Setting aside a liability order
Iain
My council has obtained a Liability Order against me. As far as I am aware,
I owe nothing. I received the letter today to let me know that the LO was
obtained on 7th Sept! I have phoned them at least as couple of times to ask
them what is happening (recorded) in response to their letters and they said
that they would get back to me to let me know what has is happening, but
they have not. I have also written to them, they phoned back once and said
that they would get back again to me, but again they did not.
I believe that I owe them nothing, but am not sure. I made a Subject Access
Request some months ago, but they have not given me any information. They
wrote to me in response saying that they would be letting me have the data
as as soon as possible, but I have not received it. I have also followed
this up.
What would be my best way forward - I want to have the LO set aside (if
that's the correct process), and also I shall need the data to find out what
they have been doing?
On the document received today, it says, 'Please do not ignore this notice'.
.... 'Warning. This notice is your final opportunity to pay in full, within
14 days, before the bailiffs are instructed to recover the outstounding
amount in respect of this Liability Order of £1005.01 by distress. If you
are unable to pay in full, please contact ....'
--
TIA
Iain
Roland Perry
2010, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> remarked:
>My council has obtained a Liability Order against me. As far as I am
>aware, I owe nothing. I received the letter today to let me know that
>the LO was obtained on 7th Sept!
And slightly over £1000. Have you really no idea why they might think
you owe them a sum as large as this?
Any disputes in the past about Council Tax discounts (eg you think you
are a student and they don't agree?)
Any properties that you moved out of about a year ago that they might
think you should still be paying for?
Any payments of that kind of amount which have left your bank account
but failed to hit the right CT account inside the Council (this one has
happened to me - eventually the cash was found sitting in a suspense
account marked "no idea why we have this money").
--
Roland Perry
Iain
There is no problem proving it. I need to know the best option or way
forward to the process of getting the LO cancelled / set aside, plus getting
the long overdue data from them. It is far easier when knowing what they
allege amd what they have done wrong.
--
Iain
Iain
After a fairly lengthy conversation (recorded) with my council this
afternoon, it is clear that they have made substantial errors and that
information they hold on me is inaccurate and/or incomplete, on which he
agreed. The Liability Order amount has been very significantly reduced, and
is continuing to come down. He was talking about adjusting the amount of
the LO. Surely that as a court document the council cannot start adjusting
amounts decided upon by a court?
Whilst a fair amount was achieved and we agreed on a future contact date, I
told him that I was going to send him a letter of intent giving them 7 days
to get the data to me, with my signed receipt, and a formal request to quash
the LO for the £1000+ and written confirmation that they will not be
pursuing it. I shall fax this over later tonight.
--
Iain
GB
>
> There is no problem proving it.
I thought you said that you do not have the necessary info to dispute the
bill, yet?
Anyway, I'm assuming that they sent you a bill, followed up by a notice that
they were going to seek a liability order, and you didn't attend the court
on the day prescribed? I suspect that they may not have sent you the notice
that they were applying to the court?
Either way, you have a reasonable cause for complaint, and dealing with it
through the Council's complaints procedure may be the best course.
Roland Perry
2010, Iain <sp...@smaps.net> remarked:
>Whilst a fair amount was achieved and we agreed on a future contact
>date, I told him that I was going to send him a letter of intent giving
>them 7 days to get the data to me, with my signed receipt, and a formal
>request to quash the LO for the £1000+ and written confirmation that
>they will not be pursuing it. I shall fax this over later tonight.
Are you still saying you owe them nothing? Was your alleged debt in any
of the categories I described.
--
Roland Perry
Iain
I believe that this is probably what it will come down to. No.
But having done more research on the internet, I believe that the anwer to
my question is that I cannot myself apply to have the LO set aside. It
seems that the council themselves will have to apply to have it quashed. If
they do not do that then it seems that my option is to go for a judicial
review.
However, I am still not sure whether that information is correct; hence my
original question. Likewise, I am not sure whether the council can start
changing the amounts specified in LOs. The amount due on the LO presumably
decreases as it is paid off. Presumably, while the LO is still in
existance, the council has the authority and backing of the courts to
collect the specified amount. That is why I want the LO quashed.
--
Iain
Iain
I believe that I have appropriate information, but with the data that the
council gives I shall be able to confirm and prove it. The information I
provided over the telephone on the whole was accepted.
I cannot remember a bill being sent, but when I received the summons I
telephoned them to try and get it sorted out and they said that they would
get back to me (all recorded). But they didn't. I sent them a letter and
still it did not get resolved because they again failed to get back to me.
To be quite honest with my attempts to get it resolved, I forgot about the
date of the court hearing otherwise I would definitely have attended. They
do not like it when they actually have to give an explanation of things to
the magistrates, or to a county court judge, which normally confirms how
inaccurate their records are.
