We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Council in Contempt of Court
kissmeimposh
Posts: 108 Forumite
in Cutting tax
Can anyone give insight on possible course of (re)action?
Council applied for a liability order for council tax arrears, at Magistrates Court, in a hearing attended by the tenants named. Tenants for specific legal reasons went before the Magistrate to dispute liability. Magistrate aknowledged that tenants have a good reason to have their dispute considered, but that his jurisdiction in the particular hearing required him to grant the Order simply because the tenants details were not incorrect on the application (but he was not able at that hearing to judge the extent to which they were otherwise at all liable); however, in granting the LO he obtained an undertaking from the Council that enforcement/collection of the LO/amount will not continue until after the Valuation Tribunal adjudicates on the disputed liability. And the Magistrate further noted that the undertaking was being made a matter of court record, for avoidance of any doubt and so that the tenants can feel secure in waiting for the VT hearing to take place. The VT accepted the appeal application and while both sides were waiting for a hearing date, the Council went and sent a demand for payment and threat of bailiffs, implementing the LO in a manner completely contradicting and ignorning the specific undertaking given by the Council to the Magistrate.
Breaches of undertakings given to a court can be considered contempt of court and that is a severe offence, correct?
What is the procedure to alert the Magistrate that the Council has breached the udnertaking it provided to the Court?
And what would you do in the tenants' situation?
Council applied for a liability order for council tax arrears, at Magistrates Court, in a hearing attended by the tenants named. Tenants for specific legal reasons went before the Magistrate to dispute liability. Magistrate aknowledged that tenants have a good reason to have their dispute considered, but that his jurisdiction in the particular hearing required him to grant the Order simply because the tenants details were not incorrect on the application (but he was not able at that hearing to judge the extent to which they were otherwise at all liable); however, in granting the LO he obtained an undertaking from the Council that enforcement/collection of the LO/amount will not continue until after the Valuation Tribunal adjudicates on the disputed liability. And the Magistrate further noted that the undertaking was being made a matter of court record, for avoidance of any doubt and so that the tenants can feel secure in waiting for the VT hearing to take place. The VT accepted the appeal application and while both sides were waiting for a hearing date, the Council went and sent a demand for payment and threat of bailiffs, implementing the LO in a manner completely contradicting and ignorning the specific undertaking given by the Council to the Magistrate.
Breaches of undertakings given to a court can be considered contempt of court and that is a severe offence, correct?
What is the procedure to alert the Magistrate that the Council has breached the udnertaking it provided to the Court?
And what would you do in the tenants' situation?
0
Comments
-
Anybody able to comment?0
-
ok....
Magistrates do not have a jurisdiction to make payment terms/orders etc other than to grant a liability order or not at such a hearing. Any matters subject to a VT appeal are not grounds for withholding payments - hence LO being granted. Is this a standard letter, acknowledging the fact the LO was granted, which most councils will send - its a legal requirement before taking any further action. Have they checked with Council to see why letter sent, ie is it just to confirm grant of LO? Have council put a hold on account now?2008 wins. DVD player together with Now quiz/Now 2008 DVDs,£25.00 Real People, pair of tickets for London Eye.0 -
Corsagirl is spot on - the magistrate has the jurisdiction only to grant or deny the Liability Order in certain well defined circumstances.
Awaiting the results of a Valuation Tribunal is not a specified defence - check it with the council as to what is happening. Obtaining the Liability Order then holding further action is a standard procedure that all Council's follow as the L/O is easier to remove retrospectively than to go through the process of obtaining.
I suspect the letter they received was Request For Information form giving 14 days to provide employer details/make a payment offer. This is a standard form the council must send out before recovery action can be proceeded with - note that not returning the form does not stop recovery action proceeding if the council wishes to continue.I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
Yes the letter sent is the request for information to make the bailiffs job easier. I am not disputing the LO being granted but are you saying that a Council who gives an undertaking to the Magistrate and then acts in contrast to the undertaking is still OK? If so then you are necessarily saying that all undertakings given by Councils to a Magistrate are worthless. That would be deception.
I think the Ombudsman in the circumstances would find for maladministration causing injustice and levy a hefty fine on the Council in these circumstances, and heftier if bailiff charges acrued, don't you?
It is not the Magistrate but the Council itself that limited its right to implement the LO by giving an undertaking to the Court when it asked for the LO. It could have refused to give the undertaking. But if it gives one it cannot decide on the determination of one or two Council officers that the undertaking and the Court do not bind it.
Thanks for your comments but however much you love your local Council you cannot disregard Council undertakings to the Court whenever you think it suits the Council. All the things you say are correct where no undertaking was given but where it was the context changes.0 -
The posts in response to your original post have merely confirmed that the process for obtaining the Liability Order was followed.
As for what the magistrate said, it appears that so far the Council have followed there word by not pursuing the recovery action - issuing an RFI form is a continuation of the granting of the L/O and does not signfy that they are going to continue with action after issuing the form.
The RFI is notissued to make the bailiff's job easier - it has nothing to do with the bailiff - the form is a chance to make an offer of payment and give the council employment detaisl for any Attachments they may wish to set up.
You need to get the tenants to speak to the council and discuss the issue with them.
Where you present at the court hearing with the tenants ?I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
...
The RFI is notissued to make the bailiff's job easier - it has nothing to do with the bailiff - the form is a chance to make an offer of payment and give the council employment detaisl for any Attachments they may wish to set up.
The letter says that further action will be taken to recover the money if not paid by a specified date and that it could include the use of bailiffs. So that you say does not seem to be true. Attachments also are a means of enforcement so the Council DOES seem to be breaching their undertaking to the Court.
Why do you ask if I was in the court?0 -
The RFI letter threatens action after a 14 day period but the council does not have to follow up the action immediately and sending a statutory request does not mean that they are going to immediately follow it with enforcement action - they send the letter as they are required to and the tax payer is legally required to provide it.Why do you ask if I was in the court?
You stated that the tenants attended but did not mention if you were in the court to hear what was said at the time -are you acting on information given to you by the tenant or what you saw/heard in the court yourself ?I no longer work in Council Tax Recovery but instead work as a specialist Council Tax paralegal assisting landlords and Council Tax payers with council tax disputes and valuation tribunals. My views are my own reading of the law and you should always check with the local authority in question.0 -
kissmeimposh wrote: »Anybody able to comment?
Already done so on the previous thread you posted on this subject :-
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=13288287#post13288287
...... CIS correctly asks if you were there? As one suspects your perception of what the Magistrates said isn't quite correct. As I said in the earlier thread - Magistrates either make an Order or deny it. They don't make it conditional.If you want to test the depth of the water .........don't use both feet !0 -
kissmeimposh you seem to have some personal vendetta against your council having read your thread about the school transport issue too0
-
frugallass wrote: »kissmeimposh you seem to have some personal vendetta against your council having read your thread about the school transport issue too
Frugalllass that is an ignorant comment, really. Firstly if the Council made two !!!!-ups my complaint about one does not reduce the merits of my complaints about the other. Secondly, based on your statement it seems more likely that the Council may have a vandetta against my family as they have the power and resources to make their decisions and not me.
It might seem that you have a vandetta against people who do not accept injustice by their Council and you would rather that people just put up and shut up and swear their allegience to Queen and Country and Local Council?
But that's not how it is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.9K Spending & Discounts
- 248K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.9K Life & Family
- 263K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards