Council Tax enforcement

[WORCESTERIAN]

A retired friend is in arrears and a liability order was granted. Negotiations with the council brought an agreement to accept an amount per week on the basis of their means enquiry form and this has been kept to. It is less than £10 per week but more than the amount which could be sought as a direct pension deduction
The Council are (understandably) trying to encourage them to claim council tax benefit which they are reluctant to do and intends not to claim being
a very private person who has never claimed any benefit and is intending never to even though it means their budget is extremely tight. They wont fill out the form

As I see it the law permits committal to prison by a Magistrates Court if the debtor willfully refuses to pay, or culpably neglects to pay

I would argue neither apply when a negotiated payment is in place and being kept to.

The bit I would like others to give a view on is my belief that a debtors 'actual ' means is all a court should be able to consider rather than 'potential' means in the form of unclaimed council tax benefit. My feeling is that the court ought not be able to coerce a debtor into a benefit claim, though I am quite sure courts do in a benevolent way try and encourage solutions of this kind when a persons finances appear to be lacking potential public assistance
In practice my point probably is rarely encountered. The rules do not seem to explicitly provide for a Council or the Court to provide directions to a debtor to claimed monies as a means of meeting the debt.

I haven't found any case law that distinguishes between actual means available to the debtor and potential means. In the latter a court could be on dangerous ground. Eg, if a council knew a CT debtor was owed money by a third party, could non enforcement of that third party debt be seen
as wilful refusal to pay CT as it was a means of income the person could chase through the courts

+Would really welcome some opinions here

[MissFM]

Re: Council Tax enforcement

:bump:

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax enforcement

An interesting point you've raised. Unfortunately I haven't the solution but can't think personally a court would rule that a person opting not to take up the offer of benefits would be deemed refusing to pay their liability because of this, especially when an arrangement is in place and is being adhered to.

By the way, Council Tax benefit is not necessarily an entitlement based solely on income, or lack of it. I would think savings, (assume irrelevant), investments (stock-market etc.) and probably other assets like second homes would affect the amount of entitlement if between £8,000 and £16,000. Above this there would likely be no entitlement.

The point you're making though could be extended to whether a court would consider it a refusal to pay, if for example a friend offered to bail out a debtor but assistance turned down. Would the court then penalise the debtor because they refused help?

Just another point in regards the council encouraging a benefit claim. This is more to do with improving performance rates for the collection of council tax than kindness.

The "Council Tax Collection Good Practice" report reveals that the more probable motive behind encouraging benefit take-up is the improvement reflected in collection rates.

In section "9.2. Benefits" the report describes how giving benefits to those that need them can be beneficial to the authority. This is highlighted with a reference to pensioners being encouraged to claim what they are due "this would eliminate some of the problem residents, meaning the council would have less to collect, and would effectively improve their collection rate."

9.2.4. of the same report elaborates further by stating "Giving benefits to those that need them has been described as a double bonus. It means residents that might have struggled to pay no longer have to, and the council does not have to collect money from someone that would find it difficult to pay. For this reason it is good to encourage take-up of benefits."

[WORCESTERIAN]

Re: Council Tax enforcement

An interesting point you've raised. Unfortunately I haven't the solution but can't think personally a court would rule that a person opting not to take up the offer of benefits would be deemed refusing to pay their liability because of this, especially when an arrangement is in place and is being adhered to.

By the way, Council Tax benefit is not necessarily an entitlement based solely on income, or lack of it. I would think savings, (assume irrelevant), investments (stock-market etc.) and probably other assets like second homes would affect the amount of entitlement if between £8,000 and £16,000. Above this there would likely be no entitlement.

The point you're making though could be extended to whether a court would consider it a refusal to pay, if for example a friend offered to bail out a debtor but assistance turned down. Would the court then penalise the debtor because they refused help?

Just another point in regards the council encouraging a benefit claim. This is more to do with improving performance rates for the collection of council tax than kindness.

The "Council Tax Collection Good Practice" report reveals that the more probable motive behind encouraging benefit take-up is the improvement reflected in collection rates.

In section "9.2. Benefits" the report describes how giving benefits to those that need them can be beneficial to the authority. This is highlighted with a reference to pensioners being encouraged to claim what they are due "this would eliminate some of the problem residents, meaning the council would have less to collect, and would effectively improve their collection rate."

9.2.4. of the same report elaborates further by stating "Giving benefits to those that need them has been described as a double bonus. It means residents that might have struggled to pay no longer have to, and the council does not have to collect money from someone that would find it difficult to pay. For this reason it is good to encourage take-up of benefits."

Many thanks for the reply. If anyone else has a view, please feel free to share it

Thank you

[outlawlgo]

Re: Council Tax enforcement

This isn't the solution your looking for but is related and may be of interest:

From South Ribble's Council Tax Recovery Procedure & Legislation Manual

15.18 Culpable Neglect can be defined as:

More than simply negligence.
Neglect sufficiently blameworthy to justify committal to prison.

15.19 The following were held not to be Culpable Neglect:

i. Failure to take an accountant's advice to close a business or go bankrupt. R v Manchester Justices ex parte Davies (1987).

ii. Failure to pay in accordance with a suspended committal order. R v Birmingham Justices ex parte Mansell (1988).

iii. Failure to seek work (as opposed to refusing available work). R v Poole Justices ex parte Benham (1991).

The Queen's Bench Division of the High Court found in the appellant's favour in R v Poole Justices. It was determined there was no evidence to find culpable neglect and so the court allowed the appeal and the committal warrant was quashed.

"In making their decision the High Court looked first at the issue of culpable neglect and stated that the material time for assessing the appellant's wilful refusal or culpable neglect was between April 1990 and August 1990, when the liability order was issued.

During that period the appellant was not working, he had no income and no personal assets. The judge considered that in certain circumstances a failure on the part of the debtor to work and thereby obtain the funds to pay his community charge could constitute culpable neglect. However, if this was to be sustained then there would have to be evidence that gainful employment, for which he was fit, was on offer to the debtor and that he had rejected or refused that offer. No such evidence was available and therefore, a finding of culpable neglect cannot be sustianed.

Secondly, the judge considered whether the committal to prison would have been correct had culpable neglect been proved and found that the justices decision to commit the appellant to prison was, in the circumstances, wrong.

The judge found that the appellant, at the time he appeared before the justices, had no income and no assets and that it ws incumbent upon them to consider the alternative to an immediate committal to prison. The justices could have fixed a term of imprisonment and postponed the issue of the warrant on such conditions as the court thought fit or refused the warrant knowing that the authority could re-apply for a committal warrant under Regulation 42(3) of SI 1989 No. 438 at a later date if the appellants circumstances changed.

Source Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy

The Court considered these two cases in arriving at its decision:

R v Oundle and Thrapston Justices and Delaney, Ex parte East Northamptonshire District Council, (1980) RA, 232 [1991]

R v Birmingham Magistrates Ex parte Mansell [1988]

[bluebottle]

Re: Council Tax enforcement

Unfortunately, a person cannot be forced to claim benefit, although they can be made aware of it. As the person the OP refers to is paying an agreed periodic amount to clear CT arrears, the local authority would, IMO, be hard-pushed to attempt any force of enforcement, even though I have to say they are being very understanding and reasonable. It is, indeed, rare to find local authorities, these days, who adopt such an approach.