new development - could do with some advise !

[Big Al]

Re: new development - could do with some advise !

The council say I can only deal with Ross and Roberts .

That is a lie. Do you have an email with them stating this? If not, only use email from now on for the paper trail. I think the best action now is a complaint to the CT managers, then if no joy, to the CEO. They cannot expect you to prove whether a LO from 12 years ago is paid or not, it's ridiculous.

As said, a LO is not statute barred but that does not give the council the right to enforce via bailiffs after 12 years of no action.

[Hemmings1965]

Re: new development - could do with some advise !

I have it in writing from a letter dated 31st March 2015

To quote entire contents..

Thank you for your letter regarding the above premises the contents of which have been duly noted

Having checked the Councils records I can confirm your letter dated 28^th September 2014 was not received at this office

The Council has conducted a review of your account and I can advise you that the period of liabity has been amended and the end date is now 8^th October 2003 ( was 30 June 2004 - my notes - not in letter)

I can also confirm that no payment has been made to your Business Rates account during the time you were in occupation as the tenant and the Liability Orders in respect of unpaid Business rates were correctly obtained

The revised balance of your account is £4260.11 ( was £7900 - my notes - not in letter)

I must therefore ask you to contact the Council enforcement agents Ross and Roberts to make a suitable arrangement to pay

I hope this clarifies matters for you , if not then please do not hesitate to contact the Business Rates Department

[des8]

Re: new development - could do with some advise !

There s no defining legislation on the issue. However, a LO is, in essence, no different to a CCJ. Both are sums a court has held you liable to pay. In the absence of legislation specific to a LO, one can reasonably follow that of a CCJ.

Not aiming for argument (honest) but looking for understanding as the case below seems to say there is no time limit for enforcing liability orders.


Bolsover District Council and another v Ashfield Nominees Ltd and others [2010] EWCA Civ 1129, [2010] All ER (D) 177 (Oct)



Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Laws, Lloyd and Gross LJJ,
19 Oct 2010

The presentation of a winding-up petition in respect of sums due under liability orders for unpaid council tax does not fall within s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980). Instead, reg 34(3) of Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/613, imposes an equivalent restriction on obtaining an order to enforce the liability.
James Morgan (instructed Summers Nigh Law LLP) for claimants. David Lock(instructed by Brooks Solicitors) for the defendants.
The defendant companies owned properties in the areas of the two claimant local authorities. They failed to pay council tax, and as a result liability orders were made by the magistrates’ court. The claimants sought to enforce the orders by way of winding-up petitions. Some of the orders had been made more than six years before the date of the petitions. The defendants sought to strike out the petitions on the ground that they were time-barred. The issue arose as to whether an authority which had obtained a liability order and wished to enforce it by insolvency proceedings had to do so within six years after the making of the order. The judge ruled in favour of the claimants and the defendants appealed. The issue arose as to the construction of s 9 of LA 1980.
Section 9 applied to an action to recover “any sums recoverable by virtue of any enactment”. The defendants submitted that unpaid council tax was a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment, and that accordingly, a form of proceeding to recover it which was within the scope of the word “action” had to be subject to s 9.
Lloyd LJ:

The correct view was that s 9 of LA 1980 did not apply as regards unpaid council tax. Instead, reg 34(3) imposed an equivalent restriction on obtaining an order to enforce the liability. Either that displaced s 9, because of s 39 of LA 1980, or it rendered it superfluous, because reg 34(3) had exactly the same effect. Subject only to the application of that restriction, there was no further time bar on proceeding under a liability order. His lordship accepted that, whereas unpaid council tax could rank as a debt for the purposes of the Insolvency Act 1986 even if no liability order had been made, that was subject to the proviso that, if the tax fell due for payment more than six years previously, so that a liability order could no longer be applied for in respect of that sum, it would not be a valid debt for the purposes of insolvency proceedings. That was no more than an application of the 1992 Regulations by analogy.
For that reason the decision below was correct. That approach also avoided creating an inexplicable anomaly in the area of non-domestic rates, as between proceedings by way of a liability order and the alternative of proceedings by way of a civil action. In each case, the time bar would apply at the outset, at the point of the application for a liability order (under the regulations) or the issue of a claim form (under s 9), but it did not apply at any later stage in addition. Just as one did not find LA 1980 applying after the entry of judgment in a civil action, except in the narrow case covered by s 24, so it would be surprising to find it applying after the making of a liability order.
In Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall [2008] EWCA Civ 1156, his lordship said: “It is not at all illogical that time limits should apply differently where the creditor already has a judgment. In such a case it is unnecessary to protect the defendant from stale claims on the basis that it may be difficult for him to collect together the relevant evidence. The parties’ rights have been established by court proceedings, and it is only then a question of enforcement.”
By the same token, it was logical as a matter of policy that a time bar should apply to a liability for unpaid council tax once, namely at the stage of the application for a liability order, when a time limit like s 9 was applied under the 1992 Regulations, but that it should not apply thereafter, once a liability order has been made. By that stage, the liability which was to be enforced was under the liability order, not for the original council tax.
The appeal would be dismissed.

[Hemmings1965]

Re: new development - could do with some advise !

Thanks for all advise so far
I called ross and roberts yesterday and their system was down
I called back today and was told that birmingham council had not updated the revised debt amount with them ( now £4200 not £8000) but the lady advised me to make a payment today for what I could afford
I said I wasn't happy with that until I had the revised debt in writing so she advised that I scan over the letter via email tomorrow
i then asked about setting up a payment plan as I am on a low income and she said they don't set up payment plans for business rate debt and I should just call regularly and make payments of what I can afford

Does that sound right ? I'm scared of getting into a situation where ross and roberts start charging me for things

[nemesis45]

Re: new development - could do with some advise !

You are correct Des the option to pursue is open ended.

nem

[ploddertom]

Re: new development - could do with some advise !

I would treat anything told to you over the phone by BCC with suspicion especially as far as Bailiffs are concerned, BBC have farmed out their back office functions to a Company called Capita. When you ring the Council the chances are you are speaking to a Capita employee and they are noted for being evasive, uncooperative & tell you anything to make you fall foul of the Bailiff. Did I also mention Capita own 2 Bailiff Co's one of which just so happens to be R&R - do you see where we are heading?

[Guest]

Re: new development - could do with some advise !

The Bolsover DC case was connected to insolvency proceedings of a limited company and the council were allowed to continue with the proceedings.

The option to pursue may well be open ended-So too is the option to contest.

If there have genuinely been no previous attempts to recover this debt in the previous 12 odd years, then the OP has an excellent argument of maladministration on the councils part.

One word of warning though-A council is only required to send paperwork to a debtors last known address-If the OP simply left without advising of a forwarding address, the council may have an argument.

In the first instance, a letter to the head of revenues would be appropriate here. Ask what has gone on in the previous 12 years regarding this matter and what paperwork has been sent (and to what address?) Ask that due to the lengthy gap between the tax year in question and the recent contact from R&R, the council suspend recovery action whilst further information is obtained.

Send a copy of the letter to R&R.