Council demand for backdated tax payment

lincroft1710

uptdale said:

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.

There is no misunderstanding


OP did not receive a new CT bill which would have detailed new monthly DD payment and should have realised by looking at his bank statement, the DD hadn't increased, which it should have done by 33.33%. We do not why the OP's e-mail to the council was not acted upon by them immediately and there is no point in speculating about it. 


To many councils it would seem that the OP knew he was still receiving the 25% SPD to which he was not entitled and on realising the council hadn't acted on his e-mail had failed to point this out to them. Thus to a council.it could be seen as CT fraud. 

BarelySentientAI

uptdale said:

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.  

No, you've misread the comment and your entire explanation of DD vs SO is unnecessary.

Lincroft said that the OP's DD hadn't increased by 33.33%.  A simple factual statement.  That was all.

The OP was capable of noticing that their DD hadn't been increased by the council, either by virtue of no new bill & DD schedule being issued or by noting that any of the subsequent monthly payments were for the old (incorrect and insufficient) amount.

Whilst they couldn't directly correct the amount, choosing to stay silent and get the benefit of a discount to which they were no longer allowed would be seen by many, including the council, as fraud.  Whether this would eventually be seen as fraud by a court, I am unsure.

The OP has said that they just didn't check or notice, which I personally believe, but to the council it would look like "I'll just stay quiet and hope I get to keep the extra money" and not noticing is not a legitimate defence.

sheramber

The DD is set up for a certain amount. 

You must be notified in advance before the amount can be changed, so the OP would have been advised of any increase. 

Obviously no such notification was sent or received.