council tax and council recovery charges

[thincat]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

Hi All,
Haven't been on here for a while but this thread is useful in relation to another matter I'm looking at.Thankyou.

Thincat.

[beknkc]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

These council tax charges,fines and costs are just one of the many council scams, like their parking fines, they deliberately trick people into missing a payment, then send one of their illegal summons out, which are fake (which is why it states/did state, for you to ring up the day before the court date, just in case you decide to turn up, and if you do ring the day before, it has been suddenly canceled, but the charge for not turning up already been added ) most times they have not even sent a correct/any bill, before the fake summons, they are rolling the money in to keep themselves in non jobs, as they do not want to sign on JSA, but instead spend their lives scamming people, another council scam is pretending the deceased have rent and CT arrears, when they do not owe a penny, also telling over 80's they have missed certain payments many years ago, hoping they have lost their receipts, and having no explanation why they thought this, when all receipts are supplied, they also in the last few years, wrongly state on the front desk's that they do not supply receipts, for certain documents, when the notes supplied state the opposite, they think they can make up/change the law as they go along, people should unite and have a national stop paying council tax day and sack the lot of them

[miliitant]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

moving this along a bit, as stated, these are inclusive of the corporate debt recovery team

council tax Business rates plus NNDR
Busisness improvement district levy NNDR
Council tenant rent
Former council tenant rents
Housing benefit overpayments
Recharchable repairs current and former tenants
Service charge for lease holders
Rent for temporary bed and breakfast accommodation
Sundary debts-council services

so my question has to be

The local authority are only permitted to impose penalties on the debtor for "a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order" .....(Regulation 34(7)(b) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.

SO BY WHAT STATUTE LEGISLATION ALLOWS THE DEFAULTER ON COUNCIL TAX PAYMENTS TO BE HIT FOR ALL THE ABOVE COSTS AND NOT JUST COST REASONABLY INCURRED IN OBTANING A LIABILITY ORDER FOR COUNCIL TAX AS TO REGULATION

this is smelling of fraud,pecuniary advantage, deception, you name it

thinking caps on people, i am not letting them off the hook

[labman]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

Well, I've fired off my first missive. I'm a long way behind you, but let's see how Wales compares to England - much the same at a guess, and from my experience of recouping charges from council and bailiffs three years after the problem.

[miliitant]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

the truth is out there

we will get it in the end

[MIKE770]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

Let us be honest, an employee of the council are funded yearly in the rates etc, if they attend court they are paid a wage per week, so any further cost added is a fraud as the public servant has already been paid and court attendance is a service which is part of the job, if an outside firm is used then it is misuse of public funds as council are authorised to attend (that person is on a salary anyway)..

Comments on this would interesting from peeps rightly/wrongly.???

[miliitant]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

never thought of that

keep it comming

[labman]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

They will, of course, respond that if people did not default on payments, that person would not be needed, so the salary would be saved and CT bills would be lower. (And yes, please don't respond, I know the truth of that response, but it's what they'd claim!!!!)

[outlawlgo]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

This is a bit long winded but an alternative view on a theme of liability order applications

Interpretation of Regulation 34 – Application for a liability order

Application for liability order

34.–(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

(6) The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.

(7) An order made pursuant to paragraph (6) shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum payable, and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order.

It seems the regulation detailed above (Application for a liability order) is likely to have been interpreted incorrectly by the authorities. It provides for potentially two charges which if both are incurred must be applied at separate stages. Whether the charge imposed involves just one or extends to a second is dependent on whether a taxpayer settles the outstanding debt inbetween receiving a summons (single charge) and having a liability order made against him (a second charge).

This is traditionally the way councils apply their charges and are normally referred to as summons and liability order costs with a fixed amount for each. However, nowhere in the regulation is provision made for these costs to be set at predetermined levels and agreed in advance. This has probably been adopted because of the high volume court applications and in a bid to streamline the ‘conveyor-belt’ type operation.

Misinterpreting the legislation by setting costs to predetermined levels will without doubt facilitate a greater degree of automation for liability order applications. Having costs agreed in advance renders redundant the Magistrates’ need to award appropriate costs at the hearing. The consequence being that potentially these orders can be rubber stamped in their thousands at a single hearing, and, fulfilling the authority’s aim to automate, as far as possible, the judicial process.

