Council Tax Court Summons

[xxlizzy89xx]

Hi, apologies if this is in the wrong place, I could do with some advice regarding council tax.

 

Basically when the last tax year ended I still owed £92 for that year, so I emailed the revenues department and asked if that amount could be spread over 2013/2014 instalments. I had a reply which stated it had been done, and that my monthly amount would be £101, due on the 28th of each month.

 

I paid £101 on April 28th but then received a reminder letter saying I must pay £92 to bring my account up to date or I would have to pay the whole years amount in one go. I still have the email confirming this balance had been carried forward, so I sent another mail stating that I thought this debt had been carried forward and thier reply was.....

 

" I've looked into your account and the problem is with allocation of funds on our system. As the amount paid did not correspond exactly to the instalment amount, the computer system we use assumed the funds had to be applied to the oldest debt, thereby giving the impression the 2013 account was in arrears when this clearly isn't the case., your account is on track to be paid in full. I have withdrawn the reminder as entirely inappropriate, please accept my apologies"

 

So after recieving this, I thought nothing of it. I paid mays instalment early, on the 22nd, and paid £105. Then on the 23rd I received a second reminder dated the 16th may, stating that the money (£92) was still outstanding, so I emailed again asking why had I recievd this second letter, when I'd already been told the first one should never have been sent, and I got the automated reply stating my query was being looked into, but never a proper response. That was on the 23rd and after a week or so, I'd received no letters or anything so just assumed it'd been sorted.

 

Then today I've come home from work to a court summons! It says there's a hearing on July 19th, that I owe £1050 immediately and that they've added £75 to the balance ! I'm terrified, and can't ring them until tomorrow as their offices shut at 5. I've never recieved anything like this before and am really worried. Il obviously ring them as soon as I can tomorrow, which will be around 4pm, but I'm worried the process has already started, so I can't do anything about it?

 

Do you think if I ring and talk them through the trail of emails I've got, they'll understand, and withdraw the summons etc? I've got a horrible feeling its not going to be that simple, even though I really feel I've done nothing wrong, and have always kept to the agreement.

 

Any advice would be really appreciated, thanks in advance

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Have you asked the council for an explanation, that should be the first and easiest thing to do.

[xxlizzy89xx]

Not yet, I can't ring until tomorrow and am just worried of them saying, you'll have to explain at court now, I really don't want it to get to that stage.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Not yet, I can't ring until tomorrow and am just worried of them saying, you'll have to explain at court now, I really don't want it to get to that stage.

 

That's exactly why you need to phone!!

[xxlizzy89xx]

Yeah, I just read it and panicked and though I need to sort it right now! Just me being impatient!

Il call them tomorrow and hope for the best, thank you for your replies

[Conniff]

As Councils are bigger robbers that payday lenders, don't get your hopes too high it will be cancelled, they make £millions out of these court fees when the actual cost is £3.

 

If their response tomorrow is no they can't stop it now, then you should go to the court. It's not a proper court, it is just a magistrate sitting in an office who is handed a spread-sheet with all the names on. He will say does anyone contest they owe their tax and if there's no one there, then he just stamps it and hands it back to the council rep.

 

If you go to the court with your emails, you will see the council rep there and they don't like it when people challenge it, so it is most likely she will cancel it there and then.

[ploddertom]

Moved to Bailiff Forum as there are some there who can explain this.

[xxlizzy89xx]

Hi coniff, thanks for the advice, I was picturing the kind of courtrooms you see on films!

 

I shall ring tomorrow and let you know how I get on, I definitely feel a lot better about the whole court thing!

 

Thanks again for the reply, I appreciate it.

 

Thanks for moving the thread ploddertom

[i hate bailiffs]

Hi coniff, thanks for the advice, I was picturing the kind of courtrooms you see on films! Think of it as the basment or broom cupboard it is in the court building just legalised robbery for the councils

[josephbloggs]

Call tomorrow remind them of the original email date they will have it on their system

They will remove the summons and court order fee - many councils are making this mistake at the moment bristol council and stoke on trent council sent between them over 12000 incorrect summons by mistake and have had to start the whole process on each account from the beginning, this is due to their billing departments having to bill everyone they didnt have to last year, ie the change in council tax benefit and so called bedroom tax. Dont worry about it

[outlawla]

This might be a useful reference if the department deems it to be outside its powers to allocate funds to the account you elect. Ask them to seek the judgment of "Peter v Anderson" – relevant in cases where monies owed from previous years are carried forward to current year's accounts. This should prevent additional liability orders being obtained by electing payments are allocated to the current debt.

 

In the case, Peter v Anderson (1814), it was adjudged that if a person specifies which years debt the payment should be assigned it should be assigned to that years debt.

 

A paragraph quoted from the judgment:

 

"

A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases.–and his election may either be expressed,-Or may be inferred from the circumstances of the transactio

n.

