Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I've been reading the invaluable advice on this forum and reading about the problems with Evri and lost delivery of items.  From what I gather the initial steps after having exhausted every's own lost item claim process is to draft a Letter of Claim, I think it is called and to register with the government Money Claims.  I have got a login for Money Claims and have made an initial stab at the letter but I'm not certain I have got it right. Am I right to assume that having exhausted Evri customer service's claims process and having received the denial of any compensation because the laptop I was sending is on the non-compensatory list that my next step would be to send the Letter of Claim to them? Let me provide some basic details which I hopefully have addressed in the letter. I purchased a laptop through Amazon.co.uk which a business in Belfast sold refurbished laptops through.  They had a 30 day money back guarantee for a full refund if you have any issues with the laptop.  I have the invoice from Amazon showing the purchase.  On 27 April, 2024 before the end of the 30 day period I used their ParcelShop (inside a Tesco) to send the laptop back and have the tracking reference mentioned in the letter.  As mentioned in the letter there was they advised they could not give me or sell me any insurance because laptops are on the non-compensatory list so I just paid the normal delivery cost.  It was scanned as leaving the ParcelShop on 29 April and the tracking has been like that ever since.  After a 28 working day Evri claim process they gave the expected response that they could not provide any compensation and simply could not proceed with my claim. I was hoping to get some advice on whether I go ahead now and email this to Customer Services straightaway and should I send a hard-copy to the Evri address as well?  Or are there any steps I have missed out on first?  I believe 14 days is the reasonable period of time for them to respond so if I were to send it tomorrow, for example 12 June then I should expect a reply by 26 June, is that correct and fair?  And assuming they don't reply with a full refund then I would then go down the government Money Claims site to proceed with that? Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I go about it properly.  I'll continue to read through other cases on here so I can get an even better handle on the process. I attached a LOC, happy for any edits or updates that will make it even better. Thanks so much for anyone's help! Regards, Matt Evri letter of claim.docx
    • The date was 3 June. Get on MCOL now. The legal principle is that, even if you defence is late, if the other party hasn't requested judgement, then your defence takes priority and is accepted. You might be in time. When I say now I mean now.  Recently we had someone who was nine days' late and this was pointed out to them at 5:30pm.  They faffed around till 11pm.  When they went on MCOl they saw that judgement had been entered at 7pm. Every minute is vital. File the below standard defence if you still can - 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Hi friends,  I’m a bit worried I may have got confused with timings here. I thought I had 33 days from my acknowledgment to submit a defence but the date added above says 3/6/24.   have I missed the date?   if so how can I apply for an exception due to my disability and problems with deadlines and dates etc (ADHD)?   what should I submit as a defence?   I’ve had no reply from BW so far    just been back on MCOL and it says 28 days from service if I completed an acknowledgment of service so does that mean 28 days from that of acknowledgement (I.e. 16/5) which would make deadline for defence 14/6?   Thanks! Panicking here.
    • Normally we don't advise playing your cards early in a snotty letter, but as you have appealed we might as well use what you wrote in the appeal against them. There is no rush, you have until 6 July to get it to them.  See what the other regulars think too. How about something like this? -   Dear Rachael & Sean, cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea you'd actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and would cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so you would have seen that I appealed to your client.  Indeed the driver on the day is a textbook example of having done exactly what you should do when you do not wish to be bound by the T&Cs in a private car park. Of course none of that mattered to the spivs you represent but do you really want to put such a useless case in front of a judge? To be fair, your clients are very useful members of the human race - as comedians.  How I loved the page turner of their antics at The Citrus Building in Bournemouth.  It was chuckle after chuckle reading about them, letter after letter, month after month, insisting they were legally in the right, even through someone who had done just the first day of a GCSE law course could have told them they weren't.  Until the denouement - BOOM - an absolute hammering in court.  In fact - SLAM, BANG - managing to lose twice against the same motorist for the same car park in front of two different judges. Your client can either drop their foolishness now or get yet another tolchocking* in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend the dosh on a nice summer holiday, while every day laughing at your clients' expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO COUNTRYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD   *  This word is used under licence from Brassnecked
    • Well yes, ... and the tax dodgers ... Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows A previously unknown focus of an I.R.S. audit is a dubious accounting maneuver that effectively meant taking the same write-offs twice on a Chicago skyscraper. nytimes.com WWW.NYTIMES.COM  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Is imprisonment for council tax default unlawful?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3231 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Indeed I have already asked this question a number of posts ago and no one picked it up. As a civil prisoner you can be "bought out early" by paying the sums due, the same as fines, yes the LA can chase you for the remaining debt but cannot ask for you to be jailed a second time for the same debt, the debt would therefore still be outstanding, which then opens up a new can of worms regarding enforcement for the second time?

