Yeah, yeah: chips with everything! Or is it every thing? The alternative options; of keeping several ferrets or a troupe of baboons; are becoming mor:wink: appealing every year.

We have nonagenarian parents with relatively small income but a larger house. Dad was an RAF Sergeant; serving as compass setter for a flight Polish Squadron, during the latter half of the War. But he''s recently gone into hospital, with bowel and other medical problems; and is now quite unlikely to return home. Mum was a young teenager when she helped London children, being evacuated away from the Blitz; and later taught at Junior Schools until she retired at 65. She recently endured months of daily cleaning up after Dad; and an old, incontinent dog. She now has to rely on others for transport for hospital visits; as there is no suitable public transport from their village. This latest TORY TAX on the elderly is a DISGRACE; and will have quite the OPPOSITE effect to the PROMISED preservation of assets, when someone needs to be taken into care. ALMOST TWO-THIRDS OF US VOTED FOR POLICIES OTHER THAN THE TORY SERVICE CUTS AND TAX HIKES; BUT WE MUST ALL SUFFER A HEARTLESS TORY DICTATORSHIP FOR FIVE YEARS. Then we'll be offered the chance to revert to the INCOMPETENT LABOURITE FOOLS! HOW IS THAT DEMOCRACY? GIVE US A BALANCED COALITION ANY DAY! But we'd need Proportional Representation to get rational governance: like the Swedes, Danish, Germans, or Dutch, etcetera. And we won't get that until the LibDems are strong enough to bring it for us: so I'll keep on voting LD, and hoping you all do too.

Congratulations to Paul Nicholson: exposing, and overturning unreasonable summons costs charged by Haringay council. I am reminded about the on-going multiple xxxxx: which occurs as Brum City collects similarly-unfounded charges from Council Tax late-payers. Information currently published on Birmingham City Council's website states clearly that late payments of council tax will firstly elicit a reminder letter; then a (red-print) FINAL reminder; then, if the due tax remains unpaid, a court summons. As the Council HAS NO INTENTION of following this specified procedure; I must conclude that this is patently xxxxx! In practice, the red final reminder is skipped: which Brum council justifies by referring to an high court ruling a few years ago. Apparently some other council won a case on the basis that a late/non-payer should reasonably have known he had to pay council tax; and therefore this other council did not have to ensure that two reminders were delivered. BUT, does this actually excuse any council from SENDING two reminders? I read the ruling as absolving a particular council from ENSURING DELIVERY. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ During a spell of rearrangement of our household bill-paying last year; our direct debit payment for Brum council tax went unpaid one month, due to there being insufficient funds in one particular bank account. By the time I got the ONLY reminder; there was again plenty in the account; so I guessed the council tax would be duly paid, when the direct debit was re-presented. But, apparently they did not re-present the DD; nor did they send a final reminder, as specifically stated on the Council's website; but they did issue a summons instead: at £80 cost to me! I went to the city-centre Magistrates' Court specified on the summons; and paid under protest. I wrote to the Council, pointing out that their own procedure, as published online, stipulated a second "final" reminder would be sent out. The Council did refund the £80 summons charge; but despite my reminders on this matter, the website information remains unchanged! It appears that the Council's office, which is actually located WITHIN the Magistrates' Court, is geared to unscrupulously extract summons charges: presumably £80 from each one of thousands of unwarned tax-payers each year! This is extortion by xxxxx: deliberately telling folk they will get TWO reminders; but always with the INTENTION to prematurely issue a summons, with its associated additional charge of £80, after only ONE reminder! ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I have no relevant experience; but perhaps a F-of-I (Freedom of Information) request from BCC (B'hamCityCouncil) might find answers to questions like: (i) how many council tax summons' were issued by Birmingham City Council during the tax year 2014-2015; (ii) how much money was raised by this summons issuing process; and (iii) how many refunds of the £80 did they have to make, after complaints about the issue of the summons. I would further question the validity of all of these summons: as they are sent out "en masse" by Brum Council employee(s), but "rubber-stamped" with a facsimile of a Magistrate's signature. By allowing the use of his/her name on the council's extortionate fraud; the magistrate may inadvertently be jointly liable. And finally, I suggest there is a further conflict of interest here: If the council uses a magistrate's signature on its claim for money; how can any magistrates then claim to act with legally-required impartiality, in any argument betwixt council and its citizen(s)?

Bully-boy bankers are nothing new. I remember being visited circa 1984 by two burly bank employees: trying to reclaim some money their bank had paid us, when they hadn't checked our account balance. This was just a day or two after a letter from the bank had arrived: asking for the same repayment. The letter may well have elicited a refund from us; being reasonable folk; but the bully boy approach made us dig our heels in: and we closed the account without repaying a penny! ---------------------------------------- This year, I have been outraged by Birmingham Council's Council Tax "late-payments" collection system. For some banking reason, one monthly direct debit Council Tax payment failed to go through: so Brum Council issued (they say) a reminder letter, then a Court summons followed with added court charges. Here's the thing related to the current FCA question: Birmingham Council staff issued the summons, on Magistrates' Court paper with a printed facsimile of the Magistrates' Clerk. They have an office within the court; but do NOT refer to the court staff at all, before issuing these summonses! How lawful can be summonses issued thus? We did not receive that first "reminder" letter; and anyway would've expected a "final demand" letter: as specifically described in the late payments procedure on the Council's website! I am now told they no longer have to send a final demand; due to some High Court (or similar) ruling that only sending one reminder was necessary. If arrears are not cleared, a summons for the WHOLE YEAR's TAX will be issued after 28 days! We do not condone the non-payment, or late payment of Council Tax; but its collection must be done fairly: (i) The Council MUST update its website to reflect current practice: and not include a promise of a "final demand" which apparently they haven't sent out for many months, if not years! To deliberately leave it showing "final demands" is FRAUDULENT. (ii) For the fastest reminders about late payments; should the Council not issue both text and email reminders? These would be much cheaper, quicker and less likely to go undelivered. Paper reminders waste resources: so to allow residents options of texts and emails would be an ecologically sound move, too. I can report that I argued about the extra summons charges, pointing out the website anomaly; and the Council did remove them, and we set up a new direct debit. We are concerned that hundreds of other Brummies are continually being fleeced by their Council: which is still pretending, according to the website, to send TWO reminders before any court summons.