Forum

<!–noadsense–>

	You must be logged in to post	Login Register

Home Forum Baillifs issuse and Liability orders NELC Unlawfully charging Liability Order and Summons costs at the same time

NELC Unlawfully charging Liability Order and Summons costs at the same time

Print this Post

Page: 1

No Tags

User

Post

6:09 pm
February 3, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 6:17 pm – February 3, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

North East Lincolnshire council is charging liability order costs at the same time as those incurred at the summons stage of recovery. This action is effectively catching out a larger proportion of those residents who will become liable for both of these penalties.

However, the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 state under Regulation 34 that these fees must be incurred independently when the summons is issued and when the liability order is granted. It also states in Regulations R34(5)(b) and (7)(b), that the costs should be reasonably incurred by the authority.

Application for liability order

34.–(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

(6) The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.

(7) An order made pursuant to paragraph (6) shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum payable, and

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order.

The Council is therefore unlawfully collecting penalties from debtors settling their accounts prior to any court action. This procedure is not in accordance with Regulation 34(5) of the Council Tax Regulations, which requires that the authority shall not proceed with the application if the aggregate of the outstanding debt and costs reasonably incurred by the authority is paid or tendered to it.

Essentially authorities are not lawfully permitted to charge debtors the liability order costs detailed in Regulation 34(7)(b) in such circumstances, however, by charging these costs prematurely at the summons stage, they are doing exactly this.

These issues were covered in the Sunday Telegraph: We shouldn't let our Councils Cheat us out of £25 Billion a Year

This could means our local authority is open to serious legal challenge.

11:40 am
February 4, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 12:16 pm – February 4, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

The following data was supplied by North East Lincolnshire council in relation to summonses and liability orders.

What must be brought into question is how – historically – these costs were determined, and more importantly, how the Magistrates' court, with any credibility, had been able to authorise the level of costs.

Summons costs in 2000/01 represented 23.5% of associated court costs.

In 2001/02 this reduced slightly to 22.2%, but increased to 30% in 2002/03.

In 2004/05 the scales tipped, and for the first time, more weight was given the summons penalty – it was then 54.5%.

Another small increase to 56% in 2006/07 saw the balance unchanged for a while and the overall costs had also stabilised.

This changed in 2011/12 with the most radical shift in the weight given to the summons costs. The council now consider 100% of its costs, up unto obtaining the liability order, are attributable to issuing a summons.

There must have been radical changes in the way recovery operations were carried out for the authority to proportion the cost of obtaining a liability order to summons at roughly 4:1 in 2001/02, when today this cost is deemed so insignificant, that 100% is attributable to the summons.

3:57 pm
February 5, 2012

Crazy Council

Admin

posts 60

Print this Post

Thats interestiung, i noticed when you brought this up before.

I have researched the costs from that payment account ( the court fund account ). Out fo the money charged to the member of the public, £ 3 goes to the court tocver costs. Whats more interesting is that even our council has partly disclosed ( afgter one of my FOI fights ) that the Liability orders fund pays for the collection of everyones council tax, clearly a breaking the law.

Fancy me and you making a joint complaint about this, its probebly a good time to do it. It could be raised with the court initialy, seeing if it qualifies for Judicial review, but it would be usfull to notify all the members of parlement that are debating it. NELC would be a good example to use becoasue loads of the figures around CT and NNDR are false or missleading.

6:54 pm
February 5, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 6:59 pm – February 5, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Crazy Council said:

…..Fancy me and you making a joint complaint about this, …..

Too right! This is a scandal, and has been going on far too long.

Funny you should mention that your FOI request revealed that the liability order fund pays for the collection of everyones council tax.

Did it say something like this:

The costs raised are to cover the cost of Council Tax collection and recovery. This includes the technological systems in place and employment of staff. Costs collected also cover monies paid to Her Majesty's Court Service for the use of their facilities. The monies raised from costs are not greater than the cost of the service.