 

 

Again this question will need to be looked in to due to some being jailed for real and some being jailed with a suspended sentence, please bear in mind that if the debtor is on a suspended sentence then commits the same offence the next year and if the suspended sentence is still active then a breach may occur? As you can clearly see this is most definitely a serious complicated issue of law.... Thoughts please!

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

As said a debtor cannot be jailed for being in debt, prison for debt was abolixhed in the 1869 debtors act.

 

What they can be jailed for is willful refusal to pay, this has to be a criminal offence, which is why the criminal burden of proof has to be applied.

 

If jailed, and it cannot be shown that the debtor was not able to pay, the conviction can, and is usually overturned on criminal appeal, because the imprisonment is a penalty and this is illegal for a civil action, as stated earlier and as happened in the above case.

There is no such thing as a civil prisoner in this country.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

A new question. food for thought here. If next year a defaulter falls foul and is then taken to court for a LO hearing will the new courts charge apply to these new cases?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jail time can be reduced (remission} in criminal action for a number of reasons, and can be a condition of the commitment

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/32-33/62/enacted

An Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, for the punishment of fraudulent debtors, and for other purposes.

 

(2)That such jurisdiction shall only be exercised where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person making default either has or has had since the date of the order or judgment the means to pay the sum in respect of which he has made default, and has refused or neglected, or refuses or neglects, to pay the same.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

A new question. food for thought here. If next year a defaulter falls foul and is then taken to court for a LO hearing will the new courts charge apply to these new cases?

Technically they might be, but i can see a whole can of worms opening if magistrates add this to each LO.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/32-33/62/enacted

An Act for the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debt, for the punishment of fraudulent debtors, and for other purposes.

 

(2)That such jurisdiction shall only be exercised where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the person making default either has or has had since the date of the order or judgment the means to pay the sum in respect of which he has made default, and has refused or neglected, or refuses or neglects, to pay the same.

 

Just thought I wold copy this for those who missed it very important piece of legislation,

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Imprisonment for incomome tax evaision and other criminal debts remain of course.

 

Sorry to burden everyone with common knowledge

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very important subject,otherwise I would not bother correcting ravings from eswhere

 

Commitment for debt in this country is illegal. Yet people are being imprisoned via the back door

 

Magistrates needed t be held accountable! In that ALL legally required actions are taken before such draconian measures.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarity DB what would the defaulter say to your statement above see here http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/11188/Anti-war-council-tax-dodgers-brush-with-jail

 

 

So the answer to my earlier question was yes you can get out early and no they cannot put you in jail for the same period twice, but to make their point as they have done in this case and will continue to do so is to start on the next defaulted year. Again this could happen for each and every year that has arrears due.

 

 

So yet another precise question is

(A) is the committal warrant civil

(B) criminal

 

 

IF (A) the following may apply considering that it has been stated that the committal is for "contempt of Court" CPR 81.31 or others

 

 

Or if criminal

 

 

Following on from this another question follows and it is this.

 

 

For CTAX only ok are the cases held under CPR/CRIM/ADM (Admiralty) if by any other surely the court should inform the person in the dock under which arm of the law they are being prosecuted?

 

 

Also my other question has been answered YES you can buy yourself out which means you ARE a civil prisoner for debt... in 2015

 

 

Which adds to the fact the penal penalty is coercive and designed to encourage payment for the debt...

 

 

If sent to prison for refusing to pay an order of the court then how does the following help?

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx yet again more chances are given to pay what is due and a suspended sentence given .

 

 

It is only then after this final chance to pay that the committal to prison is activated, even then if in prison you can be bought out.....

