Is imprisonment for council tax default unlawful?

[mikeymack2002]

Why are there so many links to law stating you can go to prison and yet very few for stating it is unlawful as you state

[mikeymack2002]

Finally a link to a Solicitor that states you can go to jail https://www.bainesandernst.co.uk/help-and-advice/your-rights/prison-unpaid-debts/

[mikeymack2002]

Even though I have been asking for information I also give it as well. So here is a link that may be of interest to the readers of this thread and it can be found here from 2002

 

 

http://www.lgcplus.com/mp-seeks-to-end-imprisonment-for-council-tax-debtors/1294499.article

 

 

So those of you that want to add the newer version of this link above it would help the thread a lot if you can link to it please

 

 

If for any reason you can not read the full story here is the cashed link as well

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k7fAQu0RhdQJ:www.lgcplus.com/mp-seeks-to-end-imprisonment-for-council-tax-debtors/1294499.article+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

[Peterbard]

MM

 

I have never stated that people cannot be committed for willful refusal to repay, only that they cannot be imprisoned for debt.

 

The tests before commitment ensure that this is the case, that is why they are there.

 

If you look back on here to my post where i show Ronas response you will see that she quotes my assessment of this and agrees that this is what should happen. If it happened this way then the commitment would be a legal option but again the commitment would be for willful refusal and not debt.

 

In reality in many cases the magistrates court do not follow procedure and issue commitment orders because the person has a debt only, this is illegal as per the 1869 act.

 

I really do not know what else I can say to you, this has been gone over time and time again. I know Dick is going on with himself elsewhere but his points are either misinterpreted legislation or just plain wrong, and I am not going to waste my time correcting them on here, if they want me to correct him over there they will have to let me join, this is not likely to happen because at the end of the day they know I am usually correct and this is very bad for their business intersts.

[mikeymack2002]

DB all is fair in love and war see post #128

 

 

Added link here as well

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020702/debtext/20702-06.htm

[Peterbard]

Yes debtors can be imprisoned but not for the debt, again.

 

This is form the response I mentioned earlier

 

She continues by quoting my letter to her .

 

You write: "I think the point is that the court must be assured that the debtor is able to pay, but has made a decision not to. The purpose of he investigation into the debtors financial affairs is after all to ensure that funds either exist or have existed which should have been allotted to paying the tax, and if the debtor made the decision not to do so."

 

That is indeed the law, that is what is supposed to happen. But it doesn't. The attitude, I believe, of some magistrates (important to understand that this is not universal, it only applies to some) is a basic punitive mindset "If X didn't pay council tax they are 'guilty'

[Peterbard]

DB all is fair in love and war see post #128

 

 

Added link here as well

 

 

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmhansrd/vo020702/debtext/20702-06.htm

 

\intereting and confirms what I have been saying, regarding the overturning of commitment if procedures are not properly followed to ensure the imprionment is not for debt, in other wrods a means test must prove the debotr was able to pay.

[mikeymack2002]

We already know you cannot go to jail for normal civil debt that is a fact. You can go to jail for non payment of CT, the thread stated is jailing for council tax unlawful!

 

 

The answer to THAT question has not been answered or linked to properly. I think that is the point of this thread is it not, a simple explanation as to why it is unlawful would be the right answer would it not? Can that be posted up?

 

 

To put it in a nutshell the question that needs answering clearly with links is why is it unlawful!

[Peterbard]

It has been answered so many times MM

 

The last time from me anyway, yes it is lawful to imprison someone for not paying their CT, but because the way the law works they cannot be imprisoned for the debt, this would be illegal, the imprisonment is for wilful refusal to repay.

 

I think this has been gone over enough times now, this thread needs to be closed IMHO, I am sure BA would agree.

[mikeymack2002]

IT has not been answered at all you claim that it is unlawful all I have asked you to do is provide your sources, you refuse, god knows why, I constantly provide links as I did about the Rona link.

 

 

Yes it would be best to have this closed but not for the benefit of you or BA this is an open board and should not be controlled by those that are boxed in to a corner..

 

 

Shame this was a good thread to a point but when push comes to shove the amount of threads closed this week is hitting high levels already...... Lets add this one to make another point of pram rattle throw

 

 

Last post on this thread for me.....

