Council tax summons which include costs

Ed2000

yeah, sure

agrinnall

Ed2000 wrote: »

yeah, sure

Is that a quote from Lord Denning?

ChiefGrasscutter

RuthnJasper wrote: »

But Council Tax pays for schools, the Police, Fire Service, street-lighting, Highways, etc. The department I work for gets @ 42p per year from a Council Tax bill. Most salary costs are met using capital or sold services.

So let me see
No street lighting round here- in the country so yes so far as I care switch it ALL off.
Highways: live on an unadopted road so again get nothing from the council, would be nice to get a council tax rebate like we used to on the old rateable value system - fat chance. Actually I'd welcome the council ceasing to fill any potholes as it would make people drive slower and tell anyone to claims to go bgger themselves.
Police - don't get me started: there is in effect no police force.
Ambulance - last time a walker injured themselves in the village it took 40 minutes and even then we the residents had to organise a 4*4 to get them off the field which the ambulance would not go down. might as well not have bothered ringing them and just taken them to A&E ourselves.

Fire Brigade - tree down across road partially hitting a stationary car. Fire B turn up with no chainsaw. We locals offer to do it ourselves - on no sir you are not "qualified": OK you are, so you use my chainsaw - on no sir that is not an "approved" chainsaw - OK FKu I'm going home: sort it yourself.

Services. Never use them I'm not so stupid to have children, don't use the leisure facilities whatever they are and I don't care either and all my relatives are rather inconveniently all of them already dead - so not much call for services in my 'family' ie me.
(I do get my bins emptied!)

As for Voting - you lot are having a larf - what good does that do!
You just carry on voting and I'm sure you will continue to think you have "made a difference" or that 'your voice has been heard' ROTFL!
Why don't I stand - cos ex-councillors tell me its a waste of my time: you would never be able to buck/change the system of extorting money.

Planning
Now planning simply HATE me!
This is because I know the rules and they either do not or rather more likely would like to 'draw a blind eye' to the breaches and those things not in compliance with the local plan - and worst of all I have the time to pore over the applications to spot both the blatant lies and the bits curiously missing in the them.
Why on earth they do not simply tell the applicants that I am an registered !!!!!! and will spot everything so please do not try and put in a planning app that is anything other than 100% complaint escapes me.

Council tax - something like 30% is going to pay for sodding pensions rather than "services" - It's an outrage.
Then finally in this rant there is the fact about which I simply go apoplectic about. The point that I am only paying a bit less than the 4 person family with 2 earners pays next door.


Roll on a local income tax - now that would be fair.
In the meantime I'm sure you are all happy that I continue to pay......

Ed2000

the question is whether a court can issue a summons with a claim for costs included.


Para 33 of the regulations states:

33.— Liability orders: preliminary steps(
1) Subject to paragraph (3), before a billing authority applies for a liability order it shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice (“final notice”), [...] 1 which is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.

(2) A final notice may be served in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due.

(3) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall require the service of a final notice in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (3) of regulation 23 (including that paragraph as applied as mentioned in regulation 28A(2))

"Every amount" includes the claim for costs.

Under para 2 the notice may not be served until the costs are "due". The costs are not due until the court says they are.

I hope that is not too complex for you.


Summons costs?

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb433/gcgent/Summonsdocument3.jpg

booksurr

Ed2000 wrote: »

I hope that is not too complex for you.

given your internet prowess why not try to answer your repeat question again, your first attempt having been so successful

Ed2000

insults are the mark of weak trolls

CIS

Under para 2 the notice may not be served until the costs are "due". The costs are not due until the court says they are.

Para 2 of Regulation 33 is in respect of Final Notices, very few summonses are issued on the back of final notices anyway, most go after a first reminder. Para (3) of Regulation 33 and Regulation 23 cover this route - which neatly brings a person straight round to Regulation 34 as Regulation 33 passes by without any effect in that situation.

Regulation 33 references the amount which has become due under Regulation 23 (which in reg 23 explains what the 'amount' is) and then allows the 'costs' be added on top of this under Regulation 34.

Regulation 34 states:

(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a)the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

(b)a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,

the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

If the intention of the legislation was not to allow costs to be added to the summons then there would not be a mechanism already in legislation for settlement of them before the liability order hearing.

In my opinion, the legislation could have been drafted better and avoided the term 'costs' but it doesn't later how the legislation is intended to work.

In summary - the argument you use references of the back of final notices and so, even if the courts allowed for the sloppy wording preventing costs on that back of that, it causes very little of an issue.

agrinnall

Ed2000 wrote: »

insults are the mark of weak trolls

Yes they are, as you have proved by this post (ably supported by GingerBob, another one who is incapable of learning anything from other people).

antrobus

This thread has a distinct FMOTL whiff about it.

The cited case of Mohammed, R v London Borough of Southwark [2009] EWHC 311 is

(a) an argument about whether or not the liability for the plaintiff's Council Tax was a bankruptcy debt or not, and has nothing to with the costs of any summons.

(b) took place in 2009. So, even if it (hypothetically) had any impact on the 'legality' of costs, someone surely would have noticed in the eight years that have since passed.

Perhaps the OP has got themselves very confused and meant to cite Nicolson v London Borough of Haringey [2015] EWHC 1252 which did relate to the costs of the summons.

The plaintiff was a vicar, who objected to the award of £125 of costs by the magistrates court. Interestingly, the argument was about the amount of the costs; the good vicar was questioning whether or not they were 'reasonable' and belived that the magistrates should have considered that question, and that the council should have been obliged to supply evidence that they were reasonable. The vicar won, and the costs were thus held to be unlawful.

But there was no doubt that the council was entitled to recover costs.

Ed2000

i have given you a link to a summons which says summons costs £70
but no comment so here it is again-

http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb433/gcgent/Summonsdocument3.jpg


you know how much it costs to issue a summons? :T