 

 

This post is not argumentative but for discussion purposes only...

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding a different argument to the pan here which is as follows.

 

 

Debtor receives a LO and still refuses to pay. The LA use the EA who cannot get payment from the defaulter. The LA then make a request for committal to prison (suspended). This is granted. Then the defaulter still does not pay, the courts then activate the suspended sentence for being in breach of it so a win-win for the LA and bench!

 

 

So with this in mind yes the defaulter is a debtor but still in jail in the 21st century... So my argument is thus are you in jail for being in debt that answer is NO you are in jail for breaching a suspended sentence. Please read up on the sentencing guidelines or here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_-_general_principles/

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally the points regarding culpable neglect and/or refusal are covered here https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx see bullets on page 10

 

 

Or see the attachment.

 

 

What is also worrying about this fact sheet is bullet 6 on page 3

 

 

All in all the attachment is rather informative

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For clarity DB what would the defaulter say to your statement above see here http://www.rother.gov.uk/article/11188/Anti-war-council-tax-dodgers-brush-with-jail

 

 

So the answer to my earlier question was yes you can get out early and no they cannot put you in jail for the same period twice, but to make their point as they have done in this case and will continue to do so is to start on the next defaulted year. Again this could happen for each and every year that has arrears due.

 

 

So yet another precise question is

(A) is the committal warrant civil

(B) criminal

 

 

IF (A) the following may apply considering that it has been stated that the committal is for "contempt of Court" CPR 81.31 or others

 

 

Or if criminal

 

 

Following on from this another question follows and it is this.

 

 

For CTAX only ok are the cases held under CPR/CRIM/ADM (Admiralty) if by any other surely the court should inform the person in the dock under which arm of the law they are being prosecuted?

 

 

Also my other question has been answered YES you can buy yourself out which means you ARE a civil prisoner for debt... in 2015

 

 

Which adds to the fact the penal penalty is coercive and designed to encourage payment for the debt...

 

 

If sent to prison for refusing to pay an order of the court then how does the following help?

https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx yet again more chances are given to pay what is due and a suspended sentence given .

 

 

It is only then after this final chance to pay that the committal to prison is activated, even then if in prison you can be bought out.....

 

 

This post is not argumentative but for discussion purposes only...

 

it has to be a criminal sentence because civil imprisonment for debt is illegal see( earlier legislation), as you rightly point out even someone going to a civil hearing can be jailed for breaching a judgment order the details are in the cpr you mention, i think under contempt as i may have mentioned earlier(I think the 1869 act is mentioned there also). Contempt can of course be repealed sometimes by a simple apology or by obeying the order, the action is said to be coercive in this case

 

 

As for what the debtor would say in your link, I am not sure what you mean. He would have been imprisoned wrongly in my view as he clearly did not have the ability to pay, but that is what this thread is about, it is an injustice which is alive and well within our legal system.

 

It is all about proving that the debtor has or had the ability to pay, it is wrongfully refusing payment which causes the commitment not debt, or at least this should be the case.

 

The means test is not to see if the does not have the money rather. if to enable commitment to find that he has or had.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally the points regarding culpable neglect and/or refusal are covered here https://www.nationaldebtline.org/EW/factsheets/Pages/13%20EW%20Magistrates'%20court%20fines/Page-08.aspx see bullets on page 10

 

 

Or see the attachment.

 

 

What is also worrying about this fact sheet is bullet 6 on page 3

 

 

All in all the attachment is rather informative

 

Yes interesting and supportive of the legislation as it exists, if only the magistrates would follow this. In the case of fines of course , these are criminal matters and can impose criminal sanctions like imprisonment.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry just to be clear, when a committal order is applied for it is done so under criminal procedures.

 

See any definition, committal order: )

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all due respect with the thanks to elsewhere we are getting held up by discussing single words or terms which are irrelevant to the point of the thread and are mainly to try and catch me in an error, I do not know why this should be and it is very annoying to those of us who want to discuss the important point raised by Rona in post one. (it is also a waste of time, i do not make mistakes regarding fundamental law)

 

Things like wht is criminal or what is not what is coercive or not, is a subject for some thread elsewhere which covers elementary legal concepts.

