Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

[outlawlgo]

This is a bit of an obscure question and to be honest I haven't seen any posts dealing with the issue so I don't suppose the answer will be readily available, but in the remote chance that anyone might have some knowledge about it I'll ask anyway:

Legislation relevant to this is regulation 35(1) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and Schedule 2 (form B) of the same.

In a Magistrate's Court granting a Liability Order dealing with more than one person and more than one amount, as in form B of schedule 2 of the 1992 regulations; would the Liability Order be invalid if it were later discovered that a single person listed on the (bulk) Liability Order had in fact paid all due Council Tax instalments, and on time.

To emphasise the point I'm trying to make, there maybe several hundred listed on this type of Liability Order; if it were to be invalid, would it invalidate all those listed on the Liability Order?

[Caspar]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

My understanding is that no it wouldn't. In effect, my understanding is that the LO acts as a LO for each individual listed, even though they are list in bulk. That one person would obviously not fall under it anymore, but everybody else on the list would.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Yes Caspar, I suppose that's how it would work, but the reason I brought the question up was because I attended a hearing last week and the court staff insisted that I wait for the council representative who would collect myself and a dozen or so others who were in the same boat. I stood my ground and insisted that I'd been summoned to appear before the Magistrates and I was not prepared to allow the council to intervene.

Eventually they agreed that I could have my case heard by the Magistrates. This entailed a three hour wait and several attempts of court staff members trying to persuade me to sort out the issues with the council's court enforcement manager (who had no connection with the court) in a room hired by the council.

Their determination and the lengths they were going to of preventing a hearing made me wonder what exactly was behind it. Obviously one reason would be that there would be insufficient time for the Judge to hear each case as there could be potentially hundreds in an afternoon.

[Caspar]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Would I be right in thinking you have been reading a bit about Common Law?

[charitynjw]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

I also attended a recent 'hearing' (as a 'friend').
I asked the council bod how many were on 'today's' list.
1600, at £50 a pop!!

[outlawlgo]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Would I be right in thinking you have been reading a bit about Common Law?

I see what you're getting at, but the reason I attended the hearing was because fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your point of view) I got summoned to appear before the Magistrates for non-payment of Council Tax.

I say fortunately because I have actually paid in full and on time and for some reason the council are saying I've not paid, so this gave me the opportunity to see for myself – what I suspected was a scam – with my own eye's. I was convinced after my afternoon at the court that my suspicions were well founded.

I have read the Common Law stories associated with this theme but my appearing at court and insisting I had a hearing was related only with the fact I believed the whole process is bogus, i.e. fake summons, doctored signatures, council sending out these summonses, council intervention at the court etc. etc.

I had a good go at the Judge in the court room about the immorality of HMCS and councils scamming less privileged residents with these penalties, in between being silenced, but my intentions had nothing to do with proving that C.T was unlawful.

Anyway the outcome was that the Magistrate made the Liability Order against me despite informing him I'd paid what was due. The council's court enforcement manager produced from his bundle of papers, the account relating to my case which showed no payments made against it so the Judge disbelieved me.

I also attended a recent 'hearing' (as a 'friend').
I asked the council bod how many were on 'today's' list.
1600, at £50 a pop!!

The court room got quite heated when I asked how many were on the bulk liability order. The Magistrate deemed it was none of my business while I claimed it was in the public interest to know how much HMCS and the council were scamming out of its residents. I didn't get to find out from the court but I'm waiting for a response to a FOI request.

[charitynjw]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

If you really want to pee them off, do an FOI for how much they spent on Councillors' jollies, etc., lol!

[Caspar]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Or do the Common Law trick of asking if it is a proper court as it's just a room hired from the council, then ask to see the magistrates oaths. They then get really niggled.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Or do the Common Law trick of asking if it is a proper court as it's just a room hired from the council, then ask to see the magistrates oaths. They then get really niggled.

My experience of the proceedings at this event were limited only to the real court room with (I should imagine) real Magistrates. From what I could work out there was only myself and one other person who had a hearing that day. The other dozen or so went to what I consider the sham hearing conducted by the court officials. I suppose I should have gone to see what went on when the council official took these attendees upstairs to the hired room, but I was standing my ground and rejected any intervention of the council. Presumably the council were arranging payment terms and such like or anything which would divert them from appearing before the Judge.

EDIT:

Have you thought about how much front council's have arranging these events? In theory they could literally have several hundred residents on their hands all turning up at court at the same time if all those summoned decided to take up the invite of a court hearing and insisted they got one.

