Council Tax Bill For Old Property & Enforcement Notice

[Tigerlilly]

Hi again and thanks for the reply, the email doesn't actually say what the £153.15 is for just that it's been adjusted.

I've just read through the letters I have kept and I received a court summons on the 3rd December 2013 saying I owed £162.03 then they added costs on which brought the total up to £237.03. I rang the council in January 2014 and arranged for a payment card to be sent out and received a letter 24th January 2014 saying this:

Re:Council Tax Arrears £359.00

I refer to your recent enquiry regarding the above account. A payment card has been requested for you to clear the arrears at £6.80 per fortnight, commencing 7/2/14.

The letter I received from the bailiff was for £237.03 (before their £75 charge) which was the original amount of the court summons? I have also paid the council over £100 as and when I could. Just seems a bit odd that the bailiffs were wanting the original sum of £237.03....what's happened to the £359.00 the council quoted in January and the money I have already paid off? Hmmmmm, it's all very confusing.

Any suggestions what to do now?

[Pote Snitkin]

Hi again and thanks for the reply, the email doesn't actually say what the £153.15 is for just that it's been adjusted.

I've just read through the letters I have kept and I received a court summons on the 3rd December 2013 saying I owed £162.03 then they added costs on which brought the total up to £237.03. I rang the council in January 2014 and arranged for a payment card to be sent out and received a letter 24th January 2014 saying this:

Re:Council Tax Arrears £359.00

I refer to your recent enquiry regarding the above account. A payment card has been requested for you to clear the arrears at £6.80 per fortnight, commencing 7/2/14.

The letter I received from the bailiff was for £237.03 (before their £75 charge) which was the original amount of the court summons? I have also paid the council over £100 as and when I could. Just seems a bit odd that the bailiffs were wanting the original sum of £237.03....what's happened to the £359.00 the council quoted in January and the money I have already paid off? Hmmmmm, it's all very confusing.

Any suggestions what to do now?

Debt - 162.03, plus council costs of 75.00 = 237.03. That seems clear. Why they've then added another £122 to make it £359 is beyond me.

Can you remember what your monthly council tax was at the time or what band you were in? Were you the only adult in the house? Something is still not sitting right here.

[Tigerlilly]

The council tax was band A and I had my son living with me but he was at College at the time and not working. Weird isn't it, how did it jump from £237.03 in December to £359.00 in a matter of weeks? And why have Rossendales quoted the original amount of the court summons? I think I need to contact the council again and ask for a full breakdown?

[Pote Snitkin]

Yep I think you do. With the debt being £237, and taking into account that they've removed the charge up to 31st March, then taken 50% off for April/May, plus with you already having paid £100, how can they still say you owe £153? It don't add up. Tell them you want a full breakdown.

[Tigerlilly]

Cheers Tote, I have just drafted up this email, I'd be glad if you could take a quick look and see if anything needs amending before I send it:

Thank you for your reply but I am somewhat confused by the amended amount still owed. Could you supply me with a complete financial breakdown of how this sum has occurred, including the amount that has been paid off.

I have the court summons here dated 3rd December 2013, total amount due (with £75 court costs): £237.03. I then received a letter dated 25th January 2014 and the cost had jumped up to £359.00. Could you explain why another £122.00 had been added?

The letter I received from Rossendales was for the original amount of £237.03 but I had been paying small amounts off the account once I had received the payment card. Could you tell me why I was showing as still owing the original amount of £237.03 even after making payments?

[Pote Snitkin]

Was the payment card to make payments via Rossendales?

If so I would ask whether the council has received any of this money.

[Tigerlilly]

Not that I know of Pote, the card was to pay the council direct. The first dealing I had with the bailiffs was earlier this month when I received the letter stating I owed the £237.03.

[Pote Snitkin]

Ok, that's fine. I can't see any reason to change anything in that email then. Let's see what they come up with.

[Tigerlilly]

I've sent the email. I'm curious now as to why another £122 had been added on from December 2013 to January 2014 for a property that had been repossessed back in May 2013, then the bailiffs quoting the original £237.03 this March.

