Council in Contempt of Court

kissmeimposh

Mikeyorks wrote: »

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.

I was actually present, and so was the Council official who agreed the undertaking. I have in no way misstated it. Regardless of the extent to which the undertaking can directly affect the LO itself or make the LO subject to it in practice, it remains that the Council is breaching the undertaking. Even if you beleive that the undertaking can't limit the Council's enforecement it was a promise made to the Court which was broken by the Council.
I want to inform the Court of this to make them aware. That is my right. And I ask if you know the appropriate procedure. I will then be happy to let you know the outcome in due course. I am not asking you to assume the role of a Magistrate and make a judgement.
If you seek to defend Councils at all costs, despite the possible improprieties then go on not answering my question. If you think the Council's action is justified and defendable then please help answer my question and give them the opportunity to to prove to the Court that they are acting rightly.

CIS

it remains that the Council is breaching the undertaking. Even if you believe that the undertaking can't limit the Council's enforcement it was a promise made to the Court which was broken by the Council.

They haven't yet - sending the RFI is a legal requirement as part of the issuing of the Liability Order it doesn't mean they'll not hold the account.

Duties of debtors subject to liability order
36.—(1) Where a liability order has been made, the debtor against whom it was made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the billing authority on whose application it was made.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), relevant information is such information as fulfils the following conditions—

• (a) it is in the debtor's possession or control;

• (b) the billing authority requests him by notice given in writing to supply it; and

• (c) it falls within paragraph (3).

(3) Information falls within this paragraph if it is specifed in the notice mentioned in paragraph (2)(b) and it falls within one or more of the following descriptions—

• (a) information as to the name and address of an employer of the debtor;

• (b) information as to earnings or expected earnings of the debtor;

• (c) information as to deductions and expected deductions from such earnings in respect of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of "net earnings" in regulation 32 or attachment of earnings orders made under this Part, the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971[15] or the Child Support Act 1991[16];

• (d) information as to the debtor's work or identity number in an employment, or such other information as will enable an employer of the debtor to identify him;

• (e) information as to sources of income of the debtor other than an employer of his;

• (f) information as to whether another person is jointly and severally liable with the debtor for the whole or any part of the amount in respect of which the order was made.

(4) Information is to be supplied within 14 days of the day on which the request is made.

If you think the Council's action is justified and defendable then please help answer my question and give them the opportunity to to prove to the Court that they are acting rightly.

Nobody has stated that the council are right to go against any undertaking made - the council have not yet done so . They have nothing to prove to a court as the magistrate has no legal powers enforce any decision - whether they are morally bound is another matter - that has yet to be decided on if and when recovery action is taken.

kissmeimposh

CIS wrote: »

They haven't yet - sending the RFI is a legal requirement as part of the issuing of the Liability Order it doesn't mean they'll not hold the account.

Nobody has stated that the council are right to go against any undertaking made - the council have not yet done so . They have nothing to prove to a court as the magistrate has no legal powers enforce any decision - whether they are morally bound is another matter - that has yet to be decided on if and when recovery action is taken.

CIS, thanks for your input but I disagree because the letter they sent states that payment of the amount must now immediately be made in full. They state taht they base this on the liability order [which was granted at the hearing where the Council said they would not proceed with it until the matter has been adjudicated]. That is a form of enforcing the Liability Order and a violation of the Council's undertaking to the Court. It is a demand for payment saying "must be paid in full by". Furthermore it states that if the amount is not paid "further action" will be taken [not 'intiation of action will then begin']. Hence, by their own wording 'action' is now already being taken and the account is no longer paused on hold. The letter refers to "further recovery action". The letter then is a form of, or part of recovery action in progress even if it is only one early stage of it. If not clear from the tile or label of the letter it is certainly clear from its content and wording.

It remains that nobody will here will suggest the appropriate process of informing the Magistrates so that they can consider it? You will only suggests defences in favour of the Council?

CIS

CIS, thanks for your input but I disagree because the letter they sent states that payment of the amount must now immediately be made in full. They state taht they base this on the liability order [which was granted at the hearing where the Council said they would not proceed with it until the matter has been adjudicated]

Its standard wording of a Request For Information Form - the letter will request immediate payment or for the liable parties to provide the requested information.

