Is imprisonment for council tax default unlawful?

[mikeymack2002]

Bone to the rabbit time me thinks, still on topic though ok.

 

 

Say a defaulter for CT has multiple years arrears, the LA apply for a committal warrant only on the oldest debt, it is granted, debtor completes the time as required, is the debt still outstanding?

 

 

Plus then the Council then move on to the next default year and again apply for a committal warrant. Can they do this for each year consecutively each time the debtor is released from prison?

 

 

With the question above a debtor cannot be sent to prison again for the "same arrears" but can be for subsequent years!

[Peterbard]

Have to say i dont know the answer to this MM, perhaps it is a matter of the court deciding on the facts presented.

[Bailiff Advice]

To try to simplify this......although non payment of council tax is considered a civil offence, the law provides that it is a criminal offence if payment of the 'liability remains unpaid either by wilful refusal or culpable neglect.

[mikeymack2002]

BA have you read and understood the question at #51, as this has some serious implications to the defaulter if more than one year is subject to enforcement?

[Bailiff Advice]

BA have you read and understood the question at #51, as this has some serious implications to the defaulter if more than one year is subject to enforcement?

 

I have read and understood the question but I really do think that there is very little to add to this thread given that actual committal is very rare (100 people) and the scenario that you have outlined may only happen in one or two cases. Given the rarity, I do not know the answer but I would think that common sense would indicate that committal would cover ALL debts that are outstanding.

 

Think of it in this way.......committal can only apply in cases of 'wilful neglect' or 'wilful refusal' . It just would not happen that an individual would REFUSE to pay one' years council tax whilst at the same time, continuing to make payments on other year's liability orders.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Committal is very rare (100 people)

 

I spoke too soon...make that 101

 

http://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2015-06-12/brampton-man-jailed-for-failing-to-pay-council-tax/

 

 

PS: There are a lot of interesting stories on SCOOP over the past few days

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

[unclebulgaria67]

On the day the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta is celebrated, you would question whether some things have changed ? The had bailiffs in those days, collecting on behalf of the local Lord for up keeping his castle and estate.

 

I am not sure jailing someone is the right way as it is not much of a deterrent. They should be given community service orders relevant to the amount of arrears. At least then the community that is not getting the tax, is getting something back, providing they do the work required.

[citizenB]

On the day the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta is celebrated, you would question whether some things have changed ? The had bailiffs in those days, collecting on behalf of the local Lord for up keeping his castle and estate.

 

I am not sure jailing someone is the right way as it is not much of a deterrent. They should be given community service orders relevant to the amount of arrears. At least then the community that is not getting the tax, is getting something back, providing they do the work required.

 

But then aren't you putting council employees out of work by having people do community service ?

[unclebulgaria67]

But then aren't you putting council employees out of work by having people do community service ?

 

Council tax is for the provision of services and not to pay for the employment of council employees. Yes you need council staff to organise services etc but there should be a concentration on the actual services. Due to government cuts, councils are having to hand over the running of services to outside companies anyway, but there will be some things for which they have no budget. The people who end up with community service orders could do the work for which there is no budget allocated.

 

My local council seem to be spending loads on various works, including resurfacing a road that is hardly used at the moment, when there are potholes on other roads that get more traffic. In the meantime the council have sold off old people's homes in the area, forcing some residents to move to private homes elsewhere in the area. Some decisions do not make any sense, but i guess that the council did not want to own and run their own care homes, when they could sell off an asset and move provision to the private sector. A lot of people were very unhappy seeing their relatives and friends moved to wherever there were spare places in homes. For someone in their 80's or 90's to be moved must be very difficult for them.

[mikeymack2002]

I thought there was a maximum amount of time you could be sentenced to?

[mikeymack2002]

Since this debate on whether or not that prison is a must then my I offer some information as to when and why prison should be considered? Prison is a last resort, adding to this argument you have Article 8 implications as well I have looked around and have seen some good arguments whether or not jail is right or wrong if you want to see these arguments have a read here http://publiclawtoday.co.uk/local-government/litigation/311-litigation-articles/25537-imprisonment-for-council-tax-default#_ftn7 A quote from the argument

 

 

"Imprisonment for council tax default is unlawful because the law states that imprisonment is a last resort and other methods should be tried first: the courts can either order attachment of payment from benefit if the debtor is unemployed or from wages/salary if the debtor has a job, and from any savings account if the debtor has neither job nor benefit but has assets, so there is always an alternative. Unfortunately, some magistrates impose custody on council tax debtors as a punishment; but this is explicitly forbidden by law. Owing money is not a crime, and imposing any form of punishment is not permitted by law."

 

 

It may pay you to read this article in full and then read the case law which is referenced at the bottom of the article. Plenty of information for those that want to know more. It is well worth reading so you can gain a better understanding of this subject

[Peterbard]

Hasn't this been on here before a couple of times ?

[mikeymack2002]

Maybe! Just like several posts in this section with a different name discussing the same points of law, does it really matter? It is information that is relevant I think...

[Peterbard]

Doesn't bother me, just disappointed to be reading the same post again , I got it the first time around.

