Council Tax - Court Summons

lincroft1710

Councils only take people to court for non payment, so if you pay any court hearing would be cancelled.

macman

Amethyst31 wrote: »

Well, I am going to ring the council first thing before work and pay the full total including costs.

I am really scared of them being nasty. Should I ask them for confirmation of no further action?

Can they still take me to court if they choose?

On what basis, if the debt has been paid? However the summons costs have still been incurred, so you'll need to settle including the full costs.

macman

Amethyst31 wrote: »

I wonder if anyone can help and not judge. I know there are no excuses, it is my own fault. I have received a Summons today for the 28th February. I am in a right muddle and my partner has just lost his job.

The council tax due is £247.50 and summons cost is £100.00.

Now my questions is; at a push I can pay this on Monday 17th when I get paid. Would I pay the total amount and the costs? Would this stop the court action and how would I have confirmation that no further action will be taken, and that they still wouldn't go to court anyway?

I am confused about what a liability order entails, presumably - bailiffs?

Sorry for all the questions, my head is in a spin and the letter doesn't explain very well.

Kind Regards.

A liability order gives your LA several options to enforce payment, primarily being: attachment of earnings, attachment of benefits, or sending in bailiffs to seize your goods. It will also add about £40 to your costs.
Charging orders against your home, bankruptcy proceedings, and imprisonment are also possible measures, although obviously much less common.

The_Grinch_3

This is an interesting case - that I have found very little cases in after doing a search on google. I own the freehold of a building. The properties within the building were sold off on 999 year leaseholds. One flat owner went bankrupt in March. The official receiver disclaimed the lease on the flat, due to the mortgage company having the interest and in negative equity. The mortgage company repossessed the property from the owner in August 13.


The council has now issued a summons to us for outstanding CT between the date the property was disclaimed by the OR and the mortgage company repossessing in August. It is small amount by all accounts. However, in my view and that of the land registry - I am not the owner of the flat. The council inform I have a beneficial interest being the freeholder of the block. The reality is, I have no right to enter, to lease, to sell, to rent or any other right as the property was sold and the owner is as per the land registry documents - NOT ME!


Anyone else ever come across this. The reality is if the council win this case in court there are huge implications for any builder or owner of a block - that sells the flats and the owner doesn't pay. I have searched high and low for other cases and have found non.

hallowitch

The_Grinch wrote: »

This is an interesting case - that I have found very little cases in after doing a search on google. I own the freehold of a building. The properties within the building were sold off on 999 year leaseholds. One flat owner went bankrupt in March. The official receiver disclaimed the lease on the flat, due to the mortgage company having the interest and in negative equity. The mortgage company repossessed the property from the owner in August 13.


The council has now issued a summons to us for outstanding CT between the date the property was disclaimed by the OR and the mortgage company repossessing in August. It is small amount by all accounts. However, in my view and that of the land registry - I am not the owner of the flat. The council inform I have a beneficial interest being the freeholder of the block. The reality is, I have no right to enter, to lease, to sell, to rent or any other right as the property was sold and the owner is as per the land registry documents - NOT ME!


Anyone else ever come across this. The reality is if the council win this case in court there are huge implications for any builder or owner of a block - that sells the flats and the owner doesn't pay. I have searched high and low for other cases and have found non.

wow


have they told you what legislation they are relying on that makes you liable

antrobus

The_Grinch wrote: »

.....Anyone else ever come across this. The reality is if the council win this case in court there are huge implications for any builder or owner of a block - that sells the flats and the owner doesn't pay. I have searched high and low for other cases and have found non.

Isn't this covered by s6 LGFA 1992? The "owner of the dwelling" sits right at the bottom of the hierarchy of liability; s6(5) defines an 'owner' as someone who has a "material interest in the whole or any part of the dwelling" which "is not subject to a material interest inferior to his interest", s6(6) defines 'material interest' as "a freehold interest or a leasehold interest which was granted for a term of six months or more".

