Council Tax Court summons

stanvoc

Hello everyone. I have been reading some interesting threads on here. I will be very happy if someone could advise me on this. Please CIS I will appreciate if you can contribute. In September this year I received a council tax bills from September 2006 to September 2009. I have rung them explaining it was a shared accommodation, and that I was a full time student from till June 2007. They asked me to send in proof.

I have taken time off work and went back to my former schools to get the letters. I scanned and emailed them to them inform of appeal as one of them advised me. But they said they could only accept it till 2007. They said because I went to another school from March 2007 to June 2007 that I am not qualified for exemption as it is less than 6 months. I have argued that I was a full time student till June 2007 despite finishing one course and starting another. But they wouldnt hear that. I explained the course was supposed to run for a minimum of 2.5 years but had to withdraw after 3 months as I could no longer afford it. And also there was no break between when I finished the first one and when I started the second.

Another issue I raised with them was that I moved out in July but they billed in me till September 2009. They said because we moved in in September, the bill should be from September to September. Also the first bill till February 2008 was in joint names, me and one of my flat mates. The third person, who signed the tenancy agreement but let us have 2 rooms with the consent of the landlord, was omitted. He moved out in February 2008. Other bills from March 2008 was in my name only giving me 25% discount from then because the other person was a student? I asked if they are giving a 25% because he is a member of my household. I rented a room because I couldn’t afford a flat. I also deferred my course because I could no longer afford it.

When I told them I was still not happy with the outcome of the appeal, they gave me address to send further appeal to, and that I should do that within 28 days. While waiting for them to send me amended bills after applying the exemption, I decided to request for my information under FOI Act. The next thing in the post was court summons. I emailed them asking why the court summons when they have not sent me updated bills and it is still within the 28 days period. What I got back was an email from a senior manager saying he is resolving my issues, and will get back to me soon. He emailed me last Friday that he has put my request in the post.

Can you guys please tell me if they are right for taking me to court as it wasn’t even me that signed the tenancy agreement? The person that rented the flat was rather left out because they couldn’t find him. What they told me during one of my phone calls was that I should go and look for him using social network. Was the landlord not supposed to give them his name when he moved in. If they had sent the bill when we were living there, it should have been resolved then. When I moved out landlord refused to give me my deposit, and I couldn’t do anything about it as he didn’t rent the house to me. Also the bill till February 2008 was in joint names but court summons was in my name only. Also should they be taking me to court within the dispute period?

I am sorry if this is too long but I was just trying to get the message across as it is a bit complicated. Can you please advise me. The court date is this Thursday. 8/12/2011

CIS

I have argued that I was a full time student till June 2007 despite finishing one course and starting another

Each course has to be treated separately.

But they wouldnt hear that. I explained the course was supposed to run for a minimum of 2.5 years but had to withdraw after 3 months as I could no longer afford it. And also there was no break between when I finished the first one and when I started the second.

On this basis you should be classed as a F/T student.

3. A person is to be regarded as undertaking a full time course of education on a particular day if—(a)on the day he is enrolled for the purpose of attending such a course with a prescribed educational establishment within Part I of Schedule 2 to this Order, and
(b)the day falls within the relevant period for that course.

4.—(1) A full-time course of education is, subject to subparagraphs (2) and (3), one—(a)which subsists for at least one academic year of the educational establishment concerned or, in the case of an educational establishment which does not have academic years, for at least one calendar year;
(b)which persons undertaking it are normally required by the educational establishment concerned to attend (whether at premises of the establishment or otherwise) for periods of at least 24 weeks in each academic or calendar year (as the case may be) during which it subsists, and
(c)the nature of which is such that a person undertaking it would normally require to undertake periods of study, tuition or work experience which together amount in each such academic or calendar year to an average of at least 21 hours a week during the periods of attendance mentioned in paragraph (b) above in the year.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/548/schedule/1/part/II/made

You met 3) as you enrolled on the course and 4) the course was intended to last more than 24 weeks.

The next thing in the post was court summons. I emailed them asking why the court summons when they have not sent me updated bills and it is still within the 28 days period. What I got back was an email from a senior manager saying he is resolving my issues, and will get back to me soon. He emailed me last Friday that he has put my request in the post.

Legally the is no requirement to hold action pending appeal - action continues on the basis of the last bill issued.

Once they have the Liability Order many council's will hold action as they then have the legal powers of enforcement if required.