[Caspar]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Wouldn't it be wonderful if that happened! Imagine the total chaos.

[Judge mental]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Hi

In the interest of debate......

A council applies with a single complaint against multiple names, for a single liability order against multiple names, possible under 35 (1)

Section 53 of the Magistrates Act states

53 Procedure on hearing

(1)On the hearing of a complaint, the court shall, if the defendant appears, state to him the substance of the complaint..

(2)The court, after hearing the evidence and the parties, shall make the order for which the complaint is made or dismiss the complaint..

Therefore if the defendant appears, the court has an obligation to hear him before making the order and has the authority to dismiss the complaint made to him.

If there was a problem the complaint at the Liability Order hearing stage there appears only to be provisions to dismiss the complaint, the complaint being a single complaint with multiple names, which is possibly why council officers see anyone who has a potential dispute prior to a hearing, then if necessary the complaint can be amended (a name removed) before the request for an order.

As far as challenging a liability order that has already been made, the only thing I can find is section 111 on the Magistrates Act which allows for any 'conviction, order, determination or other court proceeding of the court' to be questioned within 21 day of the decision if it is wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction.

There may be arguments to support the same principles of a 'challenged complaint' apply, that if successfully challenged a single liability order for multiple names becomes wholly invalid.

I had a similar experience in that I attended a hearing and demanded to see the magistrate who summoned me as I wanted to challenge the legality of a 'summons' issued by the council as opposed to the magistrate.

After several hours of the council officer (who took great offence to being challenged) making calls to the council and apparently 'consulting the magistrate' I was told I could not see the magistrate as the hearing had been adjourned.

I sent a letter of complaint to the council and received a reply that my comments had been noted and the summons against me plus costs had been withdrawn.

Stuart

[outlawlgo]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Judge mental,

What you're saying makes sense, I was keen to hear the summons would be wholly invalid should at a later date a single complaint be successfully challenged, especially as I have just found out there were well over 2000 orders made for council tax on that afternoon. If you add onto that the NNDR cases I reckon the court were charging around £14,000 an hour for its services that afternoon. At least £160,000 must have been claimed as well by the council in penalties. I wonder who receives the bonuses for pulling these stunts off!

......As far as challenging a liability order that has already been made, the only thing I can find is section 111 on the Magistrates Act which allows for any 'conviction, order, determination or other court proceeding of the court' to be questioned within 21 day of the decision if it is wrong in law or is in excess of jurisdiction.

There may be arguments to support the same principles of a 'challenged complaint' apply, that if successfully challenged a single liability order for multiple names becomes wholly invalid.....

It's interesting to know what relevance the above would have if at a later date, evidence was in fact supplied proving the council tax was paid, and on time.

It seems by withdrawing your case and dropping the costs, the court was avoiding potential publicity. I'm not familiar with court protocol, though I thought the Magistrate would have had grounds to find me in contempt of court on several occasions during the hearing, this also could have been to keep a low profile. They wouldn't want to compromise their profits would they?

[Judge mental]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

Judge mental,


It's interesting to know what relevance the above would have if at a later date, evidence was in fact supplied proving the council tax was paid, and on time.


chaos at an unimaginable level over council tax might just be what the country needs to cheer itself up but I fear they would just sack any person who could be seen to be blamed and re-print the council summonses . . . . after all, they have got £40/£50/£60 off each person already, and as their costs are only £3 a go, so its not like they are going to be out of pocket.


I'm not familiar with court protocol, though I thought the Magistrate would have had grounds to find me in contempt of court on several occasions during the hearing, this also could have been to keep a low profile. They wouldn't want to compromise their profits would they?

This may be explained by the works of people like Raymond St. Clair, who if correct, it is because it is not a properly convened court, its just a person hired for the day to sit as a magistrate to front a cash cow.
The occasional challenge they get (when compared to the number of unchallenged ones) is probably known in their trade as an occupational hazard


maybe my kids are right . . . . . . maybe I am beginning to sound like those men in the 'Grumpy old men ' tv programme

Stuart

[charitynjw]

Re: Regulation 35(1) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations

This may be explained by the works of people like Raymond St. Clair, who if correct, it is because it is not a properly convened court, its just a person hired for the day to sit as a magistrate to front a cash cow.
The occasional challenge they get (when compared to the number of unchallenged ones) is probably known in their trade as an occupational hazard


maybe my kids are right . . . . . . maybe I am beginning to sound like those men in the 'Grumpy old men ' tv programme

Stuart

I don't believe it!!, lol