[Peterbard]

MM

 

No one is throwing a rattle out, I am just sick of making the same points to you over and over again , yet you still do not seem to understand, i want to help you here but for some reason there are elements of this argument which will not sink in with you.

 

Also I mention BA because it is her thread.

[outlawla]

....this thread needs to be closed IMHO, I am sure BA would agree.

 

I don't think you have sufficient influence to manipulate the moderators to close down threads. I should ask Bailiff Advice to intervene if that's what you want.

[Peterbard]

I don't think you have sufficient influence to manipulate the moderators to close down threads. I should ask Bailiff Advice to intervene if that's what you want.

 

I ventured an opinion, that is what IMHO was intended to mean as said i mentioned BA because she started this thread and out of courtesy i would have thought she should be included in the decision.

 

This is not the" state the blindingly obvious forum" all of a sudden by any chance

 

However if some are happy to keep going around and around without learning anything be my guest.

[ploddertom]

I don't think you have sufficient influence to manipulate the moderators to close down threads. I should ask Bailiff Advice to intervene if that's what you want.

 

If the insinuation is that Bailiff Advice gets preferential treatment and can influence decisions made to close or open threads then you are very wrong. I note there appears to be some conflict between the pair of you at present and you should sort this out off site rateher than trying to make cheap shots.

[Peterbard]

If the insinuation is that Bailiff Advice gets preferential treatment and can influence decisions made to close or open threads then you are very wrong. I note there appears to be some conflict between the pair of you at present and you should sort this out off site rateher than trying to make cheap shots.

 

I certainly was implying no such thing, it was just a suggestion, the thread is going nowhere IMO.

 

Perhaps of outlawgo would like to inject something new into the conversation ?

[Coughdrop]

Bizarre that this has been ongoing since 1992. Here's an article from '95 about it. It seems a pretty good article actually!

 

As for the rest here I'm kind of yawning at the repetition. :yawn::yawn::sleep::sleep:

 

Please wake me up when there's something new!

[Bailiff Advice]

If the insinuation is that Bailiff Advice gets preferential treatment and can influence decisions made to close or open threads then you are very wrong. I note there appears to be some conflict between the pair of you at present and you should sort this out off site rateher than trying to make cheap shots.

 

If I had preferential treatment (which I don't) then I would not have wanted the following thread (that has had nearly 3,000 viewings) closed. The subject (Tom Crawford eviction) is of huge importance and even more so given the extraordinary events that have occurred since the eviction on 2nd July.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448461-Tom-Crawford-eviction-by-bailiffs-Freeman-on-the-Land-(FMoTL)-nonsense-has-no-place-in-the-courts.(1-Viewing)-nbsp

[Bailiff Advice]

I have just read that a debtor who was being assisted by Freeman on the Land supporters was jailed a few months back for 56 days for failing to pay £1,300 council tax debt.

 

I am surprised to read as well on various 'beat the bailiff' facebook pages of three other similar cases. I genuinely thought that very few people are subject to committal proceedings.

 

 

PS: It would seem that there is a hearing on 11th September with yet another FMoTL activist. He has advised the Magistrates that he has witheld paying council tax since 2012 as he believes that paying will be committing an offence under Article 3, Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

[Peterbard]

I have just read that a debtor who was being assisted by Freeman on the Land supporters was jailed a few months back for 56 days for failing to pay £1,300 council tax debt.

 

I am surprised to read as well on various 'beat the bailiff' facebook pages of three other similar cases. I genuinely thought that very few people are subject to committal proceedings.

 

 

PS: It would seem that there is a hearing on 11th September with yet another FMoTL activist. He has advised the Magistrates that he has witheld paying council tax since 2012 as he believes that paying will be committing an offence under Article 3, Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

 

Yes being assited by the FMOTL is a bit like having a neon sign on your head saying,"I am a wont pay".

[caledfwlch]

 

PS: It would seem that there is a hearing on 11th September with yet another FMoTL activist. He has advised the Magistrates that he has witheld paying council tax since 2012 as he believes that paying will be committing an offence under Article 3, Section 15 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

 

Holy Cow I would love to be in the court room to watch this unfold!!!