My council tax summons..

[CrappoMan]

Have you received a "council tax liability order notification" or a "council tax liability order".If it's the former, does the letter state where/how it can be obtained ?If it's the latter, you already have the order.

[Consumer dude]

Have you received a "council tax liability order notification" or a "council tax liability order".If it's the former, does the letter state where/how it can be obtained ?If it's the latter, you already have the order.

 

It is a notification and does not tell me how to get the order and from whom..

[CrappoMan]

You know the notification is correct, as you were there.

 

You won't succeed in disputing the costs, because they are laid down in legislation. You would need a heavyweight team of barristers and a judicial review, even then I think you would be wasting your money.

 

As ims21 posted earlier, you are on a hiding (figuratively not literally) to nothing.

[Consumer dude]

Should I not be receiving the order from the court ?

[Consumer dude]

Looks like I will have to pay the money from money I do not have. Hey ho..

[Consumer dude]

I will apply to have it set aside..

[Consumer dude]

Should costs be front loaded anyway ?

[Conniff]

You can't get a liability order set aside.

 

The council say you should be paying council tax and you had a chance to attend court to show you didn't if that were the case. There is absolutely nothing the court can do, they can take no circumstances etc into account, just you are or you're not liable. It would be up to you to show you are not liable.

 

You can ring the council and get the arrears spread over time.

[outlawla]

....You won't succeed in disputing the costs, because they are laid down in legislation....

 

You are probably right in there being no prospects of succeeding in disputing the costs. However, legislation provides only for reasonable costs incurred in connection with obtaining the Liability Order.

 

The law makes further provision that if, after a summons has been issued but before the application is heard, the debt is paid or tendered to the council (including costs reasonably incurred in instituting the summons), it shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

 

Whether the Liability Order is obtained or the application is not proceeded with, the council is not permitted to add on what the hell it likes to subsidise Council Tax administration, or to set-up, manage and monitor payment arrangements, before or after issuing the summons and any expenditure after obtaining the Liability Order.

 

To further analyse this it would be handy to know the actual costs and whether they are composed in proportion with those for instituting the summons and an additional amount for when it's necessary to proceed with the application.

[Consumer dude]

On the day of the hearing I was handed a one A4 sheet of paper with the following on it under the heading Court costs-per case..

 

1/ Costs involved monitoring payments and identifying defaulters (per list checking)

 

2/ Cost involved processing court lust and summonses ( IT support- te

am time- computer center time)

 

3/ Cost involved making complaint to the court (staff attendance at court.

 

4/ Court fee (fee to court for each summons)

 

More to follow..

[Consumer dude]

5/ Cost of printing, enveloping and mailing summonses. (Transmitting print file print company producing summons plus postage)

 

6/ Costs involved between summons and the hearing date (Answering correspondence/ dealing with customer's enquiries)

 

7/ Cost involved attending court. (Staff attendance at court plus conducting hearing)

 

8/Cost involved processing liability orders (14 day letters) (IT support team time- computer centre time)

 

9/ Cost involved dealing with post liability order. ( Answering correspondence/ dealing with customer's enquiries)..

[Consumer dude]

The total amount of the costs were made up of the following. 1/ 10% 2/ 5% 3/ 5% 4/N/A

5/ 10% 6/ 25% 7/ 20% 8/ 5% 9/ 20%..

[Consumer dude]

Number 4 is something I will start with by asking the question, if a fee is paid to the court, then why does the council issue there own summonses..

[outlawla]

Number 4 is something I will start with by asking the question, if a fee is paid to the court, then why does the council issue there own summonses..

 

In someone's opinion it would appear that the £3 Magistrates' court fee payable per summons is to more than subsidise the courts overheads.

 

Many millions of £3s makes up a lot of money.

 

That person is also of the opinion that because not all the debtors who receive a summons have to pay the summons costs, the Taxpayer in general is footing the bill for much of this, i.e., unwittingly paying for the running of our courts.

[Consumer dude]

Any other observations of the costs welcome..

[Consumer dude]

In someone's opinion it would appear that the £3 Magistrates' court fee payable per summons is to more than subsidise the courts overheads.

 

Many millions of £3s makes up a lot of money.

