council tax baliffs wrong house

[bizzybob]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

It is most unwise to trust bailiffs and a council to act properly, even when they are wrong, they will do their best to criminaslise the innocent if needs be to cover their tracks, R v Tucker is a good example of their bone headed and downright criminal ways.

[bluebottle]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

Okay. I have taken a look at the Human Rights Act 1998 and it would appear the OP could claim their rights under -

Article 8 (Right to Respect for Private and Family Life); and
Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Protection of Property)

Both the local authority and B & S need to be put on notice, in writing, of their observance of these rights and their compliance with Section 6 of the Act. This is in addition to any other statutory enactments or provisions the local authority and B & S may have breached or may breach.

[bluebottle]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

It is most unwise to trust bailiffs and a council to act properly, even when they are wrong, they will do their best to criminaslise the innocent if needs be to cover their tracks, R v Tucker is a good example of their bone headed and downright criminal ways.

The same bone-headed local authority is doing the same all over again, BB, only, this time, a formal complaint has been sent to HMCTS Correspondence, Complaints and Litigation Unit as to the conduct of two Injustices of the Peace and a Clerk of the Court. I haven't heard anything further as yet, but it will be interesting to hear what HMCTS are going to do.

[bizzybob]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

The same bone-headed local authority is doing the same all over again, BB, only, this time, a formal complaint has been sent to HMCTS Correspondence, Complaints and Litigation Unit as to the conduct of two Injustices of the Peace and a Clerk of the Court. I haven't heard anything further as yet, but it will be interesting to hear what HMCTS are going to do.

The same shower that caused the misery in Tucker? As to Op If all the information regarding the residential status of the named debtor (son) has been passed to LA and Bristols & Hooters, then I feel any further attempts to enforce at the address would fall foul of the Articles of the HRA you have indicated, and Bristols & hooters should be notified that they may well already be in breach; not that they will take a blind bit of notice, they will carry on regardless without the comedic effect of Unwinese. Problode the debtifold not livee at the addressilode, tutty tut!

[bluebottle]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

Taking all factors into account, BB, an LBA to the local authority and B & S would probably have them wondering what they had done, especially if their respective legal advisers confirmed the OP was correct and they were liable. My gut-feeling is that a local authority would quietly back down rather than attempt to fight it in court as a judgement in a citizen's favour, under the HRA, would, most probably, set a precedent that would open the floodgates to similar actions against other local authorities. The other question is whether B & S are sufficiently stupid enough to ignore an LBA under the HRA and attempt to bluff or bully their way out of potential litigation. If they heed the counsel of a legal adviser, they will leave the OP well alone. If they do not, then they are, potentially, liable to legal remedy which could include civil damages and/or an order restraining them from further violations. That, in itself, would, I suspect, put a question mark over the use of private sector bailiff companies by local authorities or, possibly, deter private sector bailiff companies from tendering.

[TopBoy]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

Please don't take this the wrong way - I respect evetone here as being experienced and knowledgable in this area, and I think the advice given on this site is excellent - however I still feel that you could be "jumping the gun". We are suggesting lba's, human rights approaches, advising op to call police when bailiffs attend etc, but look at the original post........... The bailiffs have written to a debtor at where they believe he may reside. Legal orecidents aside, common sense should dictate that the op ascertain why they ate writing to his address and try to put his son in contact with bsiliffs and council. At the moment all we have is b&s writing to a debtor and advising of potential consequences? Weather we know/believe/suspect what bailiff and co will do next............ It has not happened yet and advice given do far is not going to precipitate an amicable resolution.

[bluebottle]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

Please don't take this the wrong way - I respect evetone here as being experienced and knowledgable in this area, and I think the advice given on this site is excellent - however I still feel that you could be "jumping the gun". We are suggesting lba's, human rights approaches, advising op to call police when bailiffs attend etc, but look at the original post........... The bailiffs have written to a debtor at where they believe he may reside. Legal orecidents aside, common sense should dictate that the op ascertain why they ate writing to his address and try to put his son in contact with bsiliffs and council. At the moment all we have is b&s writing to a debtor and advising of potential consequences? Weather we know/believe/suspect what bailiff and co will do next............ It has not happened yet and advice given do far is not going to precipitate an amicable resolution.

Whilst I acknowledge what you say, Topboy, the reality is that there are a number of private sector bailiff companies that have a poor record of legal compliance and B & S is one of them. With B & S it is a case of "Forewarned is forearmed". By preparing the OP and providing therm with sufficient weaponry to deal with anything B & S might attempt, they have a better chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome. The other matter that needs to be borne in mind is the illegal practice of Passing Off that takes place in respect of the enforcement of Council Tax.

[bizzybob]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

Whilst I acknowledge what you say, Topboy, the reality is that there are a number of private sector bailiff companies that have a poor record of legal compliance and B & S is one of them. With B & S it is a case of "Forewarned is forearmed". By preparing the OP and providing therm with sufficient weaponry to deal with anything B & S might attempt, they have a better chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome. The other matter that needs to be borne in mind is the illegal practice of Passing Off that takes place in respect of the enforcement of Council Tax.

At this point BB it may be good to illustrate the mechanics of passing off and where the illegalities enable a challenge

[bluebottle]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

At this point BB it may be good to illustrate the mechanics of passing off and where the illegalities enable a challenge

Very simply, local authorities have made "arrangements" with magistrates court committees to issue summonses bearing the magistrates court's name and bearing a facsimile signature or a squiggle or, simply, words to the effect of "by order of the Clerk to the Justices". Such summonses are not issued by the magistrates court, but by the local authority. The magistrates court has no part in their issue. The local authority then hires a room at the magistrates court, so that it has access to official court stamps and seals. A council employee will then spend a couple of hours stamping the summonses. The "Passing Off" occurs when the alleged CT debtor receives the summons.