[Tigerlilly]

Grrrr, just received this automated reply back:

OUT OF OFFICE : I am currently out of the office with no access to e-mails. If you require assistance before my return please e-mail my colleague in Revenues

There's another email address for the revenues, should I forward it on to this instead?

[Pote Snitkin]

There's another email address for the revenues, should I forward it on to this instead?

Yep.

[Tigerlilly]

Thanks Tote, there was 2 email addresses so I've forwarded it on to both. In the meantime I've found another letter dated 30th January 2014:

I confirm on 26th January 2014 you agreed to pay the following amounts in order to prevent the issue of a liability order to the bailiff.

52 fortnightly instalments due of £6.80 from 7th February 2014 and a final instalment of £5.40 on 5th February 2015. Failure to keep to the agreed arrangement will result in the liability order being issued to the bailiff.

So it looks as though the payments made have gone to the council but now I'm really curious why another £122 odd was added on top of the original £237.03 between December 2013 and January 2014 to make the total round sum of £359.00

Will keep you posted when I receive any sort of response. Thanks again.

[Mark1960]

Tiger. If you're going to question this, I would definitely recommend you try to use the LGFA to get the whole bill reduced, as I said yesterday. You can always ask about breakdowns later but if they agree to reduce it then it wouldn't matter anyway.

I'm convinced that they should not have charged someone who is on benefits for an empty property. I would hope that the LGO would be sympathetic should you involve her.

[Tigerlilly]

Thanks Mark, I'm starting to feel really angry about being charged all this money whilst on benefits and for a property that was repossessed. Sorry for my ignorance but could you tell me what a LGFA is and should I email the letter posted up to the council? Also, the person that has been dealing with my complaint is away so should I email it to the revenue department?

[Pote Snitkin]

The LGFA is the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 13A allows for a local authority discrestion to reduce council tax liabilities in special circumstances. The section states:

13A Billing authority’s power to reduce amount of tax payable

(1) Where a person is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day, the billing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated may reduce the amount which he is liable to pay as respects the dwelling and the day to such extent as it thinks fit.

(2) The power under subsection (1) above includes power to reduce an amount to nil.

(3) The power under subsection (1) may be exercised in relation to particular cases or by determining a class of case in which liability is to be reduced to an extent provided by the determination.

The Act is here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/section/13A

[Tigerlilly]

Thanks Pote. I've emailed the letter Mark so kindly supplied yesterday to the CEO, it's worth a try! I'll keep you updated on any replies...thanks again everyone x

[Tigerlilly]

Morning, I've received an email today which reads as follows:

Further to your e-mails of 19 March to myself and xxxx, I attach a breakdown of your account as requested and can advise the following in response to the points you have raised in your emails.

With regard to the letter of 25th January 2014, you were advised that a balance of £359.00 was payable at that time. Unfortunately there was an error made in this letter and the amount should have read £273.03. I apologise for this error. This correct balance was the amount due when your case was referred to Rossendales. I acknowledge that you did make some payments but these were made directly to the Council and were not reflected in the Rossendales correspondence at that time.

I note your comments relating to the Local Government Finance Act (1982). However I have an alternative suggestion that will effectively clear your account. In view of your financial circumstances and also the fact that, as stated above, an error did occur in correspondence sent to you in January 2014, I feel it is appropriate to withdraw the 2 sets of Court costs charged to your account totalling a sum of £150. This will leave a balance due of £3.15 which I do not propose to pursue.

I would point out that the attachment to benefit request has already been issued to the Department for Works and Pensions and the process of recalling that request is underway.

I trust that this letter satisfactorily addresses the points you have raised in your correspondence but if you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

Am I right in thinking they have dropped the charge for £153.15? What happens with the attachment of benefit request if it's already been issued?

Thanks again everyone xx

[Amy]

Am I right in thinking they have dropped the charge for £153.15? What happens with the attachment of benefit request if it's already been issued?

Yes. The paragraph below from their letter talks about the court costs and the second talks about the attachment of benefit being recalled.

Or did you mean something else?