[tomtubby]

This might be a useful reference if the department deems it to be outside its powers to allocate funds to the account you elect. Ask them to seek the judgment of "Peter v Anderson" – relevant in cases where monies owed from previous years are carried forward to current year's accounts. This should prevent additional liability orders being obtained by electing payments are allocated to the current debt.

 

In the case, Peter v Anderson (1814), it was adjudged that if a person specifies which years debt the payment should be assigned it should be assigned to that years debt.

 

A paragraph quoted from the judgment:

 

"

A person who is indebted to another on two several accounts, may, on paying him money, ascribe it to which account he pleases.–and his election may either be expressed,-Or may be inferred from the circumstances of the transactio

n.

 

Excellent advice !!!

[lamma]

they make £millions out of these court fees when the actual cost is £3.

I do not doubt you, I am interested in 'seeing the numbers'. Is that possible ?

[Conniff]

The last numbers I saw were for 2009 for the councils in England and the total was £250 million.

[lamma]

A link to those numbers perhaps. So that I can get from £250m to £3.

[xxlizzy89xx]

Hi everyone

 

Thanks so much for all the replies, I appreciate all the advice, and the effort people have gone to!

 

I've spoken to them today, and after being on hold for around an hour, it took two minutes for the woman to tell me that the reason this had all escalated was because when I first asked for the £92 to be carried over, this WAS done, but the actual amount was £92.44. So basically, she told me that because the 44p was still outstanding, and counted as being not paid.

 

We was apologetic, and had withdrawn all the reminders and the charges, as long as I pay an extra 44p in June's instalment.

 

It literally must have cost them 5 times the 44p to send the first class letters to me and my partner seperately ?

 

Thanks again for everyone's advice

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Pathetic is it not!!

[xxlizzy89xx]

I know, it's a joke! Feel stupid for worrying about it now, I can't believe how trivial it is. The thing is I overpaid on may 22nd, by £4 so I don't get how it didn't automatically cover that 44p discrepancy...

[outlawla]

A link to those numbers perhaps. So that I can get from £250m to £3.

 

 

Adding together the totals at the bottom of column (S) for CTAX and (CP) for business rates from CIPFA revenue stats 2009-10 you get a figure of £190.4 million.

 

From schedule 1 (4.1) of the Magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment No.2) Order 2010 the fee is £3 per liability order application (summons).

 

Totals of Columns (AX) and (DE) gives 3,477,958 summonses which means about £10.4 million of this was paid in Magistrates court fees, leaving around £180 million court costs for the greedy local authorities.

Edited June 5, 2013 by outlawla

[Conniff]

A link to those numbers perhaps. So that I can get from £250m to £3.

 

That was 2009 and my filing isn't the best, but I will look and see if I can find it. I'm making no promises though.

[renegadeimp]

Make sure you get the council to confirm that court action has been withdrawn. You need to get it in writing.

[xxlizzy89xx]

Thanks renagadeimp, she did say I'd get confirmation so hopefully it's all sorted now, il give it a week or two and if I get nothing, il ring them or email them and ask.

[lamma]

Adding together the totals at the bottom of column (S) for CTAX and (CP) for business rates from CIPFA revenue stats 2009-10 you get a figure of £190.4 million.

 

From schedule 1 (4.1) of the Magistrates' Courts Fees (Amendment No.2) Order 2010 the fee is £3 per liability order application (summons).

 

Totals of Columns (AX) and (DE) gives 3,477,958 summonses which means about £10.4 million of this was paid in Magistrates court fees, leaving around £180 million court costs for the greedy local authorities.

 

Thank you, I am most grateful.

[bonnygirl]

Hi everyone

 

Thanks so much for all the replies, I appreciate all the advice, and the effort people have gone to!

 

I've spoken to them today, and after being on hold for around an hour, it took two minutes for the woman to tell me that the reason this had all escalated was because when I first asked for the £92 to be carried over, this WAS done, but the actual amount was £92.44. So basically, she told me that because the 44p was still outstanding, and counted as being not paid.

 

We was apologetic, and had withdrawn all the reminders and the charges, as long as I pay an extra 44p in June's instalment.

 

It literally must have cost them 5 times the 44p to send the first class letters to me and my partner seperately ?

 

Thanks again for everyone's advice

 

That sound about right, I know of a pensioner that owed that amount of rent due and he got a reminder for it and told if it happened again he would be taken to court for it. How nasty and they are suppose to be public servants, we the tax payer pay their salaries. :-x:-x

[tomtubby]

I know, it's a joke! Feel stupid for worrying about it now, I can't believe how trivial it is. The thing is I overpaid on may 22nd, by £4 so I don't get how it didn't automatically cover that 44p discrepancy...

 

It is all because everything is automated. I am pleased that this has been resolved.