Please help Marston bailiff came today

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

As mentioned above, the legal advisor issues the summonses and they are printed by the local authority with a pre-printed copy of the Justice's Clerk signature.

There have been 'challenges' in the past from various 'movements' (mainly FMoTL) about the summons not having a 'wet ink signature. This point is also addressed by the Justice's Clerk's Society in detail. If you require me to provide further information please post back and I will be happy to assist.

[Guest]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Thanks for the info Milo, I think however you credit the statement with far more seriousness than it deserves.

But perhaps i am just a grumpy old sod

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The manner in which Council Tax Liability Orders are obtained and granted is known to be fraudulent as the summonses are issued by local authorities, not by the magistrates courts, and it is in the Justice's Clerks Society Handbook that JCs should not give the impression local authorities are running the hearing at CT LO hearings, not the court. That is common knowledge and has been for sometime.


BB

What you have said above is very serious indeed but most importantly, it differs greatly from the information that I have which was provided by the Justice's Clerks Society. According the THEM, the 'procedure' for isssuing a summons is as follows:

One: The council delivers one or two complaint lists to the court with their fee.

Two: The list is reviewed by a legal adviser with delegated powers who ISSUES THE SUMMONSES.

Three: One copy of the (complaint) list is returned to the council and the court retains the other endorsed list.

Four: The council will then PRINT THE SUMMONSES, pre printed with the Justice's Clerk's signature, and post them out.

If as you say the court hearing that you witnessed yesterday is 'subject to further action' it is worrying that the court are not aware of the TRUE position regarding the 'issuing' of the summonses.

There have been cases where, on inspection, it has been found Liability Orders have been granted before the court opened to the public for the day. In short, the defendant comes into court, believing they are there to challenge the local authority's allegations when, in fact, their right to a fair hearing has been undermined and destroyed.

The practice you outline is called Passing Off and it would be helpful if the legislation allowing a magistrates court to delegate power to issue summonses to the local authority could be specified, please.

With regard to granting LOs before the court has opened to the public for the day, that is fraudulent as if the court heard each case individually as they are supposed to do, there are going to be cases that should never have been pursued by the local authority in the first place. By the local authority representing to the court a person owes money when, in fact, they do not, that is not only fraud, but, potentially, perverting the course of justice.

It would be useful for you to contact Loretta1 on CAG about a hearing she attended in respect of CT and the unacceptable behaviour of the three JPs and Justices Clerk and the local authority representative. When she rang me about it, I have to say that the only word I can find to accurately describe it is fraud.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Thanks for the info Milo, I think however you credit the statement with far more seriousness than it deserves.

But perhaps i am just a grumpy old sod

You're a grumpy old sod. Lol!

[Kati]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

there are going to be cases that should never have been pursued by the local authority in the first place. By the local authority representing to the court a person owes money when, in fact, they do not, that is not only fraud, but, potentially, perverting the course of justice.

I know THAT one well myself :tinysmile_hmm_t2:!!

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

There have been cases where, on inspection, it has been found Liability Orders have been granted before the court opened to the public for the day. In short, the defendant comes into court, believing they are there to challenge the local authority's allegations when, in fact, their right to a fair hearing has been undermined and destroyed.

The practice you outline is called Passing Off and it would be helpful if the legislation allowing a magistrates court to delegate power to issue summonses to the local authority could be specified, please.

With regard to granting LOs before the court has opened to the public for the day, that is fraudulent as if the court heard each case individually as they are supposed to do, there are going to be cases that should never have been pursued by the local authority in the first place. By the local authority representing to the court a person owes money when, in fact, they do not, that is not only fraud, but, potentially, perverting the course of justice.

It would be useful for you to contact Loretta1 on CAG about a hearing she attended in respect of CT and the unacceptable behaviour of the three JPs and Justices Clerk and the local authority representative. When she rang me about it, I have to say that the only word I can find to accurately describe it is fraud.

The problem with council tax (and NNDR) is that statutory regulations actually permit the likes of Equita, Liberata and other 'back office'providers to play a significant role in court when these applications are authorised.

The same 'powers' do not exist for road traffic debs...only council tax and NNDR.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The problem with council tax (and NNDR) is that statutory regulations actually permit the likes of Equita, Liberata and other 'back office'providers to play a significant role in court when these applications are authorised.

The same 'powers' do not exist for road traffic debs...only council tax and NNDR.

I think you've put your finger right on it, Milo. The contracting-out regulations have. basically, allowed the likes of Capita, Liberata, etc., to stick their oars in and wreak havoc. Public pressure is the only thing that will remove them from central and local government.

[bizzybob]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Milo and BlueBottle, what this amounts to if examined in the light of the Articles of the ECHR and Human Rights Act, is that the whole procedure as outlined by yourselves may well be contrary to the Convention and the ACT insofar as it breaches right to a fair trial or hearing, and it allows non judicial private companies to.tbasically run the court for the day. Similarly the Crapita TVL stitch up is flawed also.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Milo and BlueBottle, what this amounts to if examined in the light of the Articles of the ECHR and Human Rights Act, is that the whole procedure as outlined by yourselves may well be contrary to the Convention and the ACT insofar as it breaches right to a fair trial or hearing, and it allows non judicial private companies to basically run the court for the day. Similarly the Crapita TVL stitch up is flawed also.

It's the same with utility companies and their warrants of entry, BB. It needs the decent and honest people within the Courts and Tribunals Services, Central and Local Government and public pressure to bring this situation to an end.

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The point is that LAs are authorized to serve and process liability orders and that is the situation, there are no "human rights issues" this is all FMOTL nonsense, the authority has a prefect right to recover delinquent council tax and the legal process are perfectly and properly in place for them to do so.
It is not for any of us to prove any of this to your satisfaction, if you feel this is not the case then talk to your MP, if he will give you any time for such nonsense.

