Set aside liability order

[Michael8626]

As a footnote I have received an email today regarding the hearing I have listed next week, below is part of the email -

I can confirm that I have once more chased with the Magistrates courts to set aside the Liability Order previously obtained, I have written to them and spoken over the phone today to confirm they have received my instruction to set aside the Liability Order and confirmed we will not attend and are not pursuing the balance at this moment. They have confirmed they will carry out our instruction and that your name will be struck off the list. A hearing to set aside a Liability Order is different from an ordinary hearing as the magistrates are not able to award costs and can only decide on if the Liability Order is to stand or not.

They seem twitchy about any potential costs?

In an email I received from the court in July when requesting a set aside it clearly stated if my case met the criteria and I was granted a hearing, if I was unsuccessful I would be expected to pay reasonable costs towards the council, do costs now only work one way?

[islandgirl]

I renovated my son's house. He was a single person but could not live there for quite a few months due to the extent of the work needed. The council would only grant the 25% discount from the date he physically moved in.

[efpom]

The OP states he was "I was renovating a rental property in between tenants to bring it up to energy rating standards at the request of the council...."

Since 2020, there has been a minimum EPC rating of E for all residential tenancies. If the work was to get the dwelling up to that rating occurred here, there is no statutory discount - the works are deemed to be required statutory works during the void period.

[Michael8626]

Correct.

The government had proposed that new tenancies would need an EPC rating of C by 2025 (or 2028 for existing tenancies), but these changes have now been scrapped. I was working towards these proposed changes in 2022/23.

What is your opinion on a local authority happy to issue two properties with a single person occupancy discount but not just one property? That is surely farcical?

[Michael8626]

Also, is the local authority correct in stating no costs can be awarded at a set aside hearing? I have conflicting information from the local authority and the magistrate court itself?

[efpom]

2nd par yr post 19 My answer - the Billing Authority made an error. As a creature of statute a Local Authority can only do what legislation permits it to do - positive law, a concept that many LA employees simply don't understand and in consequence make up 'laws' as they go along. Welcome to my world!

Yr post 20 - I think you are mixing up two different concepts.

To labour the point I made in an earlier post, a set aside simply means that the existing Liability Order is quashed and the LA costs on the CT Bill for making the Application for the Liability Order and the summons costs will be deleted from the existing CT Bill.

The LA will issue a replacement Bill and if you don't pay that it will issue the Statutory Notices, and when that is done, it will go on to issue an Application for a Liability Order which will be set down for a hearing. You will receive a summons to that hearing. If that hearing occurs you can oppose the making of the Liability Order. Your grounds of opposition then will be what?

I can tell you that your defence can only succeed if you can demonstrate that you are not one of the classes of person at s.6 Local Government Finance Act 1992 or are exempt per this:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...article/3/made

[efpom]

You may find the attached useful VT00001495_Decision.pdf

[Michael8626]

EFPOM, thank you for all your advice in the matter, all information has been noted.

I have a hearing this week to have the liability order set aside, but at this late stage the LA have now agreed to do this. I will still attend court as I would like explicit confirmation from the court that this is correct.

I don’t want to labour the subject of costs but I would like clarification?

The LA have stated they won’t be attending and they have also stated that for this type of hearing I cannot reclaim my costs. In the original email from the court it stated if the liability order is not set aside I may have to pay the council’s reasonable costs for defending the action?

which one is correct please?

[efpom]

It seems that the magistrates are prevented as a matter of law from awarding costs in favour of a defendant who has succeeded in opposing the making of a liability Order.

See the judgment below at 33.

“The proceedings before the Magistrates were civil in nature, but the Civil Procedure Rules do not apply to them. Thus there is no provision for the assessment of costs, as there would be in normal civil litigation. By contrast with the Civil Procedure Rules, there are no provisions in the Regulations requiring the costs to be reasonable or proportionate, nor is there any requirement that any doubt be resolved in favour of the paying party. The Magistrates were bound to decide the matter of costs in accordance with the Regulations”.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC...2015/1252.html

But .in your case, there was no hearing.

You could, of course, ask the LA for a breakdown of the costs it incurred in your case and request that the LA to reimburse you for your costs in opposing the Application up to the date that it decided to cancel the liability order – but it has no legal obligation to make that reimbursement