2:21 pm
February 6, 2012

Spandavia

New Member

posts 2

Print this Post

Hi Polystyrene Anchor,

I have spent the morning reading most your very eloquent account of your battle with the local council and the bailiffs – and guess what – I can identify with almost everything you have said as my husband and I have been fighting the same battle since 2006. Like you we have done lots of research and we totally agree that this scandal has been going on too long and must be stopped.

The only difference in our stories is the name of the Council (South Cambridge District Council) and the name of the bailiffs (Newlyns). I must confess I haven't finished reading everything you have written (been on the phone trying to resolve Council/bailiff issues) but the basic circumstances are very similar. Trickery to get false liability orders, phantom visits by bailiffs, continual lies and obfuscation by Council, refusal by LGO to investigate etc. etc.

We have now reported the actions of the bailiffs and the Council to the police. We alledge braches of Section 1 and 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 and Section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. We reported this two weeks ago and we gave the police substantial documentary evidence last week. We are not holding our breath but, as we also reported a major bank fraud to the Cambridge Police in late 2007 which they refused to investigate and as that same fraud has now been the subject of a 20 month investigation (so far) by Thames valley Police who have called it the biggest bank fraud in British History, we are hopeful they might take our allegations more seriously this time. 9 people have now been arrested in the TVP investigation.

Like you, we are not happy to see the abuse of process and position by Councils and their agents, continuing. We intend to push for radical reform. Our own experiences have convinced us that the illegal practices so commonly used by bailiffs (on behalf of Local Councils) is little more than a form of terrorism against the public. It is happeneing right across the Country and, in some cases, even frail and elderly people are being terrorised. In 2007 and after much research, I wrote a book based about bailiffs and where this will end. It's called the NASBOY which is what my family and I call the bailiff (interestingly we always get the same one). I haven't done anything with it but I will do.

Keep up the good work and I will post on here with any progress we have. Going back to read the rest of your story now.

Kind regards

Spandavia

2:52 pm
February 6, 2012

Crazy Council

Admin

posts 60

Print this Post

Hi there and welcome to the forum.

I have been researching the detials around councils, baillifs and liability orders since 2005. This is me

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/…..eorge_cant

I have a good knoledge on how there systems are supposed to opperate, especialy around charges and false liability orders. If you post up here or send me an email with the details, i will have a ggod look through and give you my opiio as to how to fight it. There are many many people up and down the country that feel this particular part of the CT systems is unfare.

I notice with interest your comments on fraud, any detials, i have been following the same lines.

Best regards george crazycouncil admin

3:26 pm
February 6, 2012

Spandavia

New Member

posts 2

Print this Post

Hi George, I have replied by PM.

11:32 am
February 7, 2012

Polystyrene Anchor

Member

posts 100

Print this Post

Post edited 11:34 am – February 7, 2012 by Polystyrene Anchor

Hi Spandavia,

I'm sorry you've had you life taken over with these issues. Your council would probably state something to the effect that pursuing these matters to the extent you have, has been entirely your own doing. I'm sure they think being oppressive, obstructive and making administrative errors are their right, and you should be thankful when they finally leave you alone.

I suppose they work on the basis that 99% of those they abuse with their actions will either not know their rights or will just not bother to fight, and be thankful when they move on to someone else.

I'm glad to hear you've taken you concerns to the Police. I did, but was given the run-around for several months, until finally the detective deemed fraud to be a civil matter and not criminal.

Humberside Police Economic Crime Section's response:

I have not taken measures to avoid taking this case. As I stated previously I did give considerable time and thought on whether there was a way to prove a criminal case before reaching the conclusion I did.

The Home Officer circular gives recommendations, but it does form the basis of my decision making.

As you rightly say tens of thousands of people are in a similar position to yourself. No one other than you has argued this is a criminal matter worthy of police investigation to me during my 5 years in this post.

I will not reconsider my decision at this stage.

If you wish to report this decision to this IPCC, or indeed the Discipline and Complaints section of Humberside Police I would support this as I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this case with them and take advice if they have an alternative view.

I currently have a complaint with this section regarding the fraudulent liability order applications process. Thankfully, the Police are not giving me the run-around on this issue, they are just ignoring my correspondence.

Keep at them

Polystyrene Anchor

No Tags

Page: 1