Wording on a liability order

[Adamna]

Reading another thread and the article here http://benefitslegalgroup.org.uk/201...tax-timebombs/ (Where’s the Liability Order Form A ?) I'm wondering about liability orders. Most people don't get to actually see their liability order, just get notified that it exists. If it is obtained, the wording must be important.

That there is no name or address of the person it is applied to, or an amount owed is of concern - the only connection is maybe an attached extract of details from the bulk application, possibly a reference to the summons number parameters included in the bulk liability order, and a date of hearing that matches that on the summons. So you can connect the dots, sort of. I find it hard to accept that this is sufficient.

Also, it must be important who the order is made in favour of. For example, I've seen one that says:
On xxx date complaint was made by the Charging Authority for xxxx Borough of xxxx etc. etc. (this in the case of parties not appearing)
Now, my understanding is that Charging Authorities left the party long ago ('92 Act), and they are all now called Billing Authorities.

So, can a liability order made in favour of a body that does not exist be valid? Thousands and thousands of them to be imprecise.

[Kati]

Re: Wording on a liability order

[MENTION=15129]Crazy council[/MENTION] [MENTION=62334]Snoopy1948[/MENTION] [MENTION=8136]outlawlgo[/MENTION] ??

[outlawlgo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

The function of obtaining a liability order prior to using enforcement, which is a requirement in law presumably to protect council tax payers from unscrupulous local authorities, seems to have had its judicial value eroded no doubt because of the conveyor belt style nature of the racket. In practice, the process of obtaining the court's permission doesn't provide any safety net against money grabbing councils as the court rubber stamps the orders and in any event will side with the local authority if representations are made contesting the application.

In reality, council taxpayers would be better off if billing authorities were able to proceed to enforcing arrears without the charade of the liability order hearing, then at least they would be between £50 - £150 better off from not incurring summons costs etc.

In regard to the terminology (billing/charging) I have evidence of several thousand summonses which had been sent out to residents stating that if the debt wasn't settled in full including summons costs before a certain date the debtor would incur further liability order costs. Prior to this the court had acknowledged (in writing) that the council had made the decision to front load all the court costs and apply them on issuing the summons (no further liability order costs). Nobody (council/court/police) considered them invalid, which they must have been, as it is a dereliction of duty if a Magistrate/legal officer issues summonses without applying one's mind.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Interesting. Did it say would or could? Because technically, you could incur further costs, even though it would be quite unusual. Not doubting you, just checking.

[outlawlgo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Interesting. Did it say would or could? Because technically, you could incur further costs, even though it would be quite unusual. Not doubting you, just checking.

They neglected to amend their summons template after making the decision to front load the costs.

Post #16, half way down under header, Defective Summons Documents

[Milo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Reading another thread and the article here http://benefitslegalgroup.org.uk/201...tax-timebombs/ (Where’s the Liability Order Form A ?) I'm wondering about liability orders. Most people don't get to actually see their liability order, just get notified that it exists. If it is obtained, the wording must be important.

At the time that the article had been written, the author (who I know very well), was unaware that an amendment had been introduced into legislation in October 2003 revoking the right for a Form A (or Form B) to be provided.

The relevant legislation was the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2003.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

At the time that the article had been written, the author (who I know very well), was unaware that an amendment had been introduced into legislation in October 2003 revoking the right for a Form A (or Form B) to be provided.

The relevant legislation was the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) (Amendment) (No. 2) (England) Regulations 2003.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but there remains some form of wording (if unprescribed) on liability orders. So each and every version in use needs consideration. It seems very odd that bulk orders are so non-specific. Do you have any thoughts on the inclusion of a non-existent body being cited?

[charitynjw]

Re: Wording on a liability order

According to the Welsh version of the 2003 amendment, forms A, B & C were supposed to be replaced.

