Council Tax - Court Summons

RobertoMoir

NoNoDrama wrote: »

Can someone with actual knowledge of the situation tell me how on earth they come up with £75 costs for a summons?

Council Tax regulations allow for the costs "reasonably incurred" by the local authority of both issuing the summons and the costs of obtaining the LO to be charged to the debtor.

You can't decide whether or not you have to pay these costs. They're not "fraudulent" (though they are arguably 'over the top').

As for how they're due, each of us is effectively billed for council tax in full on the first day of a new council tax year/period. Therefore, the moment you lose the 'right' to pay in instalments you are essentially "behind" on the entire unpaid balance.

NoNoDrama

I know and accept about the full amount being payable (only 1 month left anyway) what I dispute is the charges. A bit of research show £75 is a set fee for a summons with my local council, they don't have or need to justify it...well I suppose they would need to after a long legal campaign.

I will try and get the fee waived when I call the numpties tomorrow. Those poor souls who genuinely can't afford to pay their council tax and get these summons I feel sorry for.

These charges are fraud pure and simple.

00ec25

NoNoDrama wrote: »

These charges are fraud pure and simple.

sorry but your intransigence is really annoying. Those charges pay for the likes of CIS whose job it is to have to extract unpaid council tax from the likes of you. CIS expects to be paid a salary for that job and why should I as an on time CT payer have to foot the cost of employing CIS if that cost can be recovered via "summons" charges . Pity it's not more than £75, might make you regret not putting a 50p stamp on a DD mandate letter.

BobQ

NoNoDrama wrote: »

It's the charge I dispute. How do they come up with the figure? It's a fraudulent figure they have come up with. Is it a set figure per council regardless of the amount owed?

You state that you have the money but chose not to pay. There are many people who cannot afford to pay but who receive the same letter and perhaps deserve more sympathy.


You may have an argument that £75 is excessive but its probably based on the time and effort needed to prepare a legally enforceable summons.


I would not be wasting time on this forum discussing it. I would pay the fee and minimise the damage. The next stage will involve court costs and bailiff fees not to mention the damage to your credit status.


If you have the money send them a letter apologising for the delay and settle the full bill.

NoNoDrama

00ec25 wrote: »

sorry but your obtuseness is really annoying. Those charges pay for the likes of CIS whose job it is to have to extract unpaid council tax from the likes of you. CIS expects to be paid a salary for that job and why should I as an on time CT payer have to foot the cost of employing CIS if that cost can be recovered via "summons" charges . Pity it's not more than £75, might make you regret not putting a 50p stamp on a DD mandate letter.

It costs them £3 for the summons. The 5 or so chasing letters and summons letter, man power + postage/paper must be all of £3 maximum as well. So in reality it costs them about £6.

CIS is a brainwashed public sector servant, and knows nothing about the reality of the costings.

It's amazing how many people don't mind being bent over by their own government.

Esoog

NoNoDrama wrote: »

It costs them £3 for the summons. The 5 or so chasing letters and summons letter: man power + postage/paper must be all of £3 maximum as well. So in reality it costs them about £6.

CIS is a brainwashed public sector servant, and knows nothing about the reality of the costings.

It's amazing how many people don't mind being bent over by their own government.

They charge that because they can, much like Apple overcharge for their junk alas.

NoNoDrama

Apple and sausages examples do not really apply here, as they are optional purchases. This is an enforced charge.

If I paid the o/s council tax before the summons date, the hearing would still go ahead for the summons charge only and be upheld incurring further fee's. Hardly fair is it?

There are a quite a few example of people getting their summons fee written off though so this just proves it's a pie in the sky fradulent figure, and not one based on actual costings. Anyone who believes the figures are true is just wrong.

BobQ

NoNoDrama wrote: »

It costs them £3 for the summons. The 5 or so chasing letters and summons letter, man power + postage/paper must be all of £3 maximum as well. So in reality it costs them about £6.

CIS is a brainwashed public sector servant, and knows nothing about the reality of the costings.

It's amazing how many people don't mind being bent over by their own government.

Your costs are frankly naïve. It costs a lot more than this to employ people (more than just their salary) to generate letters.

00ec25

NoNoDrama wrote: »

There are a quite a few example of people getting their summons fee written off though so this just proves it's a pie in the sky fradulent figure, and not one based on actual costings. Anyone who believes the figures are true is just wrong.

No one disputes that the charge does not represent actual costs of recovery, everyone accepts that the charge is simply a sum of money they can get away with charging. That is no more fraudulent than the price of apples or sausages. Take time out and think on it.
Council services cost money, charges in excess of actual costs are levelled wherever possible to enable cross subsidisation of services or would you rather that council tax represented the TRUE ACTUAL cost of providing council services remembering of course that the council tax represents less than 25% of the total income of a council and the majority of income is still through central government grant as taxpayers in the south subside those in the north. Perhaps you ought to rant about the "unfairness" of society in making you pay so other people can live.

John_Pierpoint

Just like the 24 hour a day parking charges that have been introduced round here!
Councils are scrabbling for every penny their monopoly position allows then to charge. That is why the "massive" cut in state spending has simply not happened.

My local rag was twice as thick this week with a colour supplement explaining what a magnificent job the local council was doing; the centre fold of the supplement was a map showing the huge savings made by sharing/outsourcing expenditure.

Leaving aside the probability that like PFI, there will be an element of borrowing from our children, I was left wondering why these seemingly "obvious" measures had not been taken 30 years ago.