Jump to content
Will Goodfellow

Council tax debt - who is responsible to pay

Recommended Posts

I would not like other people to think that just because a wife or husband owes a particular item that it cannot be seized because IT CAN.

 

 

No it can't. It must be jointly owned by the wife and husband, a marriage does not mean that all possessions become jointly owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but ctax is joint doesn't matter if they are not named on the demand, adult that lives there...


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously where joint and several liability for a debt exists it does not matter whether goods are jointly owned or not. Where joint and several liability does not exist for a debt, goods belonging to a spouse are not automatically considered to be jointly owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But for ctax it is..so your post 9 is wrong.

 

Just because an adult living in the same property is not named on the ctax bill it does not mean they are not jointy liable..


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But for ctax it is..so your post 9 is wrong.

 

 

It's not wrong because the statement I replied to was a general statement and did not mention council tax or joint and several liability at all.

 

 

 

It is your post, number 2, which is wrong. It jumps to conclusions with no exploration at all.

 

 

 

Just because an adult living in the same property is not named on the ctax bill it does not mean they are not jointy liable..

 

 

And just because another adult lives in the same property as another adult does not mean they are jointly liable for a council tax debt either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you read here about ctax debts.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need to but thanks anyway.

Edited by dx100uk
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it can't. It must be jointly owned by the wife and husband, a marriage does not mean that all possessions become jointly owned.

 

 

Yes it does. Your finances are jointly entwined.

You actually form that contract when you say with all my worldly goods I endow. It also means debts.

Its made very clear in council tax legislation, the taking control of goods act and numerous court cases.

Unless you have a court ordered legal financial seperation whilst your in the process of a divorce the only seperation of finances happens when you get your decree absolute

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in council tax legislation, the taking control of goods regulations or numerous court cases does it state that once married all goods become jointly owned by spouses?

Edited by dx100uk
quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the advice given by others, dont take it, its no bother to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all assets are jointly owned by spouses, why did the bailiffs unclamp the OP's wife's car?

 

She wasn't liable for the council tax but according to you because they are married the car is jointly owned so is fair game for seizure, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?490598-Council-tax-debt-equita-bailiffs-clamped-Mrs-car&p=5157778#post5157778

because she is not registered for voters etc at that address and doesnt live there

now go play elsewhere please this is disrupting the OP's thread.


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A person does not have to be registered to vote at an address to be liable for council tax.

 

 

 

I am no "playing" as you put it, there have been a lot of incorrect claims on this thread which I was addressing.

 

 

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In other words, you can't back up your claims.

 

HI

 

The council; tax regulations make it clear that a joint liability exists in regards of CT. However as far as the liability order is concerned the only persons liable or the debt(under that order) are the persons named on it.

 

However when the enforcement under schedule 12 commences the rules under that schedule apply. If you look up definition of goods under definitions, it also includes someone who has "an interest", in the goods goods of the other party may be taken.

 

(2)

In this Schedule—

(a)

references to goods of the debtor or another person are references to goods in which the debtor or that person has an interest, but


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with seizing goods like this, is that they are regarded as co-owned goods after auction and as such get the value of their interest first before anyone else is paid. This often leaves nothing for the creditor and apart from nuisance value is of little value.( part 50)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"just because another adult lives in the same property as another adult does not mean they are jointly liable for a council tax debt" is what I wrote. And that is the case, not all adults are liable to pay council tax even where they live in the same property, full-time students are not liable for example.

 

If two adults live together, one is a full-time student and one works full-time, only the person working full-time is liable. The adult working full time will be eligible for a 25% single person discount. There are a number of other scenarios in which that is the case. I am well aware of joint and several liability and when it arises.

 

It is siplistic to state that where adults live together they are jointly liable for council tax.

 

 

Schedule 12 states “interest” means a beneficial interest.

 

Which means any goods in which a debtor has a beneficial interest are subject to the warrant of control, that covers jointly owned goods. And is also the argument bailiffs use to seize vehicles on hire purchase, as where there is significant equity in an HP vehicle, that may be considered a beneficial interest.

