Wording on a liability order

[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 The Magistrate will apply a court stamp to the list stating the number of orders made and the number of orders withdrawn or cancelled.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The 'form' of 'Liability Order' was revoked in 2003.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

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 .

[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?

[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

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?

[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.

[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

[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

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.

[Kati]

Re: Wording on a liability order

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