council tax.. could this amount to 'wilful refusal' ?

JohnDay_2

A friend is retirement age and is in council tax arrears. There has been a liability order and the friend offered to pay towards the arrears at a weekly payment which was accepted and they have kept to
But the problem is that they will not claim council tax benefit. Some people will not face up to such things especially after never claiming a penny all their life.
The council are saying that because they wont claim, this implies they have greater means than they say ( they dont, and in fact that they have some other debts and no savings) and they are clearly trying to force my friend into claiming benefit under threat of going to the Magistrates Court on the basis of asking for a term of prison for (allegedly) wilfully refusing to pay They have not yet made that application to the court but the hints are getting stronger. Many bailiffs visits and letters so far.

I have given my opinion to my friend and I would like to ask for other peoples views. I have said that if a person is paying a regular amount commensurate with their actual means, that a court might be acting outside of its power to infer 'wilful refusal' because a person will not take steps to improve their income such as by seeking to claim a welfare benefit. Indeed, if the court were to do so where would it end. ? It could end up with the Magistrates asking council tax deb tors whether they have approached friends or family for a loan, or even sought to get a loan from a bank, or even get a job.

I hope I am right that only actual means in terms of income and resources within the control of the debtor count in any assessment of 'wilful refusal' to pay, as distinct from potential as yet unsecured means

I appreciate that local authorities will try and help people with benefits advice but my concern is whether my friends apparent inability to face up to seeking state help could land them in jail. I have also advised of the option of a Debt Relief Order which for a small fee would eliminate all their debts but this too has been dismissed as an option

In my friends case their limited means are beyond doubt but what is critical is whether non claiming of benefit can be said to amount to wilful refusal on the basis of refusing to take such steps as to facilitate the ability to pay


any thoughts ??

CIS

It would be more 'culpable neglect' rather than 'wilful refusal'.

I have said that if a person is paying a regular amount commensurate with their actual means, that a court might be acting outside of its power to infer 'wilful refusal' .

I doubt it, there was a similar case a few years ago regarding a person who could have worked and earned but didn't . The decision of 'culpable neglect' was overturned on appeal as the judge decided that the refusing to earn money was not 'culpable neglect'. The same would apply to refusing to claim benefits.

The court can find 'wilful refusal' if a person is refusing to pay what has been legally required - paying token payments or a small amount can still be deemed as 'wilful refusal' although if they can prove to the court that the amount they are paying is reasonable based on their circumstances then court will likely find 'wilful refusal' but order a payment arrangement

JohnDay_2

CIS wrote: »

It would be more 'culpable neglect' rather than 'wilful refusal'.


I doubt it, there was a similar case a few years ago regarding a person who could have worked and earned but didn't . The decision of 'culpable neglect' was overturned on appeal as the judge decided that the refusing to earn money was not 'culpable neglect'. The same would apply to refusing to claim benefits.

The court can find 'wilful refusal' if a person is refusing to pay what has been legally required - paying token payments or a small amount can still be deemed as 'wilful refusal' although if they can prove to the court that the amount they are paying is reasonable based on their circumstances then court will likely find 'wilful refusal' but order a payment arrangement

Thank you for this. What I also advised my friend to do was to pay more than the max direct deduction from retirement pension which is somewhere around £3.50 . They are paying a few pounds more than that. but if this gets to the stage of a final chance before committal summons, I might encourage them to up the offer a little to the max manageable. Trawling Google. I think that most cases that end up before the court for committal are ones of bad financial management (cuplable neglect) and people able to pay but not doing so or are able to pay more than they are actually paying (wilful refusal) . I will also advise them to offer to fill out a further means enquiry form at any stage should it be requested, Quite a few of the imprisonment cases concern those who are making a point, a protest in effect. I cannot imagine a regular payment commensurate with the persons actual means ending up with a wilful refusal decision.

I also learn with interest that those sent to prison can not have any further enforcement taken for the sum owed. So I think councils really use this as a last resort as it means they will never get that years tax. I'm sure they select one of two people a year out of their caseload to use as an example. If I were the council I'd rather have some repayment than none. Still no way is complacency a good idea. It still remains the case that unpaid council tax can and does end in the clanging of a cell door for some.

If anyone had any other views on the scenario described I'd be pleased to read your views.

CIS

retirement pension which is somewhere around £3.50

Deductions cannot be taken from state pension - they can be taken from pension credit.

So I think councils really use this as a last resort as it means they will never get that years tax

It is, those who tend to end up for committal usually owe several thousand spread over a few years.

JohnDay_2

CIS wrote: »

Deductions cannot be taken from state pension - they can be taken from pension credit.



It is, those who tend to end up for committal usually owe several thousand spread over a few years.

Thank you,

It is actually Pension Credit they receive. The LA say they will not persue the deduction route as it would mean the debt would take too long to settle. My opinion is that even if a persons debt was going to take (for example) ten years to pay, it bankrupcy, levying distress etc is not an option for the LA they are not able to do much about it. If the person is paying what they can afford, thats it The court would probably not be able or willing to commit them.

.