Magistrate's court summons

dancingfairy

The reason they will continue with the summons is for their security so if the payer does not keep to the agreement they are then able to go straight for enforcement - ie an attachment to benefits.
Unfortunately for every genuine person like the OP they must get lots of people who will riggle out of it at every opportunity and it would then be payer misses payment, council applies to go to court, payer pays one month, council cancels court action, payer misses next month, council apply to court, etc etc.
Smileyt - obviously if you can halt the court action then this would be preferable but do not worry if they get a liability order against you. As the council are aware you are on benefits they may then decide to take a set amount out per month from your benefit- it is not something they pick but is set for them by the government.
As long as you keep in touch with the council and pay what you can and come to an agreement then you will be fine.
df

CIS

Unfortunately for every genuine person like the OP they must get lots of people who will riggle out of it at every opportunity and it would then be payer misses payment, council applies to go to court, payer pays one month, council cancels court action, payer misses next month, council apply to court, etc etc.

Trying to stop that happening is a constant battle (often between departments) , there are occasions when court summonses are cancelled but you can never let it be the norm otherwise you never get the money in. I see it happen year in year out with some people and it really takes the mick.

smileyt_2

Thank you everyone for your support.

I am going to double-check with my bank statements as my bank says the direct debit was cancelled on 15 January 2009 (by the Council) after the Council took a payment. It has not therefore laid dormant for a year before being cancelled, as far as I know, but I need to fish out my statements and see if it had been dormant from Jan 2008-2009.

CIS, thank you for sharing your knowledge. I am still mad at the Council though, because they do really mess people around and if it turns out they cancelled an 'active' dd I shall be really angry.

I guess I'm just upset because I don't have a lot of money and I have worked really hard to stay out of debt, and although it is technically the payer's responsibility to make payments, as far as I knew the direct debit was still active and MCC have messed me around so much in the past, I honestly thought they were just messing me around again. It takes so much energy to keep on top of everything and it really doesn't help when the Council messes up for you...... If they hadn't cancelled the dd then there would be no summons.

But as one wise person replied above, the payment plan is in place now and I shall try not to spend energy stressing about it.

It's a good job my depression is reasonably stable at the moment - God help anyone who has to deal with Manchester City Council and is in the middle of a depressive or other mental ill health episode.

DVardysShadow

dancingfairy wrote: »

The reason they will continue with the summons is for their security so if the payer does not keep to the agreement they are then able to go straight for enforcement - ie an attachment to benefits.
Unfortunately for every genuine person like the OP they must get lots of people who will riggle out of it at every opportunity and it would then be payer misses payment, council applies to go to court, payer pays one month, council cancels court action, payer misses next month, council apply to court, etc etc.

I have noticed councils being harsher over the last year or 2. But seriously, I begin to wonder. If you look at reminder letters, I would expect more genuine cases than wrigglers. If you look at summonses, I would expect the wrigglers to be in the majority. But I am beginning to think that in a hangover from old hat newlabour, being inflexibly harsh has probably put people with genuine issues in the fore front of summonses ahead of wrigglers. Mrs Shadow and I got a summons last year, despite being on a 28 day hold which we saw being written down at the council's own reception.

I can't help feeling that these councils are just fulfilling some mindless centrally imposed target which has very little bearing on actually getting CT paid in the real world, at the expense of needless summons.

DVardysShadow

smileyt wrote: »

... It's a good job my depression is reasonably stable at the moment - God help anyone who has to deal with Manchester City Council and is in the middle of a depressive or other mental ill health episode.

Take your revenge. Seek additional services.

CIS

I can't help feeling that these councils are just fulfilling some mindless centrally imposed target which has very little bearing on actually getting CT paid in the real world, at the expense of needless summons.

There are no centrally set targets for council tax collection. The only target is the amount which needs to be collected by the local authority for budget reasons.

Without the summons there's no way of collecting the money in a very large majority of cases , if it wasn't for the summons then the tax payers who actually pay are hit harder.

If the local authority needs X amount each month and they cant recover it then they either increase the charge for those who are paying or borrow more money at a greater cost then it costs to administer the recovery action.

DVardysShadow

CIS wrote: »

There are no centrally set targets for council tax collection. The only target is the amount which needs to be collected by the local authority for budget reasons.

Without the summons there's no way of collecting the money in a very large majority of cases , if it wasn't for the summons then the tax payers who actually pay are hit harder.

If the local authority needs X amount each month and they cant recover it then they either increase the charge for those who are paying or borrow more money at a greater cost then it costs to administer the recovery action.

That tired old mantra. It is obviously the case. But AFAICS, councils are squeezing more of the wrong people with summonses who would be paying anyway.

Put another way, there is a number of CT payers who will not pay up regardless of the summonses issued against them. You won't make them pay up more by issuing more summonses against the rest who were going to pay up anyway.

CIS

Put another way, there is a number of CT payers who will not pay up regardless of the summonses issued against them. You won't make them pay up more by issuing more summonses against the rest who were going to pay up anyway.

The vast majority of those who we issue Summons against haven't paid and dont pay until they receive the notification after the L/O has been awarded and they realise the seriousness of them continuing to not pay.

Those who are willing to pay tend not to get as far as the summons, those payers who make payments each month but constantly late are in the minority.

Once you have the Summons and the Liability Order you can force payment if they wont pay voluntarily otherwise you have no way of obtaining payment.

baggybond

I'm in a similar situation were I received a summons because I forgot the final payment from last years council tax. I immediately payed the remaining council tax instalment of £72, informed the courts and the council and included a copy of the receipt.

Yet, the council still went to court, aknowledged i paid in full, but still wanted costs of £65. I now have a liability order for £65 cost which the council want within 7 days of the post mark on the letter they sent. The letter was sent fri 11th and i received it today mon 14th.

The council have not taken costs off the payment I made as the letter states i paid last years council tax in full, and it's only costs they are after now.

I cant afford to pay £65 on top of all my other outgoings, and especially cant pay a penny until end of month when I get paid. Is it worth contacting the council to see if i can pay this in instalments. I keep hearing of people being given the chance to pay the remainder in full and the council dropping the costs. But i paid in full and they still going after me for costs! I've been told to appeal the costs, but not on what grounds!? The court said the costs were reasonable, so how do you argue that one?

If I am paying the costs, am i entitled to a breakdown of what these costs are for?

Thanks

CIS

You can ask for a breakdown but the local council will have already run the costs past the local magistrates court to ensure that they think they are resonable to grant.

Once a summons has been issued then most authorities will charge the costs imeediately, this is allowable and the Liability Order can be granted just for the costs.

I cant see why they wouldn't give you a payment arrangement provding that you ask.