CT liability order

[seank]

I retired 14 years ago on grounds of ill-health.
The council was content to give me CT benefit so I could pay £400 per year.
My savings dried up and I couldn't afford to pay that so I asked for discretionary relief. The council then asked me for the full amount, going back 2 years. Despite much discussion they applied to a different county's magistrates court for a liability order.
I received a summons, strangely telling me I couldn't attend court. It was a phone hearing, but I live in an area of very poor signal and also couldn't afford 40p per minute PAYG to ring them.
I had no communication from the court and only the council. I called at the court and was told the following:
I contacted the court and the respondent refused to identify herself.
She stated:
1. The court keeps no records of LO judgments
2. They keep no case numbers
3. They keep no records of defendants names
4. They process very large batches of LO requests from the ERYC even though the ERYC has no jurisdiction in the North Lincs council's area.
5. The ERYC pays the court around £3 per LO
6. The ERYC issues the LO to the defendant
7. The ERYC cannot legally issue summonses
9. The ERYC issues the summonses
10. The ERYC prints the summonses
11. The ERYC posts the summonses to defendants
12 The court refuses to show how the LO was able to be defended
13 The court states that no judge or magistrate discussed individual LO applications from the ERYC
14. The court states that no judge or magistrate decided whether the amount claimed by the ERYC for issuing the summons and LO was necessarily incurred by them, in direct contravention of the High Court judgment in the case of the Reverend Nicolson.
15. Is the court a puppet of the ERYC?
16. Has the court merely rubber-stamped the ERYC's requests?
17. Why does the summons lack a court seal, stamp or authorised signature from a member of the court's team? The advice given was that no such member of staff exists at the court bearing the name indicated on the summons.

I asked the court to state a case, but they are ignoring me.
I phoned this morning and a lady says I have to submit a formal application to state a case and pay a fee. She didn't know what form number I had to submit.

Please help. I'm stuck.

[ploddertom]

OK so you have found out the hard way how Liability Orders are issued. It is mostly a rubber stamping exercise and they are all done in bulk and is correct the Court will not have records. If you wish to appeal it then it has to go to a Judicial Review - expensive procedure.

You need to act before it gets given out for enforcement by Bailiffs. If it does then the first you will know is a letter (Notice of Enforcement) giving you 7 days to pay or make an arrangement - this will be charged to you at £75. If you fail to do either then an enforcement visit may be made - you will get no prior warning of this, and £235 will be added to the amount outstanding.

Your best bet at present is to ask the Council how much the Liability Order is for & for what period of time it covers. In the meantime contact your local Councillor(s) - details from www.writetothem.com - explain your situation and ask they intervene and/or help. Given what you have said in your initial post there is a possibility you could be treated as vulnerable - make this known to your Councillor(s), best initial contact is by phone.

[seank]

I already applied for judicial review, having asked the magistrates to state a case or refuse to state one.
They ignored me so I spent 5 hours preparing 3 copies of form n461 JR application and posting it off.
That court sent everything back to me this morning, saying that I had to submit a formal application to the mags, quoting crim PR rule 64.2 and paying £124 to submit it.
I've just done that, using a help With fees application.

I am a vulnerable person. I have a disability and own a council blue badge for parking.

I have never seen the liability order, though the council claims one was made.
How can I be summonsed to a court in a remote county and then be told I can't attend to defend myself?

I'll try the councillors. Thanks for the link.

[ploddertom]

At the present time some Hearings may be heard away from your area. The Council will have the LO although your name may be one of many listed and they will claim GDPR breach to see it, you may have to ask them to redact everything that does not refer to you to be able to see it.

[seank]

Could you please show me any enabling legislation that permits a court to summons me to an area outside my jurisdiction?
Could you show me how I can be legally refused access to a court to defend myself?
These factors are unlawful in respect of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
Article 6 of the human Rights Act guarantees me the right to a fair trial.

This is a very strange system.
We have the criminal court (mags) exercising civil powers but subject to neither Crim PR or cpr rules.
We have potential committal to prison for a civil debt.
We have commercial bailiffs attempting to enforce debts alleged without chance of defence.
This cannot be right, can it?

[seank]

Thinking this through...
If and when the bailiff calls, can I just ignore them or answer through a window?
My car is outside on the drive and contains a blue badge. I receive no benefits and have 2 small private pensions.
I do own my house, so I suppose the council could put a charge on it.
Should I be bothered, really?
What's the worst they can do?

[ploddertom]

This is where Council Tax is a little out of the ordinary. If you can stomach it then have a read of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/.../contents/made

You can ignore them if they call but perhaps not a good idea & yes you can talk to them through the letter box or a window - even better record the conversation. If you receive a Notice of Enforcement from them then better to talk to them then, rather than wait for a visit.