 

Because two people are married does not mean that all goods become jointly owned nor does it mean there is a beneficial interest in each others goods. Also it does not meant that all finances are "jointly entwined" either.

 

Insolvency is the perfect example of that where one person in a married couple is insolvent but the other person isn't. In fact, it is impossible to make a joint insolvency application for any insolvency options which would not be the case if all finances were "jointly entwined".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying two married people living in the same property do not have a joint interest in their goods(furniture tv etc). All it takes is for the debtor to be one of those people.

 

Now doesn't it.

 

The EA can only take goods of the debtor.

 

(a)

references to goods of the debtor or another person are references to goods in which the debtor or that person has an interest,

 

Really no need to complicate matters further

 

 

There seems to be an endemic problem regarding the separation of legislation which applies before enforcement and the TCE which applies during.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You actually form that contract when you say with all my worldly goods I endow.

 

That cannot be true.

 

Firstly marriage is not a contract as meant in contract law and the commitments made to each other in the ceremony are not enforceable in the courts. So the words, when used, are a religious duty not a legal one.

 

The words you quote are only said in Church of England marriages and then only if the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is used. They are not in most modern versions of the prayer book.

 

Civil marriages and partnerships do not require any such words.

 

So even if the words did mean what you claim there's no way of knowing which couples had made the commitment and which hadn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are saying two married people living in the same property do not have a joint interest in their goods(furniture tv etc).

 

 

Yes. Because two people are married and living together does not mean they have a beneficial interest in the goods the other person owns.

 

 

 

As an example, a married couple exist, and they both own cars. They each saved for a car from their own wages, and paid for the car from their own bank account which is in the sole name of the car owner.

 

 

 

The car belongs to the person who bought the car, it is not jointly owned.

 

 

The husband has a credit card debt in his sole name and a CCJ, the bailiffs visit. There is no joint and several liability for the debt. The bailiff's clamp the wife's car. She proves she bought the car using a bank account in her sole name in to which her wages are paid, shows the receipt for the car and the bank statement, all in her name.

 

 

 

Are you saying that the bailiffs can legally seize the car and auction it off to pay the husband's debt because he has a 'beneficial interest'? Because that is not the case, the husband has no beneficial interest and the car is not jointly owned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We also should remember that the EA only has to believe that there is an interest, in the case of a married couple I think it would be difficult to prove he was at fault to hold such a belief.

 

I also think that most marriages and partnerships contribute to jointly held property one way or another, not that this would be tested.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are trying to dig too deep here, it is a simple , everything depends on the circumstances, the bailiffs initial reaction will be that jointly used property is indicative of a joint interest, this seems reasonable. If the debtor wants to challenge they can later in court, the EA will not be sanctioned for the belief.

 

No one said anything about beneficial interest? Just common sense.

 

If someone wants to argue that there live partner has no interest in there joint goods, please go ahead.

 

Also again you are talking abput who is responsible for CT. That is not the issue, as far as the TCEA is concerned, it is about what is in the regs say, it may be anything a fine for instance. The TCEA is about enforcement, …...as repeatedly said :)


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a discussion thread is now created

 

please post here not on the OP's thread now


PLEASE DONT HIT QUOTE IF THE LAST POST IS THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TOO.

MAKES A THREAD TWICE AS LONG TO SCROLL THROUGH!

 

WE CAN'T GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU SEND ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD - I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER HELP THERE

1. Single Premium PPI Q&A Read Here

2. Reclaim mis-sold PPI Read Here

3. Reclaim Bank Account, Loan & Credit Card Charges Read Here

4. The CAG Interest Tutorial Read Here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think that most marriages and partnerships contribute to jointly held property one way or another, not that this would be tested.

 

 

I agree, and where goods are jointly owned there is a beneficial interest but marriage does not mean that all goods are jointly owned between spouses.

 

 

All the non-debtor party whose goods were seized would need to do is show evidence that the goods aren't jointly owned but are solely owned and the goods should be released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please fill in your quit date here

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?