 

THe point here is that people are being imprisoned without the court following the correct legal procedures, I get the feeling that this subject is being derailed by some who failing to understand the point are picking irrelevancies like this (and spelling :)), because they fail to understand the meaning of the post 1.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps if someone wants to take the time to find out just how many have been sent down for CT and what rules for this was used. I have no axe to grind or points to make. I can and do make observations to a thread of interest.

 

 

I care not for spelling or use of wrong words, this is due because we all have bad days and/or type a little to fast. I make spelling errors all the time especially when working with a different keyboard. Or if my mind is working a bit to fast or faster than I can type correctly.

 

 

As far as the means hearing the need for a correctly filled out MC100 form is critical and should always be presented to the Court. Whether or not people think this is so wrong could someone please post up any cases that have been appealed and successfully put right? As far as what the Court says about this then are you saying that the Clerk of the Court is giving the bench incorrect information regarding sentencing? If so then there will be several cases in the search bar that can be linked to this of course would be interesting reading to say the least.

 

 

As you are aware anyone can appeal a sentence to the next Court level ultimately ending up in the Supreme Court. Any cases that can be linked to would be appreciated Thanks in advance..

 

 

DB really glad to see you back to the forums and it appears you are doing well.

 

 

Also I thought the level of law required for a Clerk was extremely high?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything writen by Mr Murdle is well worth a read IMO, I hadn't seen this.

As you say it would be good to get some upto date info and statistics, most of the ones I have seen are from the poll tax era, and there was a lot of none payment due to people saying the tax was unfair.

 

I think that the threat of committal was at that time being used as a deterrent, even though strictly speaking it should not have been. There must have been a lot of pressure on the system to "encourage" payment by whatever means.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget you can also be jailed in a Civil jurisprudence for contempt.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes i got to know Alan slightly in 2006, which will no doubt further vex ( I thought Dick was going to have a stroke :) some, he was very vocal in the fight over forced entry provisions which were to be contained in the new act, in fact the quote at the end of the piece about the Englishman's home and his castle was well used at the time.

 

He won't mind me miss spelling his name we had many email exchanges in the past so he knows my keyboard accuracy.

 

Incidentally the liability order procedure is a civil action(it is a civil debt), however the committal action is undertaken via a warrant applied for by the authority/ or representative(it is for willful refusal to repay)

.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

To assist everyone on this thread it is claimed that it is unlawful please post up that legislation, If you think it is unlawful and that all Magistrates are wrong, if you think the fully qualified legal advisors are wrong please again post this up, finally please tell us all where the MOJ have got this wrong and post up the link to that law until then I think this thread is going nowhere,

 

 

Not a lot to ask for proof and exactly where everyone can read up on it. This way we can continue to discuss this if not this argument is pointless and going nowhere just my thoughts that's all...

 

 

Finally any appeals that have ended up in the Supreme Court stating that it is unlawful to jail someone would also be helpful, except the one that has been quoted already...

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The law is perfectly clear MM and has been quoted several times, the conditions that must be met are all perfectly clear. The only issue is that some magistrates were not applying it correctly This is why so many of these are overturned on appeal.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

You state that you have many cases you know of that have had this overturned on appeal can you please direct us that are wanting to view this information to the links you can provide?

 

 

Even this links at the bottom of page 4 states you can be jailed see here from the LGO see below

> If the magistrates make a liability order and the debt is not paid, councils can:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4yAOBgMgwzQJ:www.lgo.org.uk/GetAsset.aspx%3Fid%3DfAAxADQANgA5AHwAfABUAHIAdQBlAHwAfAAwAHwA0+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

Again a request to you to provide the links to your cases is requested please do so.

 

o make an attachment of earnings order, or

o apply for deductions from the debtor’s income support, or

o levy distress on the debtor’s goods to sell and clear the debt with the proceeds, or

o apply to the county court (or the High Court in London) for a charge to be put on a property on which a council tax debt of more than £1,000 is owed, if it is owned by the debtor, or

o apply to the county court (or High Court in London) for the debtor to be made bankrupt if it has a liability order for a debt of more than £750.

> If distress on goods has been attempted and failed, councils can apply to the magistrates’ court to

have the debtor committed to prison

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...