 

That person is also of the opinion that because not all the debtors who receive a summons have to pay the summons costs, the Taxpayer in general is footing the bill for much of this, i.e., unwittingly paying for the running of our courts.

 

Read the article. It really is a load of [edited]..

 

Ok, balderdash. lol..

Edited August 10, 2014 by Consumer dude

[Consumer dude]

Its like paying into a system that's ripping us off. Are we mad ?

[Ford]

dude

 

for yr reference again re challenging an LO:

 

s82 Local Govt Act 03 which gives councils power to apply to mags to quash an LO. mags can then quash if 'satisfied that a liability order should not have been made'.

 

and re common law, http://www.greenhalghkerr.com/articl...bility-orders/ (but, double check this case law is still current)

 

as seen there, it wld ordinarily be difficult to set aside/quash.

 

then, there is also Judicial Review if you think that there has been some illegality, impropriety, etc.

[outlawla]

9/ Cost involved dealing with post liability order. ( Answering correspondence/ dealing with customer's enquiries)..

 

They've handed you this one on a plate. Nothing could be more black & white

 

The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, Regulation 34(7)(b)

 

(7) An order made pursuant to paragraph (6) shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—

(a) the sum payable, and

 

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant

in obtaining the order

.

 

It categorically makes no provision for any expenditure incurred post liability order.

[Consumer dude]

In that where number nine is not allowed, does it follow that the liability order can be quashed as that amount was included in the original claim/summons..

[outlawla]

In that where number nine is not allowed, does it follow that the liability order can be quashed as that amount was included in the original claim/summons..

 

Quashing of Liability Orders (Explanatory Notes).

 

....

190. New paragraph 12A(b) enables regulations to be made permitting the magistrates' courts to substitute a liability order for a lower amount where it considers that a liability order could properly have been made had it been made for that lower amount (which would include a sum for the costs incurred in obtaining the original order).

 

Schedule 4, 12A

 

 

The reference with regards the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 is Regulation 36A

[Consumer dude]

Number 7 which is 20% of the total amount of the cost is for council staff to attend court and why would it need so many of them to do so anyway ?

[outlawla]

Number 7 which is 20% of the total amount of the cost is for council staff to attend court and why would it need so many of them to do so anyway ?

 

It might not just be the number of council staff attending court. Another factor to consider might be the mode of transport?

[Conniff]

In someone's opinion it would appear that the £3 Magistrates' court fee payable per summons is to more than subsidise the courts overheads.

 

Many millions of £3s makes up a lot of money.

 

That person is also of the opinion that because not all the debtors who receive a summons have to pay the summons costs, the Taxpayer in general is footing the bill for much of this, i.e., unwittingly paying for the running of our courts.

 

 

I don't think there are complaints about the £3 but the other £hundreds of millions per year collected on top of the £3.

[outlawla]

I don't think there are complaints about the £3 but the other £hundreds of millions per year collected on top of the £3.

 

On an individual basis the element of costs which is the Magistrates' court fee is not an obvious cause for complaint, however, there is still a concern with the volume of applications made by local authorities that can only mean councils are paying (via the taxpayer) to subsidise the overheads of running the court service. This is especially the case where costs are not collected when waived for example. The responsibility for this substantial transfer of funds from councils to the MoJ is entirely with the local authorities because the Council Tax Regulations DO NOT oblige the council to apply to the Magistrates' court for the issue of a summons, the law only provides that they "MAY" make complaint.

 

In cases where Magistrates' courts and local authorities apply the Magistrates' court fees Order Regulations correctly, the sums paid to the court would exceed (in many cases) the £3 sum per application for a Liability Order.

 

I would estimate the majority of Magistrates' courts are unaware (and local authorities too, or pretend to be) that the Magistrates' court fee (£3) is payable for each householder who is jointly and severally liable for the debt.

 

In those cases where the Local Authority pays as per the relevant Regulations (apparently there are ones that do), it means that if, for example, there are four adults within a household who are liable for the debt, the council are obliged to pay £12 to the Magistrates' court in fees for instituting the issue of a single summons. In such cases, this money will be retained by the Ministry of Justice, whether or not the Local authority successfully obtain the Liability Order, or if the authority choose to waive the costs.