When the alleged CT debtor turns up at the court to answer the summons, they will nearly always be ushered into a room where a council employee will make payment arrangements. The magistrates have not part in this process. It has also been found that LOs have been issued prior to the courts opening to the public on the day of a hearing, so a CT hearing is a complete sham, or issued without a hearing.

If the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 were followed to the letter in every case, I suspect that a great number of CT LO applications would be thrown out as unwarranted, erroneous or No Case.

Illegality occurs in the issue of the summons in that it is "passed off" as a genuine document, hence its name of Passing Off. Also, the proceedings are, it would appear, being orchestrated by local authorities, not the magistrates court, as it should be. The magistrates are, after all, required to hear cases impartially and to weigh all evidence, both for and against, and base their judgement on this, not simply rubber-stamp what the local authority wants. It is clear magistrates courts are making money from this and, seemingly, turning a blind eye to the practice. My suspicion is that the practice will become common knowledge and all hell will be let loose. However, I am of the view any civil unrest that could possibly result is unlikely to take the form of protest marches and rioting, but of something called Lawful Rebellion, which is a peaceful method of civil unrest where the people use the law against the authorities who seek to use the law against them.

[bizzybob]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

As I thought BB passing off makes a court issuing LOs a Kangaroo Court that ignores and usurps Due Process there fore Council Tax enforcement is illegal on several heads.

[bluebottle]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

As I thought BB passing off makes a court issuing LOs a Kangaroo Court that ignores and usurps Due Process there fore Council Tax enforcement is illegal on several heads.

The issue of the LO almost certainly breaches Article 6 (Right to A Fair Hearing) of the HRA and resulting distress breaches Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Protection of Property). That is just for starters. My suspicion is that if a local authority and magistrates court committee were challenged as to the legality of their actions and then threatened with Judicial Review, there would be a rapid climbdown rather than risk having what is, effectively, an illegal practice dissected in minute detail by the High Court in an open court.

[bizzybob]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

The issue of the LO almost certainly breaches Article 6 (Right to A Fair Hearing) of the HRA and resulting distress breaches Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Protection of Property). That is just for starters. My suspicion is that if a local authority and magistrates court committee were challenged as to the legality of their actions and then threatened with Judicial Review, there would be a rapid climbdown rather than risk having what is, effectively, an illegal practice dissected in minute detail by the High Court in an open court.

Maybe next year we will get 'em bang to rights

[bluebottle]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

I have a feeling that repeatedly reminding local authorities of their compliance with and liability under the Human Rights Act 1998 will drive home to them that the way they have been treating people and the manner in which they undermine due legal process has consequences. The rights conferred by the HRA are inalienable and both local and national government know this.

The statement that a legal challenge to CT would cause the collapse of CT collection which the government and local authorities do not want is, I suspect, going to mean nothing to citizens who have had enough of corruption and fraud and, quite frankly, couldn't give a flying fig if the collection of CT collapses as it is an iniquitous tax in any case. Brits have become less tolerant and more intolerant towards those who break the law and those who abuse their power.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!

[bizzybob]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

I have a feeling that repeatedly reminding local authorities of their compliance with and liability under the Human Rights Act 1998 will drive home to them that the way they have been treating people and the manner in which they undermine due legal process has consequences. The rights conferred by the HRA are inalienable and both local and national government know this.

The statement that a legal challenge to CT would cause the collapse of CT collection which the government and local authorities do not want is, I suspect, going to mean nothing to citizens who have had enough of corruption and fraud and, quite frankly, couldn't give a flying fig if the collection of CT collapses as it is an iniquitous tax in any case. Brits have become less tolerant and more intolerant towards those who break the law and those who abuse their power.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYONE!

Happy New Year BlueBottle and all on LB

[bizzybob]

Re: council tax baliffs wrong house

This year the tipping point will be after April, when a common phenomenon gains wider public knowledge, and odium, it goes like this:

There is an underpayment of 1p yes ONE PENNY on someones council tax an FOI on North East Lincolnshire Council has found that the council have obtained Liability Orders for that amount, and set Dossendales on the debtor to collect so a penny turns into say £400 after council fees and dossers dodgy fees have been added, an outrageous 40,000% increase Wonga would be proud of 'em.

There is a threshold amount below which a LO should not be sought maybe it is around £25, others will know for certain; however as the system becomes increasingly automated, there is more chance of penny debts going fo a LO, and as it is a kangaroo rubber stamping exercise a LO will be granted. Now this could be the undoing of Crapita PLC, as where they infest a council their management software will be in place to automate many processes, so the scenario may well play out with them and their bailiffs Equita and Ross 'n Robbers.

Simply, debt 1p LO granted,debt now say £125.01 with the egregious council fees added. Debtor gets lertter, they query it, whilst that is going on Crapita pass debt to their bailiff, who charges the new fee structure at the first call, £325 + VAT so £390 debt now £515.01. Bailiff like the bell-ends they are seizes neighbours car as it was adjacent to debtor's property, Neighbour cannot afford the new interpleader, loses car, Daily Heil, Torygraph and Grauniad sniff it out and the merde is though the fan. The whole system collapses as a result

Well I can hope..... Can't I?