A predetermined amount of costs cannot be known and therefore not, with any credibility, be agreed by the Magistrates' court in advance. However, the abuse goes a step further as the Magistrates' court gives a free rein to the council to determine its own level of costs as per the letter detailed next, in which evidence also suggests it is unlikely that the authority is ever required to justify their claims.

Council's letter notifying the court it was increasing costs

Dear Deputy Justices' Clerk


Court Costs for Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rates

I am writing to advise you that North East Lincolnshire Council has taken the decision to increase the court costs which it charges to tax payers for the non payment of Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rates.

The costs to be charged for a summons for Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rates will be £70.00. There will be no additional costs for the liability order. The increase will take effect from 1st April 2011.

If there is any further information you require then please don’t hesitate to contact me directly on 01472 ****** or via e mail at *****.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks for your continued cooperation and support.


Yours Sincerely

Income and Collection Manager

To fix court costs over an indefinite period of time cannot be lawful because neither the council nor the court will know the incurred costs with respect the liability order applications. The number applied for, and consequently rubber stamped at these bulk hearings will vary, so too should the costs.

The greater the number of these will result in a corresponding reduction of the costs attributable for each individual. So, as a consequence of higher volumes of applications being processed than were forecasted, each householder would be paying costs above that reasonably incurred by the council.

Although a decision by magistrates to issue a summons involves the exercise of a judicial function, the summons is merely machinery for informing the defendant of the date, time and venue of the court hearing, not a demand for costs, or to advise of a payment option to avoid the order being granted.

The summons should not be a means of notifying an alleged debtor of the costs he has incurred by including this on the summons and definitely not stated as a fixed amount in advance of the hearing.

As the process of initiating and producing reminder, threatening letters and summonses, is automated, the costs attributable for each individual will not remain constant over a variation in court application numbers. In other words, the council’s incurred costs would not increase in direct proportion with the number of summons issued, and is key to why costs cannot be fixed lawfully in advance.

For example:

Fixed costs including staff, computer program etc., are £400 per annum. If 100 summonses having variable costs for stationary and postage of £1/document are produced in a year, then the incurred costs to the council will be £500, or £5 per summons.

If there was a hike in the number of liability order applications to 150 in a year, then the incurred cost to the council per summons would be £3.67. However, because the cost imposed on the debtor is a predetermined fixed amount, a disparity exists between the costs incurred by the council and those imposed on the debtor. This would have to be considered innapropriate profit.

An accurate number of householders taken to court each year would need to be known for the authorities to lawfully take advantage of standardising costs. This should be impossible because of the many variables that are likely to affect the figure.

Employment status is an obvious factor influencing the ability of a householder to keep on top of payments. Taxpayer’s finances will be strained in circumstances where jobs are lost for example. If the economic climate was such that geographic locations were hit with high concentrations of redundancies, this would have a significant affect on the number of householders taken to court for late payment each year.

Clearly there should be no reference to any agreed fixed costs on the summons notifying the defendant to attend court. This should be determined at the court hearing.

If due process was followed, then the council would need to itemise the time and effort expended on each element of the case after which Magistrates would need to use discretion in awarding the appropriate costs. This would essentially take into account the number of defendants incurring penalties.

The majority of costs currently claimed by the council would likely be identified as inappropriate profit, especially when applications exceed certain levels. With this considered, and discounting costs which would be incurred regardless of the applications being made, then only those specific to the claim would be awarded.

[labman]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...iewing%29-nbsp

Saw this OTR

[miliitant]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

THANKS LABMAN

this is now interesting

so equita baliffs is a subsidiary of CAPITA

my local couuncil use bristow and sutor.

i wonder if the baliff contract is up for grabs and equita has been awarded the contract over B&S

THIS IS REALY STARTING TO SMELL BAD

[ploddertom]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

THANKS LABMAN

this is now interesting

so equita baliffs is a subsidiary of CAPITA

my local couuncil use bristow and sutor.

i wonder if the baliff contract is up for grabs and equita has been awarded the contract over B&S

THIS IS REALY STARTING TO SMELL BAD

Ross & Roberts are also owned by Capita.

[miliitant]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

TO AVOID CONFUSION

are we talking capita plc

Company No. 02081330

or

capita ltd Company No. 04417379

[labman]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

Equita and Ross and Roberts are both definitely part of Capita PLC

http://www.crowers.com/uk-company/06...a-holdings.htm

Parent Company Capita Symonds

[miliitant]

Re: council tax and council recovery charges

many thanks