Council demand for backdated tax payment

CuriousWeasel

I took a quick search and couldn't see a similar topic, but apologies if this has been answered before.

I was claiming single person discount for the council tax for my flat until last year. I attempted to inform the council when my circumstances changed, both via their clunky online form and when that failed I sent an email.

I heard nothing back and forgot about it. I pay by direct debit and never check the bill. I finally received a response from the council around a year later, apologising for the delay, and asking for the exact date my circumstances change so that they could apply a backdated charge for the missed payments, as the discount had continued to be applied despite my communication.

I will get back to the council with a response but feel a bit aggrieved that this is a fault on their part. Should I be expected to pay in full? I plan to ask for some allowance due to their oversight but:

    1. has anyone knowledge of a similar situation and how it was handled
    2. any advice for how I should proceed.

Thanks in advance

elsien

To be fair, it’s a fault on both your parts. The council for the delay and you for not checking.
Depending on the amounts, you could look at a payment plan?

MattMattMattUK

CuriousWeasel said:

I took a quick search and couldn't see a similar topic, but apologies if this has been answered before.

I was claiming single person discount for the council tax for my flat until last year. I attempted to inform the council when my circumstances changed, both via their clunky online form and when that failed I sent an email.

I heard nothing back and forgot about it. I pay by direct debit and never check the bill. I finally received a response from the council around a year later, apologising for the delay, and asking for the exact date my circumstances change so that they could apply a backdated charge for the missed payments, as the discount had continued to be applied despite my communication.

I will get back to the council with a response but feel a bit aggrieved that this is a fault on their part. Should I be expected to pay in full? I plan to ask for some allowance due to their oversight but:

    1. has anyone knowledge of a similar situation and how it was handled
    2. any advice for how I should proceed.

Thanks in advance

Yes you should be expected to pay in full. The advice would be to pay in full, either as as a lump sum or by agreeing a payment plan, anything less will involve them taking recovery action via the courts.

lincroft1710

Forget asking for any "allowance". As you continued paying what you knew was too low an amount (councils will not accept/believe "I pay by DD and never check the bill"), you could be accused of committing CT fraud. If a CT payer knows they are paying too little, they are expected to continue to inform the council of this.

CuriousWeasel

Thanks for the responses.

I'm not sure if I'm as clear on what my alternative options were, or to what greater efforts would be considered reasonable to inform them. If I have been clear at on my situation, but continue to be charged incorrectly because my communication was ignored, then that doesn't seem fair grounds to suggest "fraud". 

Still I take your point that I owe what I owe. My main reason for posting was that I'd seen other posts referring to similar situations, where councils that have shown more apparent leniency on what I saw as a weaker position.

Thanks again for sharing your views.

BarelySentientAI

CuriousWeasel said:

I'm not sure if I'm as clear on what my alternative options were, or to what greater efforts would be considered reasonable to inform them. 

More than one email?

Hoenir

Given the fact you were aware the money was owed. Why didn't you put it aside. 

uptdale

lincroft1710 said:

Forget asking for any "allowance". As you continued paying what you knew was too low an amount (councils will not accept/believe "I pay by DD and never check the bill"), you could be accused of committing CT fraud. If a CT payer knows they are paying too little, they are expected to continue to inform the council of this.

The OP had given the council authority to collect the amount legally due (not a specific amount, that's the difference between a DD and SO), and had notified the council of all the facts it needed to collect the amount legally due.  I can't see any basis on which the OP could be accused of fraud.  It was the council's error.  If the council had collected too much CT by DD because it had overlooked info given by the CT payer, would you accuse the council of committing fraud on the CT payer?  Fraud requires intent, not a mere error.

saajan_12

If the council had done the right thing and actioned the removal of your discount promptly, then what would have happened.. you'd have paid the higher amount. So being asked to pay the difference just puts you back in the same position. Its hard to argue you didn't know and innocently spent the money as you emailed in the first place, and its a simple % discount which you could have easily seen. 

I don't think its fraud, but equally you don't have any compo for being in exactly the same position as if they had done the right thing. 

lincroft1710

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

Forget asking for any "allowance". As you continued paying what you knew was too low an amount (councils will not accept/believe "I pay by DD and never check the bill"), you could be accused of committing CT fraud. If a CT payer knows they are paying too little, they are expected to continue to inform the council of this.

The OP had given the council authority to collect the amount legally due (not a specific amount, that's the difference between a DD and SO), and had notified the council of all the facts it needed to collect the amount legally due.  I can't see any basis on which the OP could be accused of fraud.  It was the council's error.  If the council had collected too much CT by DD because it had overlooked info given by the CT payer, would you accuse the council of committing fraud on the CT payer?  Fraud requires intent, not a mere error.

The OP could be accused of committing CT fraud because his DD hadn't increased by 33.33% (effective percentage increase to achieve full amount) and claims of "I never check my bill (nor bank account apparently)" would be given little credence. When it was clear his e-mail was ignored/overlooked, he should have sent another or contacted the council by other means.


CT fraud occurs when a CT payer knowingly gives false information or does not inform the council of a change of circumstances affecting their payment, A council making an error in collecting too much CT is not committing CT fraud.


Fortunately for the OP, the council concerned accepted responsibility for not acting sooner. Some councils may not have been so accommodating.

uptdale

lincroft1710 said:

uptdale said:

lincroft1710 said:

Forget asking for any "allowance". As you continued paying what you knew was too low an amount (councils will not accept/believe "I pay by DD and never check the bill"), you could be accused of committing CT fraud. If a CT payer knows they are paying too little, they are expected to continue to inform the council of this.

The OP had given the council authority to collect the amount legally due (not a specific amount, that's the difference between a DD and SO), and had notified the council of all the facts it needed to collect the amount legally due.  I can't see any basis on which the OP could be accused of fraud.  It was the council's error.  If the council had collected too much CT by DD because it had overlooked info given by the CT payer, would you accuse the council of committing fraud on the CT payer?  Fraud requires intent, not a mere error.

The OP could be accused of committing CT fraud because his DD hadn't increased by 33.33% (effective percentage increase to achieve full amount) and claims of "I never check my bill (nor bank account apparently)" would be given little credence. When it was clear his e-mail was ignored/overlooked, he should have sent another or contacted the council by other means.


CT fraud occurs when a CT payer knowingly gives false information or does not inform the council of a change of circumstances affecting their payment, A council making an error in collecting too much CT is not committing CT fraud.


Fortunately for the OP, the council concerned accepted responsibility for not acting sooner. Some councils may not have been so accommodating.

I think this is misunderstanding how a DD works.  A DD is authorised by the payer, and that had been done.  But the amount of a DD is determined by the recipient, i.e. the council in this case.  Once the DD is authorised, the council has to initiate collection of the DD, not the CT payer.  The payer cannot change the amount of a DD, only the council can do that.  So if his DD had not increased, that is solely the council's responsibility.

A standing order is different.  The payer can change the amount of an SO, and the council cannot.  But the OP was clear that he was paying by DD - which is normal for paying CT in instalments.