In view of your financial circumstances and also the fact that, as stated above, an error did occur in correspondence sent to you in January 2014, I feel it is appropriate to withdraw the 2 sets of Court costs charged to your account totalling a sum of £150. This will leave a balance due of £3.15 which I do not propose to pursue.

I would point out that the attachment to benefit request has already been issued to the Department for Works and Pensions and the process of recalling that request is underway.

[Tigerlilly]

Oh duh!! Sorry, I was that excited about seeing the paragraph with charges being dropped I misread the bit about it being recalled and thought they meant the attachment of benefits was still going through...'blonde moment'.

All I can say is this....WHOOOOHOOOOO!!!!!

Thank you so, so much all you lovely people, without finding this forum and the fantastic help I've received I would have now been paying in excess of £600 split nicely between the council and the bailiffs.

Am I allowed to post my story up on the success forum? xxxxxx

[Amy]

LOL I have them all the time too.

Would you like me to move your thread for you?

[Tigerlilly]

Yes please, thanks Amy. I still can't believe it! Thank you all once again xxxx

[Amy]

Just to check, are you satisfied that they do not owe you anything?

[Tigerlilly]

They probably do Amy but I don't think I could handle any more stress, I'm just so relieved to have them off my back. There was a breakdown of charges for the previous years that I can't make head nor tail of:

2012/2013

Balance brought forward 284.37
Annual charge 1003.62
Less benefit 709.63
Less single occupier discount 293.99
Less payments 162.40
Balance carried forward 121.97


2013/2014

Balance brought forward 121.97
Apportioned charge 1Apr to 21 Aug 2013 388.19
Plus CTS adjustment 88.68
Plus costs 75.00
Less single occupier discount 28.80
Less exemption class "L" 271.46
Less payments 34.60
Balance carried forward 338.98


2014/2015

Balance brought forward 338.98
Less exemption class "C" 17 Feb to 31 Mar 2013 118.23
Less payments 67.60
Balance carried forward 153.15

Don't know if anyone else can understand the charges but I'm more than happy to let sleeping dogs lie...x

[Amy]

I understand completely. You should be very proud of yourself for sticking with it.

xx

[Mark1960]

This is excellent news and exactly the correct outcome IMO.

It is very rare for councils to waiver monies owed, especially the court costs. That said, your situation is very unique Tiger. Technically, you did owe the tax but I believe there was a failure within the system, whereby you were forced to pay tax for two addresses, despite being on benefits. The council have recognised this and applied a "human touch" to your case. I agree that the matter should now be closed and that any money you have paid previously towards this debt should be written off-Of greater importance is that you will not have to pay out in the future.

Councils rarely get positive comments but in this instance, the council have acted superbly, every time you contacted them. Credit where credit is due. I would be inclined to just drop a short line back thanking them for the prompt attention shown throughout this matter and for their help in resolving it. Advise that you are more than happy to agree to the suggestion.

At a time when we have some semi-literate baboon constantly chipping away at this forum, it is extra pleasing to read of this good news. Well done Tiger. What council was it BTW?

[Tigerlilly]

I totally agree Mark, I am over the moon with the result and would like to thank you personally for all your help, you've been fantastic. I shall email the council back and thank them, I was in total shock this morning after reading the email, I never thought for a minute I would win my case. If I hadn't been directed to this site I would have now been paying the bailiffs and the council!

Thank you all once again for a brilliant outcome, take care xxx

[Schedule 12]

Another Mark1960 success story. Well done.

[Pote Snitkin]

Another Mark1960 success story. Well done.

Both Tigerlily and Mark should feel very proud and satisfied. I think we all feel that satisfaction - today is turning out to be a good day for the struggling debtors.




Mark should however feel ashamed for supporting Aston Villa.

[Mark1960]

More success on here today than AV have had for a long time Pote-Can't change your football team though can you?

What is worrying about this case is that in post #1, Tiger told how she went to CAB for advice and that CAB told her to pay it. Something sound familiar there? Council tax debt is at record levels-The biggest debt problem in the country yet nobody seems to want to advise debtors on what their options are, other than "pay it" or "pay it at the earliest opportunity in order to avoid an enforcement fee"