[ploddertom]

Are we actually going anywhere with this thread or should we just move on?

[Peterbard]

I think it has made its point PT, however what do i know

[Peterbard]

I received this from Rona this morning, I had been looking for this case and could not find it on any of the data bases, this is just a review but i tink it addresses the question of burden of proof in these cases quite well.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/law-report-community-charge-payer-wrongly-imprisoned-1601995.html

 

Just a couple of points. I made one remark on reply to a query about a conversation I had with Philip Evans. Phil was an acknowledged expert on bailiff affairs and compatriot of John Kruse. We became acquainted when we were conducting the campaign on here and elsewhere in 2007 together with the reverend P Nicolson etc. He has now moved on to much more worthy pursuits and has nothing to do with bailiff related affairs.

The rant which appears elsewhere was related to an entirely different individual with a similar name. In addition we have never, in my recollection discussed whether the commitment of debtors due to council tax arrears was coercive or not, our discussion as i remember it was related to contempt of court.

[Bailiff Advice]

I received this from Rona this morning, I had been looking for this case and could not find it on any of the data bases, this is just a review but i tink it addresses the question of burden of proof in these cases quite well.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/law-report-community-charge-payer-wrongly-imprisoned-1601995.html

 

Just a couple of points. I made one remark on reply to a query about a conversation I had with Philip Evans.

 

The rant which appears elsewhere was related to an entirely different individual with a similar name. In addition we have never, in my recollection discussed whether the commitment of debtors due to council tax arrears was coercive or not, our discussion as i remember it was related to contempt of court.

 

I will read the case in detail later today.

 

There has been confusion for many years about Philip Evans (less now given that one no longer is involved in the enforcement industry).

 

The one that you were referring to had initially set up the Enforcement Law Reform Group many years back, with it's aim being to lobby Parliament to regulate the bailiff industry and in 2006 he invited me to become a member of the group. He is no longer involved in the industry and both you and I are still in contact with him.

 

The other Philip Evans (who I also know) is connected to two enforcement companies that are based in Wales.

[Peterbard]

I will read the case in detail later today.

 

There has been confusion for many years about Philip Evans (less now given that one no longer is involved in the enforcement industry).

 

The one that you were referring to had initially set up the Enforcement Law Reform Group many years back, with it's aim being to lobby Parliament to regulate the bailiff industry and in 2006 he invited me to become a member of the group. He is no longer involved in the industry and both you and I are still in contact with him.

 

The other Philip Evans (who I also know) is connected to two enforcement companies that are based in Wales.

 

I would imagine that the welsh gentleman would not be best pleased that a chance remark on here regarding a different individual triggered such a rant. Is he aware of it ?

[Peterbard]

I am not going to reply to incoherent rants on other sites and just thought that the point needed clearing up, as an unrelated and completely innocent person seemed to have been dragged into the argument.

[Peterbard]

As a postscript(as far as I am concerned). there is no doubt that imprisonment for none payine tof council tax is a legal option under the current rules and statute, writing template letters to EAs stating that it isn't is pointless.

 

The point of the article is that Magistrates court do not apply the law correctly in many cases.

 

The requirements regarding proving that the debtor made a conscious decision not to pay beyond reasonable doubt.

 

The requirement that all alternative collection methods should have been attempted or ruled out as not viable.

 

The requirement that the human right issues relating to the debtor's circumstances are fully addressed.

 

All these must be addressed before commitment is considered, sadly as Rona says courts ignore these requirements in some cases.

[Coughdrop]

Yep - the wrong people end up in prison, often the poorest and most vulnerable.

[mikeymack2002]

What happened to these people in this story?

http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/dozens-of-politicians-refuse-to-pay-their-council-tax-1.611589

[caledfwlch]

I imagine the imprisonment of non payers even when they offer a fair repayment plan is due to Magistrates being leaned on, perhaps even bribed by local authority's to "get tough"

 

the MOJ has a bee in its bonnet regarding fines too, hence it seems to me, we have seen both the threat of a custodial sentence, and the issuing of custodials for non payment of fines a lot more.

 

From the info on this thread, it is clear that Magistrates are not applying the law properly - they are not the problem though! A Magistrate is at the end of the day a volunteer with limited training - which is why they have a Legal Clerk/Justices Clerk in the room with them with them, who's job is to check the law, and ensure the Magistrate doesnt make erroneous/unlawful judgements, like sending a defendant to Prison, purely because they didnt like the colour of his shorts, or the fact he appeared in court wearing shorts

 

I did a quick google, and the Clerks are usually qualified barristers/solicitors, and so that leaves imo 2 grounds of attack - having the Legal Clerk investigated for malfeasance in public office, and serious complaints to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as in the cases where people have unlawfully been sent to prison, the Clerks have clearly failed to do their job properly, and should have advised the Magistrate he was behaving unlawfully.

 

Maybe the disciplinary sacrifice of 1 or 2 Clerks will make the others do their job properly.

[Peterbard]

I think it is more to do with the attitude of the magistrates and poor knowledge of the law TBH, the idea that you are in debt so you must be punished although not legal is unfortunately alive and well in the minds of some our judiciary unfortunately.