With your car make sure your Blue Badge is in view at all times - they are not supposed to seize vehicles like this.

Yes the Council can go for a charge on your property and yes they can ask for a sale, they can also make you Bankrupt.

Yes you should be bothered as CT is a priority debt, as said previously get your Councillor(s) involved. This can be solved & halted without it going further. Personally I wouldn't get hung up about the whys & wherefores that you have & whatever happens never tell them you are refusing to pay, those that do usually get a short holiday in one of Her Majesty's finest establishments - and you still owe it when you come out.

[seank]

Thank you. I've read your linked legislation but it doesn't answer the questions I asked.
Specifically, Article 6 of the HRA guarantees me the right to a fair trial.
This was denied because the "summons" specifically says I would be refused entry to the court.
You seem to advocate just rolling over, which is surprising for a forum like this.
If they go for a charge on my house, or to make me bankrupt, I'd have the opportunity to go to the county court and defend my position.
Your link shows that the magistrates have to be satisfied that the council was correct in its determination of liability. How could they do this without even inspecting the order applications?
Are you aware of the case of Reverend Paul Nicolson?
I think you're not.
His case was upheld in judicial review. The mags hadn't established that his council had satisfied themselves that the council had necessarily incurred the costs they were claiming.
That decision set a precedent, yet my council charges everyone a set figure for costs, despite some folk paying up early and others continuing to fight them.
Did you know that?

[ploddertom]

This was denied because the "summons" specifically says I would be refused entry to the court. What they fail to tell you is that you don't appear in Court the Council hire a room and if you do attend then that is where you are steered to. If there is a hesitation about whether you are liable are not then your name is pulled from the list.

You seem to advocate just rolling over, which is surprising for a forum like this. No I don't it is because I have seen many in your position and it is very unlikely that if you do owe the debt will you win.

If they go for a charge on my house, or to make me bankrupt, I'd have the opportunity to go to the county court and defend my position.And when shown the Liability Order they would be granted their application + costs.

Your link shows that the magistrates have to be satisfied that the council was correct in its determination of liability. How could they do this without even inspecting the order applications? Because they believe the Council do not make mistakes.

Are you aware of the case of Reverend Paul Nicolson? Oh yes I know an awful lot about his case and it was shame things did not progress as they should have.

I think you're not.
His case was upheld in judicial review. The mags hadn't established that his council had satisfied themselves that the council had necessarily incurred the costs they were claiming.
That decision set a precedent, yet my council charges everyone a set figure for costs, despite some folk paying up early and others continuing to fight them.
Did you know that? Yes

PTPT

[seank]

With respect, you just seem to be trying to increase your post count rather than offering help.
The reality is that the council sent me a "summons" which they are not legally allowed to do. The law says they can assist the mags in preparing it, but it's a judicial function to issue it.
The summons refuses me access to the court, a clear breach of the law.
I have seen no liability order, despite the council saying there is one.
I have now issued the request for them to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. It cost £135. If you knew that process you could have helped me.
I watched Rev Nicolson discussing his case. There are several Youtube posts. He had his case upheld and states that the mags simply were unable to show how they'd decided that the council necessarily incurred the £125 they were trying to charge him.
The High Court quashed the liability order and ordered the mags to show their reasoning, by mandamus. They couldn't.

Frankly, I question why you're here. Your comment "Because they believe the Council do not make mistakes." is ridiculous.
Let's not bother with courts, juries, judges and the rest because they believe the police and the CPS don't make mistakes.

[des8]

Here is the answer HM Courts and tribunal Service gave to a person raising similar queries:

Request for Information

You asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

‘1 – Please confirm that the Council Tax Liability Order hearings that occur on a regular basis in [Plymouth] Magistrates court are NOT held as a ‘Court of Law’. If so – precisely which law and jurisdiction applies?

2 – Please confirm if ANY records of the hearings or orders issued from them are held by the MoJ or HMCTS; if so exactly which records are held and for how long.

3 – Please confirm which party ‘issues the liability orders’ – is it the Court itself (HMCTS) or is it the Council itself? If it is the latter; please then confirm if this is a administration process or a judicial one.

4 – Please confirm if there is a ‘Judicial route’ to appeal a Council Tax Liability order issued by a Magistrates court? If so – please explain the route of appeal and if such route would appear on the order or if either the council or the court have an obligation to litigant to disclose such a route and its terms, if one exists?

5 – As a council tax liability order is held in a criminal venue (magistrates court) yet is of civil in nature; then please confirm the jurisdiction of the court and which [all] legislations [and CPR court rules] apply to those hearings?’

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the department holds the information that you have asked for, and I am pleased to provide this to you.