The third person, who signed the tenancy agreement but let us have 2 rooms with the consent of the landlord, was omitted.

It sounds like he hasn't advised the council that he was a tenant and you were a sub-tenant of his.

Can you guys please tell me if they are right for taking me to court as it wasn’t even me that signed the tenancy agreement? The person that rented the flat was rather left out because they couldn’t find him.

If you were not a tenant then a resident tenant would be liable for any council tax - as a sub-tenant you have a lower interest in the property.

If the tenant ceased to be resident then liability falls down on the occupiers.

He moved out in February 2008. Other bills from March 2008 was in my name only giving me 25% discount from then because the other person was a student? I asked if they are giving a 25% because he is a member of my household

Once the tenant ceased to be resident the council tax liability from that date falls on the occupiers - you and your co-occupier.

Because the other occupier living with you was disregarded as a student during this period then you are liable with a 25% discount.

Also the bill till February 2008 was in joint names but court summons was in my name only. Also should they be taking me to court within the dispute period?

Court Summons are issued individually to each liable party.

I am sorry if this is too long but I was just trying to get the message across as it is a bit complicated. Can you please advise me. The court date is this Thursday. 8/12/2011

If you can prove you were only a resident and that you were not the tenant then you can dispute the case with the magistrate.

vax2002

CIS wrote: »

If you can prove you were only a resident and that you were not the tenant then you can dispute the case with the magistrate.

You can, but as you wont be in a sitting court, you will need to request to have your case heard by magistrates, there must be 3 for it to be a correctly convened court.
Mostly they refuse.
The summons will be to a room at the court building hired by the council, they will not be any magistrates in the room, it is a bit of a sham.
When you enter this court, ask if the magistrate can identify themselves as a magistrate sitting under oath, they wont, because there wont be one.

CIS

You can, but as you wont be in a sitting court, you will need to request to have your case heard by magistrates, there must be 3 for it to be a correctly convened court.
Mostly they refuse.
The summons will be to a room at the court building hired by the council, they will not be any magistrates in the room, it is a bit of a sham.
When you enter this court, ask if the magistrate can identify themselves as a magistrate sitting under oath, they wont, because there wont be one.

I was wondering how long it would take......

stanvoc

Thanks CIS. Something else I forgot to add is that the bill till February 2008 was in 2 names only instead of three. Are we (two of us) going to pay for it because they couldnt find the third person? Surely it was their fault for not sending the bill when we were living at the property because landlord should have informed them. I thought the fair thing should have been for them to recover from me a third of it.

And can you please also tell me about this September till September billing. I moved out in July but they said the bill should be till September because We moved in in September. Is it right? Nobody moved in when we moved because the house needed renovation work done.

Many thanks

Red_dog_Sam

You would be liable for charge for the period of your tenancy if you held one, but as you didn't hold the tenancy your liability is limited to the period you occupied the property. Even when a tenancy extends beyond the period occupancy there may still be entitlement to an empty discount or exemption.
But based on what you've said, there is no basis for charging you until September if you left in July - liability ends the day you moved out.

As usual, Vax2002 should be ignored. Yawn!

Red_dog_Sam

A summary based on your comments then:
From Sept 2006 to Feb 2008 the tenant was living there and is liable for council tax. As you are only sub-letting off them you are not. This means that even though you would class as a full time student all the way up to June 2007 , that is neither here nor there as you aren't liable for the charge anyway. Simply not being able to locate the tenancy holder now, does not make you liable for charge instead of them.
From February 2008 when the tenant left you and your flat-mate become jointly liable for the council tax. The bill should not be in your name only but in joint names as you have the same interest in the p roperty. Joint liability means that either of you can be held responsible for the whole charge - that means you could end up paying the lot and your flat mate nothing but as your flat mate was still a student you are entitled to the 25% discount.
Your liability ends in July 2009 on the day you moved out.
The Council must charge according to a hierarchy of liability which based on your circumstances means there are long periods when you are not laible for the charge at all. They cannot simply charge you throughout because it is an easy option.

However, your case largely rests on the Council \ Magistrate accepting that you were only an occupier and not the tenant. This could significantly reduce what you need to pay but any liability order will still be valid for the remaining charge which you would need to make arrangements to pay. Set out your case as above and give the council the actual dates and names and addresses - whatever you have - for the person that held the tenancy, the landlord and the flatmate if you have them. You can email the Council so ot is in writing but there's no guarantee they would look at it before the hearing so you should ring them up too.