  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sangie5952   Thanks that has clarified what the ET1 form represents. We haven't made disclosures yet so I can include the relevant evidence then. Appreciate your help many thanks.  
    • The “fact”, and I use that term guardedly, is that you allege a breach of contract so significant that it justified your resigning - "constructive unfair dismissal". That is the fact that you are claiming. You are discussing evidence here - something that proves the fact. Evidence does not need to be included in the ET1, and few would include anything more than a cursory overview. The tribunal does not "hear" your ET1.  They hear your evidence supporting the allegation you made in your ET1. Do you understand the difference? So evidence may still be collected and may come to light. Technically, right up to the hearing, although, in practice, you need permission to include any evidence not disclosed in the exchange of bundles.    If you have already exchanged bundles, although seems unlikely, then you would need the permission of the tribunal to add further evidence. 
    • You were of course quite within your rights to ask questions with regard to the member of staff’s authority over you etc, and all you legally have to supply is your name and address. It sounds as though he thought you were being difficult? This doesn’t help your case of course, but that’s how it sounded Reading your post.    I suggest awaiting any correspondence from the train operator and go from there. You mentioned you were read your rights, or words to that effect? You were cautioned, but it sounds like you chose not to answer any questions. This is of course your right, but in refusing to answer questions, you can’t really submit any defence for your actions should the matter go to court. That’s the whole idea of the caution.   reading your post, it sounds like you want to hold your hands up anyway, so is and when a letter does arrive, I’d suggest a ‘damage limitation’ approach and send the default grovelling reply asking to meet their reasonable admin charges to keep the matter out of court.
    • I'm sure it will. Take your time to absorb it and don't put yourself under pressure. You'll get there, lots of people have.   HB
  • Our picks

    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
       
      THIS IS HOW THE PHONECALL WENT 
       
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
    • The FSA has announced large fines against DB UK Bank Limited (trading as DB Mortgages) - DeutscheBank and also against Redstone for their unfair treatment of their customers.
      Please see the links below for summaries and full details from the FSA website.
      It is now completely clear that any arrears charges which exceed actual administrative costs are unfair and therefore unlawful.
      Furthemore, irresponsible lending practices are also unfair and unlawful.
      Additionally there are other unfair practices including unarranged counsellor visits - even if they have been attempted.
      You are entitled to refuse counsellor visits and not incur any charges.
      Any charges for counsellor visits must not seek to make profits. The cost of the visits must be passed on to you at cost price.
      We are hearing stories of people being charged for counsellor visits for which there is no evidence that they were even attempted.
      It is clear that some mortgage lenders are trying to cheat you out of your money.
      You should ascertain how much has been taken from you and claim it back. The chances of winning are better than 90%. It is highly likely that the lender will attempt to avoid court action and offer you back your money.
      However, you should ensure that you receive a proper rate of interest and this means that you should be seeking at least restitutionary damages - which would be much higher than the statutory 8%.
      Furthermore, you should assess whether the paying of demands for unlawful excessive charges has also out you further into arrears and if this has caused you further penalties in terms of extra interest or any other prejudice. This should be claimed as well.
      If excessive unlawful charges have resulted in your credit file being affected, then you should take this into account also when working out exactly what you want by way of remedy from the lender.
      You should consult others on these forums when considering any offer.
      You must not make any complaint through the Ombudsman. your time will be wasted, you will wait up to 2 yrs and there will be a minimal 8% award of interest and no account will be taken of any other damage you have suffered.
      You must make your complaint through the County Court for a rapid and effective remedy.

      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2010/120.shtml
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/redstone.pdf
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/db_uk.pdf
       
      http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/consumerinformation/firmnews/2011/db_mortgages.shtml
      Do you have a mortage arears claim to make? Then post your story on the forum here
        • Like
      • 0 replies
    • 30 Day Right To Reject - Vehicle Casualty Report. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415585-30-day-right-to-reject-vehicle-casualty-report/
      • 57 replies
×
×
  • Create New...