Council tax and bailiffs after 9 years

[winnie_uk]

Hi everyone,

 

Odd thing - after 9 years i have received a letter from bailiffs claiming i owe council tax for 2005/06.

I lived at that address for 6 months before moving to next street (within same council) and lived there for 2 years afterwards paying all council tax bills etc. And now i have this letter and bailiffs letter with claim that i owe some monies.

 

Any ideas/ suggestions?

 

 

****

 

[outlawla]

I don't understand why two periods have been itemised on the bill, i.e., from 1st April to 2nd June 2005 then 3rd to the 23rd June 2005. I could understand if relating to different properties, or if it related to separate billing years. Perhaps you could get the clowncil to confirm this.

 

Did you miss any council tax payments from that period in relation to the property in question? If so, I think the council are lawfully entitled to apply for a liability order within 6 years, which it appears they did on 3 September 2007.

Edited January 22, 2014 by outlawla

[winnie_uk]

 

Did you miss any council tax payments from that period in relation to the property in question? If so, I think the council are lawfully entitled to apply for a liability order within 6 years, which it appears they did on 3 September 2007.

 

Cheers for reply.

 

No i didnt miss any payments at all. Before moving out our estate agents asked us for all final bill including CT. And when we moved into next street property - i called council and informed them that i have moved etc.

[renegadeimp]

Ignore the silly letter and deal with the council direct. There is no requirement for you to deal with the bailiff

[outlawla]

Cheers for reply.

 

No i didnt miss any payments at all. Before moving out our estate agents asked us for all final bill including CT. And when we moved into next street property - i called council and informed them that i have moved etc.

 

Hopefully the council will have now rectified its error and removed the disputed debt (including court costs) and called off its bailiffs.

 

If however, it insists you still owe the stated sum, you could argue that the court case went ahead without your knowledge and therefore not in accordance with the Magistrates' Court Rules 1981.

 

It seems the defendant, according to law (Rule 14 of the Magistrates' Court Rules 1981) must be allowed to address the court; an impossibility if the defendant had no knowledge of the court case, i.e., the summons was not served on him.

 

Order of evidence and speeches: complaint

14

.—(1) On the hearing of a complaint, except where the court determines under

section 53(3)

of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 to make the order with the consent of the defendant without hearing evidence, the complainant shall call his evidence, and before doing so may address the court.

(2) At the conclusion of the evidence for the complainant the defendant may address the court, whether or not he afterwards calls evidence.

 

(3)....

[outlawla]

Something to throw at them if the council states it doesn't have to prove the summons was served.

 

Section 55 of the Magistrates' Court's Act 1980

 

Non-appearance of defendant

 

(1) Where at the time and place appointed for the hearing or adjourned hearing of a complaint the complainant appears but the defendant does not, the court may, subject to subsection (3) below, proceed in his absence.

............

 

(3) The court shall not begin to hear the complaint in the absence of the defendant or issue a warrant under this section unless either it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that the summons was served on him within what appears to the court to be a reasonable time before the hearing or adjourned hearing or the defendant has appeared on a previous occasion to answer to the complaint.

......