Therefore you are not the owner because someone else (the mortgage company) has possession of a material interest that is inferior to your freehold interest, in the form of a 999 year lease.

Mind you I am not a lawyer, so what do I know?

CIS

The repossession of a property or the taking control of it by a LPA receiver or official receiver does not alter the legal owner of the property - there is a new regulations in legislation to alter S6 of the LGFA 1992 to include 'mortgagees in possession' but this regulation has a specific clause that it only comes in to effect on a specific order from the relevant minister, this order has not yet been made.

Until the law is changed then the legal owner of the property remains responsible for any council tax due.

Are the council aware that there is a leasehold on the property ?.

The_Grinch_3

CIS: It is precisely your point the council inform we are responsible. The OR dismissed the lease (as having no interest) in the March - the Mortgage Co. did not repossess until the August. As the lease was dismissed - the council understands from this that the legal owner cannot be held liable due to bankruptcy - therefore it falls back to the block owner / freeholder. As the mortgage co had not repossessed the property until the august - the council inform it is our liability.


Yes the council are aware of it being a long leasehold - but they have no interest and discussing the finer points of property ownership - as far as they are concerned, they have a building freeholder and applied for a liability order based on this.


Antrobus: I have pulled off this bit of legislation - but the council are not interested in that either. But I agree with you - I don't see how I can be the "owner".


Funny thing - a property belonging to a bankrupt is exempt under section q of legislation. A repossessed property and in possession of the mortgage co is also exempt. A property between these two actions it appears is the responsibility of whoever sold the property to the bankrupt ! You have to laugh, but honestly I have spent significant time on this and never seen anything like it. Lord help us if the council win the day - the floodgates will open - but I think a magistrate will have the head to see through this one for what it is - fingers crossed.


Hallowitch - no legislation has been quoted, just that we are the freeholder with the beneficial interest - simply not the case

hallowitch

The_Grinch wrote: »

CIS: It is precisely your point the council inform we are responsible. The OR dismissed the lease (as having no interest) in the March - the Mortgage Co. did not repossess until the August. As the lease was dismissed - the council understands from this that the legal owner cannot be held liable due to bankruptcy - therefore it falls back to the block owner / freeholder. As the mortgage co had not repossessed the property until the august - the council inform it is our liability.


Yes the council are aware of it being a long leasehold - but they have no interest and discussing the finer points of property ownership - as far as they are concerned, they have a building freeholder and applied for a liability order based on this.


Antrobus: I have pulled off this bit of legislation - but the council are not interested in that either. But I agree with you - I don't see how I can be the "owner".


Funny thing - a property belonging to a bankrupt is exempt under section q of legislation. A repossessed property and in possession of the mortgage co is also exempt. A property between these two actions it appears is the responsibility of whoever sold the property to the bankrupt ! You have to laugh, but honestly I have spent significant time on this and never seen anything like it. Lord help us if the council win the day - the floodgates will open - but I think a magistrate will have the head to see through this one for what it is - fingers crossed.


Hallowitch - no legislation has been quoted, just that we are the freeholder with the beneficial interest - simply not the case

well fingers x for you I hope you win will you please come back and update this after you have been to court


can I ask if you made a formal complaint to the ceo of the council concerned to investigate this when you got the council tax demand


just out of curiosity do you know what company administrates council tax and enforcement for your council

The_Grinch_3

I go to court on the 10th March - technically - not owning the property is not a defence you can use believe it or not. But i'm hoping producing the registry documents will help to get the case set back until an appeal has been looked at. I cannot see the magistrate dismissing the council claim, because as far as they are concerned if the council say you are liable, then you are.




I did indeed write a formal complaint - however the outcome was, as the owner is bankrupt and the lease dimissed by the receiver, then as far a they are concerned the property "reverted" (albeit temporarily and without our knowledge and without anything legal) to us. I have no idea who admins the tax or enforces, I assumed it was the council themselves - in this particular case Denbighshire. Thanks for your replies and good lucks :-)