you contact the Magistrates Court directly

[suffering]

unless anyone knows different my conclusion is, the law has been abused to gain the upperhand by the Goverment to obtain money to cover the spiraling debt and mismanagement, they dont care if you can afford to pay they will bankrupt you and throw you and your familey out of your home, knowing this will frighten others to sell everything they possess to cover the incompetance of the usless MP's who would be sacked in any normal job. money is being sent abroard to countries to build hospitals and schools but nothing gets built money paid to europe then we borrow it back plus interest the ole system is curupt on a massive scale the government does not even own the countries currency

[suffering]

I WON!!!! they had me in court for bankruptcy CASE DISMISSED!!!

my final go at them was to ask the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that they have not followed the correct proceedure. in that, the petitioning creditor shall,before presenting a petition conduct a search for petitions presented against the debtor in the previous 18 months *

a) In the Royal Courts Of Justic

b) In the central London County Court

c) In any county court which he believes is or was within that period the debtors own county court within the meaning of rule 6.9A(3) and shall include a certificate at the end of the petition.

 

So every time there is an adjournment the 18 months starts again and its dificult (almost impossible) to get a Royal Courts Of Justice search on the same day as the hearing

Anyway i sent my letter last minute to the council and court (the afternoon the day before the hearing ) and the councils solicitor did'nt turn up. Read into it what you will. Game over. Atleast for now

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, suffering , that's a good result, very well done, as you say game over for now!

[suffering]

Oh i almost forgot i also challenged the Delay

Where a petition is based on a statutory demand which was served more than 4 months before the presentation of the petition, the petition MUST include a statement explaining the reasons for the delay.

No statement was presented with the application

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Excellent you really have done exceptionally well!!