Direct Debit - unauthorised payment taken

Johnnytwostep

Some people will use any way to not pay what they owe. Common occurrance on here, you fit in nicely.

Keep looking over your shoulder, they will come for you.

System

CIS wrote: »

No muddle - - you can't prevent someone from making payment towards a debt (well, excepting rules on legal tender) but the creditor is not obliged to enter a formal payment arrangement.

Common law isn't written down - it's evolved over time as case law and is accepted as being the correct way of doing things.

There's no minimum limit for issuing an attachment of earnings/benefit or instructing an enforcement agent nor is there for issuing a summons for committal. If you think action can't or won't progress for a few hundred pounds then you're mistaken.

There are no late payment charges for council tax - the only charges from the council are for issuing the summons/obtaining the liability order.

Today post #17 you stated ''Under common law the council cannot refuse to accept payments against a debt but in council tax legislation there is no requirement to enter in to any formal payment arrangement''

I asked where within common law there is a requirement for the council to accept an offer to pay debt, you've replied ''Common law isn't written down - it's evolved over time as case law and is accepted as being the correct way of doing things.'' - ''Common Law isn't written down'' ......................... ''it's evolved over time as case law''.... in this case can you present me with case law supporting the assertion you made originally that the ''Under common law the council cannot refuse to accept payments against a debt''

''There's no minimum limit for issuing an attachment of earnings/benefit or instructing an enforcement agent nor is there for issuing a summons for committal. If you think action can't or won't progress for a few hundred pounds then you're mistaken.'' - can you show me where it's stated, which clause of which act that there is no minimum limit for issuing an attachment of earnings/benefit or instructing an anforcement agent not is there for issuing a summons for committal.

wealdroam

Gold_Anaconda wrote: »

[/B]I asked where within common law there is a requirement for the council to accept an offer to pay debt, you've replied ''Common law isn't written down - it's evolved over time as case law and is accepted as being the correct way of doing things.'' - ''Common Law isn't written down'' ......................... ''it's evolved over time as case law''.... in this case can you present me with case law supporting the assertion you made originally that the ''Under common law the council cannot refuse to accept payments against a debt''

It has been pointed out to you that the council will probably accept any payments to reduce your debt.

Why on earth do you need something more definitive than that?

Just start sending them money as and when you see fit.

Gold_Anaconda wrote: »

''There's no minimum limit for issuing an attachment of earnings/benefit or instructing an enforcement agent nor is there for issuing a summons for committal. If you think action can't or won't progress for a few hundred pounds then you're mistaken.'' - can you show me where it's stated, which clause of which act that there is no minimum limit for issuing an attachment of earnings/benefit or instructing an anforcement agent not is there for issuing a summons for committal.

If there is no minimum limit, then there will be nothing stating that there is a minimum limit.

It would be impossible for legislation to specify everything that does not apply. E.g. you cannot pay your council tax bill using grains of rice, but I am pretty sure that is not stated in the legislation either.

CIS

It's not often I give up but...

System

wealdroam wrote: »

It has been pointed out to you that the council will probably accept any payments to reduce your debt.

Why on earth do you need something more definitive than that?

Just start sending them money as and when you see fit.



If there is no minimum limit, then there will be nothing stating that there is a minimum limit.

It would be impossible for legislation to specify everything that does not apply. E.g. you cannot pay your council tax bill using grains of rice, but I am pretty sure that is not stated in the legislation either.

''It has been pointed out to you that the council will probably accept any payments to reduce your debt.

Why on earth do you need something more definitive than that?

Just start sending them money as and when you see fit.''

I will.

System

CIS wrote: »

It's not often I give up but...

It's fine if you want to feel that way. Listen, I realise you were trying to be helpful but really what you posted wasn't. You mention common law in relation to a question I asked about the council accepting payment, you then mention that the council are not duty bound to accept any payment arrangement according to their legislation. I ask for specifics, you say common law isn't written down, I ask for case law then supporting the question I orginally asked about whether the council are duty bound to accept council tax, you back out of the thread. - ''Under common law the council cannot refuse to accept payments against a debt''

cajef

CIS wrote: »

It's not often I give up but...

No point in feeding them, just let them take the consequences of their own actions.

timbstoke

Bear in mind that the council wheels turn in a slow but clearly defined way. If you pay a private business £20 a month towards a couple of hundred pound debt, they'll probably send you lots of letters, but ultimately, there's a good chance they'll decide that, as long as they're getting paid, there's no point in taking you to court.

A council won't do that. If they've told you they want £50 a month and you haven't given them a good argument as to why that isn't affordable to you, including evidence of your income and outgoings to support your case, they won't care that you're paying £20 or even £49 a month. They'll simply move to the next stage in the process.

That's not to say you should pay more if you can't afford to do so, but simply saying "tough, that's all I can afford" won't cut it with them. Assuming they're even still open to instalments, the next stage will be to say "It's no longer £50/month, we now want the full £300 in 7 days", and then the next stage will be to go to court.

Court puts aside any arguments of how much you can afford, and simply tells you how much you must pay. Depending on how reasonable you've been up to that point, that can be a blessing or a curse. If you've buried your head in the sand and don't bother showing up at court to argue your case, the court will likely award an attachment of earnings order to garnish your wages directly at whatever level the council ask for.

If, on the other hand, you've told them repeatedly that you can't afford their repayments, provided details of your income/outgoings to back up your claims, and consistently made payments of the amount you *can* afford, and then show up in court with a load of evidence of the councils unreasonableness, you're more likely to simply be told to keep doing what you're doing, and the council will be told to lump it.

agrinnall

Gold_Anaconda wrote: »

I ask for case law then supporting the question I orginally asked about whether the council are duty bound to accept council tax, you back out of the thread.

You do know that none of us are paid to post on here don't you? If you want someone to dig up case law for you I suggest you consult a solicitor rather than expecting CIS to do your dirty work for you. Perhaps you could continue to fail to pay then when you're spending some time in a cell you'll have an opportunity to do your own legal research.

DaftyDuck

I suspect CIS has returned to his paying "day job"....

"I work in Council Tax Recovery...."

I just wonder if you'll communicate again in a few days, just not on the Forum!