Lewisham Council Refuse tax refund UNDER STATUTE OF LIMITATION

hollyone

My council have begrugingly refunded me Council tax of £ 500. However, this amount does not reflect the years 1993-2000 because they are saying this may come under the statute of limitation act therefore there may be the possibility not to get a refund for the initial 7 year period. Incidently, despite asking them not to do so, the £ 500 was put into my CT account FOR 09/10.

Please do not be amazed that a council should be using this statute because Lewisham Council has the highest inner london council tax and provide no service except for the ones they like to use to justify high CT in local newspapers like renewing road humps.

Anyone, I am awaiting a letter for the outcome of this matter and no doubt they have consulted there legal department to see if they can get away with this.


Does anyone know what can be done when they eventually return with one of their carefully worded and legally fragile answers informing me no council tax can be payable because of the 6 year ruling?


By the way thank you Martin, people in the rebanding department thought I was some kind of legal expert and trembled at my every word.

THANK YOU


jj

olly300

Wrong board you want this on the tax board.

97trophy

Why not file a claim with the small claims court?

jonesMUFCforever

Why is this on credit card board.
I actually think they are correct - you can claim back 6 years - anything further back than that - tough!

millymoomoo_2

This is the first council I have seen using the 6 year rule and I have done a lot of reading up on it. I presume you are talking about your house being in the wrong tax band? If so I can't see how they can use that as a reason to not refund as it means your house was incorrectly banded in the first place. Op good luck with it. I would push it as far as poss.

chattychappy

millymoomoo wrote: »

I can't see how they can use that as a reason to not refund as it means your house was incorrectly banded in the first place.

Yep.. but that's the nature of limitation. It acts a defence against claims that are older than the limitation period, whatever the reason. That said, a couple of points:

Note that the period doesn't always start to run from the event in question (ie in this case when the wrong amount was first charged). It usually starts from when you are held to have known (or ought to have known) you might have had a claim.

Secondly, judges can exercise discretion and refuse to accept the limitation defence. The factors they are to take into account are given in the limitation legislation.

I think the OP shouldn't drop this just because of the limitation issue - it is worth further investigation.

almost_there

The OPs topic looks a difficuilt one, how man times have we all seen on other posts people using the Statute Barred Clause. It looks like the council are turning the tables and using the same excuse to not pay out.