1. Jurisdiction of Council Tax Liability Hearings held as Court of Law and
3. Who issues Liability orders

To answer these two points, it may be helpful if I clarify the process involved in council tax liability orders:

• The Local Authority provides the court the information of who they want to bring before the court on a set date; usually in the form of a list, which is signed by the Justices’ Clerk and the summonses issued. The signature may be in electronic, stamped or in wet form dependant upon the Court local practise.

• Summonses can be sent directly by the court or the local authority, again, depending on local practise. If the local council is to serve, the authorised list is used to send documents to individuals relating to the liability order made against them. Documents sent by the local council do not require a court seal or a court signatory.

• On the court date a representative from the local authority will confirm on oath certain requirements e.g. resolution of the council, the names and the amounts etc. The magistrates will ask questions of the representative.

• If any respondents in person attend court, the evidence will be heard and then if the respondent has anything to add then this is heard in court.

• Any non appearances notified to the court are addressed and dealt with as the court deems fit.

• Any non attendees who have not responded will have their case dealt with by the court in their absence.

• The local authority may ask for some cases to be withdrawn or adjourned, following which the court will deal with the remaining matters.

• Once granted, the local authority passes the liability orders to the court to be signed by the Justices Clerk. This may be the actual liability orders themselves, or this may simply be a list of all names heard in court with the orders noted against them.

• Either way, this authorises the local authority to send notification to the defaulter. One copy will be kept by the court and one copy given to the local authority for service on the defaulter.

Summons

Legislation is Section 51 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, parts 4.7 and 7.4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012 (which refer specifically to issuing and serving of summonses) and Justices Clerks Rules 2005.

Relevant legislation

The relevant legislation is the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. The Regulations can be found here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1.../contents/made .

Legality and lawfulness

These documents are both legal and lawful.

Court stamp/seal

There is no requirement for a wet ink signature under rule 109 Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981. Under ‘R. v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin’, All England Law Reports [1975] 2 All ER QBD p.206-207, Lord Chief Justice Widgery stated that it is perfectly proper for a signature to be affixed by way of rubber stamp.

Signature of court official

The summons needs to have the signature (which can be electronic) of the magistrate, Justices’ Clerk or legal adviser who issued it.

Printed name of court official who signed/granted it

Provided the summons specifies the position of the issuing authority (i.e. whether it was a magistrate, Justices’ Clerk or legal adviser who issued it), there is no requirement to have a printed name.

Summons required to be listed in the court record

Yes

Council producing summons

There is no statute which authorises or prevents a council preparing a summons on the court’s behalf. Under section 51 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43/section/51), a person can apply to the magistrates’ court for a summons. If it is granted, it is customary that the person applying drafts their own summons, which in the case of council tax is the local authority.

Legislation on issue of Council Tax summons

The process governing and authorising the issue of council tax summons is determined by the following pieces of legislation: the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, Part 7 and Part 2 (rule 2.4) of the Criminal Procedure Rules, and the Justices' Clerks Rules 2005.

Parts 4.7 and 7.4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012, refer specifically to issuing and serving of summonses. These can be found at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pro...inal/rulesmenu

For the Magistrates Court Act 1980 Act, see the legislation website at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1980/43

For the Justices’ Clerks Rules 2005, see the legislation website at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/545/made


Magistrates’ court disclosing documents and facts they hold

The council is responsible for disclosing documents to individuals who it believes have not paid council tax. However, the court can, on request, provide copies of documents it holds in relation to the legal proceedings commenced against them for the non-payment of council tax.

Council issuing summons

There is no statute which authorises a summons to be issued by the local authority. The summons is issued by the court when the application is approved and endorsed by a Legal Adviser and the council informed of the outcome of their application.

As explained above, the summons may then be printed by the complainant and that is now the normal custom in relation to all summonses.

It is the responsibility of the person applying for a summons to serve it on the respondent and Rule 99 of the Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981 (attached at Annex A) sets out how that may be done, which includes by post. There is no agreement between courts and local authorities to do this, as it is the legal duty of the local authority in every case.

Council disclosing documents and facts they hold
If requested, documents can be disclosed. However, the documents are disclosed as part of the proceedings, and without regard to whether the council has been requested to do so, or not. The proceedings take place as follows:

• The court receives a computer generated report (a ‘complaints’ list) containing the names, address and amounts owed by people who are alleged defaulters;
• The Justices’ Clerk reviews the report and, if satisfied, issues the summonses;
• The council posts the summonses to the alleged defaulters. The summonses tell the people concerned what the council believes is owed and when their hearing will take place at the magistrates’ court;
• The court considers the proceedings on the hearing date, and makes orders that are thought appropriate;
• The council will tell the people involved the outcome of the hearings.

The council therefore, rather than the than the magistrates’ court, provides full disclosure when the legal proceedings take place.