The Lord Chancellor's Department have recently conducted a review of the forms used in Magistrates' Courts and now wish to implement a new set of forms which are all to have a consistent style. As part of this process, it is necessary to de-prescribe the forms of Liability Order and of Warrant of Commitment mentioned above.

http://policy.mofcom.gov.cn/english/...f-bbd771c01b57

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Just looking at the 'old' Form A and Form B, http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/made both include the details I would expect (name, address, amount) and it is remarkable that the 2003 amendment effectively did away with that, whether it intended to or not. What would anyone carrying out enforcement have to demonstrate that they were at the correct address looking for the correct person asking for the correct amount?

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

According to the Welsh version of the 2003 amendment, forms A, B & C were supposed to be replaced.
http://policy.mofcom.gov.cn/english/...f-bbd771c01b57

Thank you! Gosh, they've had plenty of time to draft a new version, in fact you'd think that it would be done before withdrawing the old one. I wonder why it's been neglected. Somebody must be benefitting .

[Milo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

Thank you! Gosh, they've had plenty of time to draft a new version, in fact you'd think that it would be done before withdrawing the old one. I wonder why it's been neglected. Somebody must be benefitting .

I cannot see any government introducing a revised 'Form of Liability Order'.

As you probably know, when a local authority want to be granted legal power to take enforcement action against a debtor to collect council tax arrears, they make a request to the Magistrate Court. This is done by way of a legal document called a 'Complaint List'. The Magistrate will apply a court stamp to the list stating the number of orders made and the number of orders withdrawn or cancelled.

The court stamp on the Compliant List confirms to the local authority, that the court has given an 'order' that the 'liability' can be enforced as outlined in the legislation (i.e. Liability Order).

The 'form' of 'Liability Order' was revoked in 2003. Since then, the government has introduced the 'Red Tape Challenge'.

Under this, all government departments, were obliged to look at areas where they could reduce paperwork and naturally, with approx 3.3 million 'Liability Orders' being obtained each year, this would surely be an obvious area for the Department of Communities & Local Government to look at.

Additionally, if it were ever decided that a 'Form' of Liability Order were to be introduced (which I very much doubt would ever happen), this would incur significant additional costs to all local authorities. Not only would each council have to have their computer programmes re-written, there would be the additional staff and postage costs etc.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

I can't see that a printed version would be necessary unless there was either a challenge or for use by bailiffs (for example). Plenty of people are not comfortable being presented briefly with documentation on a screen at their door. It's intangible and can't be read without holding the device, which the person in posession will not allow. This is not superfluous paperwork, it's a legal document that impacts greatly on people, and I feel that they deserve a copy for themselves.

I have paper copies of liability orders issued in 2013, so evidently some form or other is still in use.

I would take issue with your understanding of the process, the Complaints List is for authority for the issuance of a summons, the Liability Orders are granted at a later 'hearing', made up of the (unpaid) leftovers from the complaint list.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

I've just had a thought. This cannot possibly be simply a 'paper saving' exercise, and anyone that thinks it could be is dubious. The council will inevitably send a piece of paper to inform you that a liability order has been granted. Why not just print the very important order on the back of the notification?

[Milo]

Re: Wording on a liability order

I've just had a thought. This cannot possibly be simply a 'paper saving' exercise, and anyone that thinks it could be is dubious.

The council will inevitably send a piece of paper to inform you that a liability order has been granted. Why not just print the very important order on the back of the notification?

I am sorry, but what I wrote in my above post is entirely correct. Whether I agree with the absence of a 'form' of Liability Order is another matter.

Also, prior to April 2014, there had been a legal requirement on the council to send a '14 day' letter to advise that a Liability Order had been granted and that unless payment was made that the account would be referred to a bailiff to enforce. The requirement for a '14 day' letter was revoked from legislation (section 45a of the council tax regs ) in April 2014.

[Adamna]

Re: Wording on a liability order

So, no actual Liability Order, no notice that there is one and the first you could know about it is a bailiff on the doorstep. Good grief. Was that the same legislation that allowed bailiffs to call on a Sunday? Is nothing sacred?