It is worrying quite how much power the 'private back office' companies such as Capita, Liberata, Vertex, etc have been given. The actual statutory regulations is the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996.

[Milo]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The government's intention of the role that should be played by private contractors is clearly outlined by Lord Lucas in July 1996 when debating the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order in the House of Lords.

The following is from Hansard:


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...tax#column_757


Lord Lucas


Many functions of local government may be carried out only by officers of a local authority. The two orders before your Lordships are intended to give local authorities greater freedom, where they so wish, to use the private sector to provide services which they would normally have to provide themselves.

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing, collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates.

The order will enable local authorities to delegate to a contractor most of their statutory functions and decision-making powers relating to the administration of local taxes—for example, whether a dwelling should be regarded as exempt from council tax or, where payments have not been made, whether to initiate enforcement action against a taxpayer.

Each decision which is taken by a contractor must be based very firmly on the conditions which are set out in statute. There should therefore be no greater risk if a contractor takes those decisions than there is when the decision is made by a local authority officer.

Of course, not all decisions should be in the hands of a contractor. For example, where taxes are unpaid and other enforcement action has proved unsuccessful, an authority can apply for the debtor's commitment to prison. Because of the serious nature of that ultimate penalty, its use should remain exclusively with local authorities. The order therefore does not allow the delegation of these powers to a third party.

Local taxpayers' rights will not be affected by this legislation. They will still have the same rights of appeal, both to the local authority and to the valuation tribunals. And if they are aggrieved at anything which has been done in the council's name, they will still be able to lodge a complaint through the council's own procedures or through the Local Government Ombudsman.

In summary, this is a sensible and worthwhile change which is widely supported by local authorities because it achieves the right balance between allowing an authority to use a contractor for its revenue collection services, while reserving the most difficult decisions for the authority.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

It is worrying quite how much power the 'private back office' companies such as Capita, Liberata, Vertex, etc have been given. The actual statutory regulations is the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order 1996.

What you have said echoes what I have heard from MacKenzie Friends who represent people at Council Tax Liability Order hearings, Milo. Plymouth City Council took the administration of Council Tax back in-house from Capita, but contracted-out enforcement to JBW, who are being watched like hawks by Plymouth CAB. However, I have heard some concerning reports, which are subject to confirmation, that PCC has been issuing warrants to JBW for unpaid PCNs without first obtaining a charge certificate from TEC at Northampton. If these reports are confirmed as correct, it is not only very worrying, it also means any enforcement action is potentially unlawful.

[Guest]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

Gosh that is a last from the past. NOt seen that for many moons, it just reminds us that all these provisions no matter how much we may or may not agree with them have been discussed and democratically approved, there is no point ranting against them , if anyone feels they are in some way contrary to the common good then there are way for changing the system.

There are abuses of the system in that LAs and councils will attempt to short cut their legal requirements and these should be challenged, but you cannot complain about the LAs enforcing there right to reclaim sums due under the legislation and the law of the land, because it may not be convenient or suite a particular circumstance, the law does not work like that.

[bluebottle]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

The government's intention of the role that should be played by private contractors is clearly outlined by Lord Lucas in July 1996 when debating the Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order in the House of Lords.

The following is from Hansard:


http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/l...tax#column_757


Lord Lucas


Many functions of local government may be carried out only by officers of a local authority. The two orders before your Lordships are intended to give local authorities greater freedom, where they so wish, to use the private sector to provide services which they would normally have to provide themselves.

The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Tax Billing, Collection and Enforcement Functions) Order is intended to clarify an authority's powers to contract out its billing, collection and enforcement functions on council tax, community charge and national non-domestic rates.

The order will enable local authorities to delegate to a contractor most of their statutory functions and decision-making powers relating to the administration of local taxes—for example, whether a dwelling should be regarded as exempt from council tax or, where payments have not been made, whether to initiate enforcement action against a taxpayer.

Each decision which is taken by a contractor must be based very firmly on the conditions which are set out in statute. There should therefore be no greater risk if a contractor takes those decisions than there is when the decision is made by a local authority officer.

Of course, not all decisions should be in the hands of a contractor. For example, where taxes are unpaid and other enforcement action has proved unsuccessful, an authority can apply for the debtor's commitment to prison. Because of the serious nature of that ultimate penalty, its use should remain exclusively with local authorities. The order therefore does not allow the delegation of these powers to a third party.

Local taxpayers' rights will not be affected by this legislation. They will still have the same rights of appeal, both to the local authority and to the valuation tribunals. And if they are aggrieved at anything which has been done in the council's name, they will still be able to lodge a complaint through the council's own procedures or through the Local Government Ombudsman.

In summary, this is a sensible and worthwhile change which is widely supported by local authorities because it achieves the right balance between allowing an authority to use a contractor for its revenue collection services, while reserving the most difficult decisions for the authority.

Thank you for posting this, Milo. However, in some cases, it has lead to abnegation of responsibility by local authorities and abuse of people's rights by private-sector contractors, lack of transparency and, most concerning, lack of accountability.

[Guest]

Re: Please help Marston bailiff came today

What you have said echoes what I have heard from MacKenzie Friends who represent people at Council Tax Liability Order hearings, Milo. Plymouth City Council took the administration of Council Tax back in-house from Capita, but contracted-out enforcement to JBW, who are being watched like hawks by Plymouth CAB. However, I have heard some concerning reports, which are subject to confirmation, that PCC has been issuing warrants to JBW for unpaid PCNs without first obtaining a charge certificate from TEC at Northampton. If these reports are confirmed as correct, it is not only very worrying, it also means any enforcement action is potentially unlawful.

Perhaps yuo should wait until these allegations are supported by fact before you mention them. Just an idea.