Liability Orders

Relevant legislation

The relevant legislation is the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. The Regulations can be found here - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1.../contents/made .

Legality and lawfulness

These documents are both legal and lawful.

Court stamp/seal

There is no requirement for the liability order to be sealed by a court stamp.

Signature of court official

The liability order does not require a signature of a court official and can be issued with the typed name of the Justices’ Clerk or senior HMCTS manager who authorises the order on behalf of the court even if the order was issued by magistrates.

Liability order required to be listed in the court record

Yes

2. Records held by MoJ or HMCTS:

I can confirm that all records are held in accordance with MoJ’s Magistrates Court Record Retention and Disposition Schedule.

The local authority supplies the court with lists of the details of individuals that are in arrears of council tax. Since January 2012 courts log applications for liability orders onto their management systems.

All live files are stored securely in the court building, using a local logging system and are retrievable when required. Files which relate to cases which have been concluded are stored in archives at the court in an area away from live files and are held for the duration which is specified in the MoJ’s Retention Schedule. In general files are held for three years, but specific types of cases / hearings/ outcomes/ orders may be held for different specified durations.

Following the hearing, a register containing the results of the hearing is retained by HMCTS. The Court Register is held in permanent preservation and may be held at the Local Record Office on microfilm if over 30 years from creation.

4. Appeals in connection with distress

A person aggrieved by an order of the magistrates' court may apply to the magistrates to state a case for the opinion of the High Court, if they believe the decision made was wrong in law. The magistrates' court may refuse to state case if they believe the application is frivolous, a decision which also may be challenged by the defendant.

A person may also apply to the High Court for the decision of the magistrates to be judicially reviewed. This can be done only in certain cases, including where the decision was irrational or procedurally improper.

Anyone seeking to appeal to the High Court would be well advised to seek legal advice before commencing the appeal process.

HMCTS is not aware that these potential routes of appeal appear on the paperwork.

HMCTS is not aware of any obligation on the council or the court to disclose these potential routes of appeal.

Relevant legislation

The relevant legislation is Section 46 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement Regulations) 1992
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1...lation/46/made

5. County court disclosing documents and facts they hold

The County Court does not deal with complaints against individuals for the non-payment of Council Tax.

The County Court would deal with an application by a council to enforce a liability order through a charging order. In relation to charging order applications, information can be disclosed by the court but disclosure takes place as part of the legal proceedings regardless of whether the court has been requested to do so. The relevant rules are Part 73 of the Civil Procedure Rules which can be found here –
www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part73

[seank]

Thank you, that was helpful.
I have made an application to the magistrates' court for them to state a case for the opinion of the High Court. That would normally cost £135 but I believe I'm eligible for fee remission and submitted a Help With Fees reference.

I have already completed an application for judicial review, again with a HWF application although it was returned with a letter saying I haven't yet exhausted other means (asking the mags to state a case or decline) so I can't yet submit the JR application.

My concern is about the "summons" signed, sealed and delivered only by the council. It tells me I cannot attend court to defend myself. That is unlawful.
Article 6 guarantees my right to a fair trial despite what looks like fraud by the council and the mags court.

In light of Rev Paul Nicolson's win at JR, I'm surprised that councils seem to ignore the precedent set there and simply award themselves whatever costs they see fit. How can mags decide whether the amount is fair when they don't inspect the cases?

I have been awaiting a decision from the VOA valuation tribunal but the council simply ignores that.

As I walk around I see signs on every roundabout, with "Thank you NHS" and similar vacuous nonsense displayed by the council. I see arrows on wide footpaths trying to tell people to walk in particular directions (by the council). Who authorised this expenditure rather than them doing the things they were elected for? Emptying the bins and keeping libraries open, for example.

[ploddertom]

With respect, you just seem to be trying to increase your post count rather than offering help.

You are entitled to your opinion just as I am. I will leave you to it and hope you succeed.

[seank]

I thought you were offering more than just your opinion.

Most of the other forums, Pepipoo, MSE and such, tend to be frequented by people who know something about the subjects they write about.
I've now had the time to read through some of your vast posting history and wish there was same way of accrediting those offering useful advice compared to others with vast numbers of posts.

Look at the help I see from Des8 above. Really useful, rather than "...the magistrates have to be satisfied that the council was correct in its determination of liability. How could they do this without even inspecting the order applications?
Because they believe the Council do not make mistakes.

Really?

Believing something is the same as being legally satisfied, eh?
The magistrates court is a criminal venue and even though this is a civil action by them the standard of proof is either determined on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt.
Certainly not because they might believe something.
Tell me about Father Christmas, the tooth fairy and similar things you might believe are correct.

[des8]

seank personal attacks are not welcome.
If you disagree with a post or have a different view say so, but leave it at that.
Suggest you edit your last post