The wording of the RFI is the same whether your going to pay up straight away or the council are going to hold action - they must issue it and can't vary the wording for every circumstance.

Hence, by their own wording 'action' is now already being taken and the account is no longer paused on hold. The letter refers to "further recovery action". The letter then is a form of, or part of recovery action in progress even if it is only one early stage of it. If not clear from the tile or label of the letter it is certainly clear from its content and wording.

Once the council have the Liability Order then they must issue the RFI - they have no choice - therefore issuing of the RFI is not further action, it is part and parcel of the granting of the Liability Order.

kissmeimposh

CIS wrote: »

Its standard wording of a Request For Information Form - the letter will request immediate payment or for the liable parties to provide the requested information.

The wording of the RFI is the same whether your going to pay up straight away or the council are going to hold action - they must issue it and can't vary the wording for every circumstance.



Once the council have the Liability Order then they must issue the RFI - they have no choice - therefore issuing of the RFI is not further action, it is part and parcel of the granting of the Liability Order.

But it is also a fundamental breach of the undertaking in this case if they are seeking immedaite payment. They cannot promise not to but then go ahead and specifically do it simply because they usually do. So if it is both routine and a breach, the onus is on the Council to adhere to both the procedure and the undertaking by adjusting the wording or aknowledging separately that it will otherwise adhere to the undertaking. The undertaking was not anything like 'we will implement routine procedures to pretend the undertaking doesn't exist becaue that's they way we do things'. The undertaking was clear. And fully binding on the Council that took upon itself to declare it before the Court.

It is not just an Rfi form that was sent but also a demadn for full payment with the threat of 'further' action to the letter which amounts to action.

Still no utterance by anyone here of how - even theoretically if you refuse to accept the prospect - a constituent should inform the Court if they truly believe that an undertaking to the Court has been breached by a Council....... I would think that anyone confident in Council practice would welcome the opportunity for a constituent to enable the Council to demonstrate its position before the Court. But nobody dares contribute to that here. I draw my own conclusions from this.

frugallass

kissmeimposh wrote: »

Still no utterance by anyone here of how - even theoretically if you refuse to accept the prospect - a constituent should inform the Court if they truly believe that an undertaking to the Court has been breached by a Council....... I would think that anyone confident in Council practice would welcome the opportunity for a constituent to enable the Council to demonstrate its position before the Court. But nobody dares contribute to that here. I draw my own conclusions from this.

maybe you're in the wrong forum then

CIS

The undertaking was not anything like 'we will implement routine procedures to pretend the undertaking doesn't exist because that's they way we do things'. The undertaking was clear

From what I can tell, magistrate agreed that the case would be stayed on a verbal agreement from the council but admitted he had to grant the Liability Order.

Therefore as the magistrate issued the Liability Order the Council are legally obliged to issue an RFI regardless of whether or not you care for the wording of it or not. The council and the magistrate (on the actual granting of the L/O) have both acted within the statutory legislation of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) regs 1992.

kissmeimposh

CIS wrote: »

From what I can tell, magistrate agreed that the case would be stayed on a verbal agreement from the council but admitted he had to grant the Liability Order.

Therefore as the magistrate issued the Liability Order the Council are legally obliged to issue an RFI regardless of whether or not you care for the wording of it or not. The council and the magistrate (on the actual granting of the L/O) have both acted within the statutory legislation of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) regs 1992.

Thank you for clarifying your opinion based on what you can tell. I respect your opinion even if it is not a legal judgment of authority, and I do appreciate your insight.
It is not a question of whether or not I care for the wording but rather a question of whether the wording breaches their undertaking to the Court.
Thus I prefer to let the Court determine the degree to which your position or mine are correct.
Is it the case that you know how I can inform or complain to the court that I beleive an inmproper breach of undertaking has occured, but that you prefer to withold comment on the procedure so that it will be more difficult for me to do so?

corsagirl_2

Have you/will you contact the Council to see if they have now put a hold on account yet? Theres no point speculating and accusing. Better still get the tenants to ring as Council won't speak to you due to Data Protection. The advice given by CIS and myself is correct. How can you complain to the court, if no further action has been taken except legal notification of the LO?

silvercar

Are you the landlord, tenant or what? If you are not the tenant, why does this effect you?