Earlier in the year I appealed against a decision. Over something
indirectly connected, I also made a complaint. I found it very worrying
that the staff treated my appeal as a complaint and became thoroughly
confused over the two items. Also, when I asked for details of the
regulations that they were applying to a decision, they treated it as a
formal Freedom of Information request. I thought this was also a little
odd. The Information Commissioner's Office said that whilst it was not
completely wrong, it was an unusual way of dealing with it.
With what has been happening quite recently, together with a similar
incident several years ago, I still do not have much confidence in their
abilities.
--
Iain
Clive George
> To be quite honest with my attempts to get it resolved,
> I forgot about the date of the court hearing otherwise I would
> definitely have attended.
Oops - yes, that was possibly a mistake.
> Earlier in the year I appealed against a decision. Over something
> indirectly connected, I also made a complaint. I found it very worrying
> that the staff treated my appeal as a complaint and became thoroughly
> confused over the two items. Also, when I asked for details of the
> regulations that they were applying to a decision, they treated it as a
> formal Freedom of Information request. I thought this was also a little
> odd. The Information Commissioner's Office said that whilst it was not
> completely wrong, it was an unusual way of dealing with it.
>
> With what has been happening quite recently, together with a similar
> incident several years ago, I still do not have much confidence in their
> abilities.
The problem I've got with this thread is it's all a bit abstract. I've
got a definite sense of only seeing a small part of the whole story. I
understand you may have good reasons for not telling us the rest, but it
does make it hard to see what should be happening and why it might not be.
Iain
My original question (as in the subject) was on the process of setting aside
a Liability Order - if indeed that is the correct procedure. And also
combining with that the need for compliance with my Subject Access Request.
The actual reason behind me needing to do this does not seem relevant nor
has anyone shown that it is relevant.
What I was looking for was ... This is how to get a Liability Order set
aside ... or ... use form XXX ... or ... you need to consult a solicitor ...
or ... you can only do it by judicial review ... or ... they are able to
adjust the amount on the LO ... or ... you have to get them to quash the
order themselves.
In a fairly lengthy conversation with them late yesterday, it was clear that
there had been errors and omissions with clear admissions of there having
been mistakes and no follow ups when there should have been. And I do not
think that there will be much difficulty in proving maladministration.
Last time when an LO was issued against me, it took several years to get the
costs back but the LO, as far as I was aware, was not reversed/quashed or
whatever. More recently, following more errors and inaccurate information
being given to the magistrates in the court itself, I was apologised to
before I even left to courtromm because they realised the figures were
wrong. 28 days later, after having sorted out the small amount I owed,
again in open court, the application was formally withdrawn.
The reason for this thread (as above) is not to have to explain myself but
to find out about the process of getting a Liability Order reversed /
removed. Simple - or so I thought!
--
Iain
GB
>
> The reason for this thread (as above) is not to have to explain
> myself but to find out about the process of getting a Liability Order
> reversed / removed. Simple - or so I thought!
My reply to one of your messages has not appeared. The simple answer is that
you need to lodge an appeal with the court. Do it soon to avoid being out of
time!
--
Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
Iain
> Iain wrote:
> >
> > The reason for this thread (as above) is not to have to explain
> > myself but to find out about the process of getting a Liability
> > Order reversed / removed. Simple - or so I thought!
>
> My reply to one of your messages has not appeared. The simple answer
> is that you need to lodge an appeal with the court. Do it soon to
> avoid being out of time!
Doing research on your basis of it being an appeal, I came up with the
Harrow page:
http://www.harrow.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/772/council_tax-grounds_for_appeal/3
This says that it is only appealable to the magistrates court up to 21 days.
As I was informed about it over a month after the hearing, that does not
seem to apply.
The next stage is through a judicial review, which is what I have seen
elsewhere. It all seems to imply that it is only appealable on points of
law. It seems that everything is covered except for gross imcompetence by
the council where they get the figures totally wrong. Or I wonder if the
council's breach of the DPA regarding my Subject Access Request is a
relevant point of law.
As no-one here seems to know I think I shall have to try something like a
CAB or consumer organisation.
--
Iain
Percy Picacity
news:8i91a6...@mid.individual.net:
> GB wrote:
>> Iain wrote:
>> >
>> > The reason for this thread (as above) is not to have to explain
>> > myself but to find out about the process of getting a Liability
>> > Order reversed / removed. Simple - or so I thought!
>>
>> My reply to one of your messages has not appeared. The simple
>> answer is that you need to lodge an appeal with the court. Do it
>> soon to avoid being out of time!
>
> Doing research on your basis of it being an appeal, I came up with
> the Harrow page:
> http://www.harrow.gov.uk/info/200028/council_tax/772/council_tax-
gr
> ounds_for_appeal/3 This says that it is only appealable to the
> magistrates court up to 21 days. As I was informed about it over a
> month after the hearing, that does not seem to apply.
>
> The next stage is through a judicial review, which is what I have
> seen elsewhere. It all seems to imply that it is only appealable
> on points of law. It seems that everything is covered except for
> gross imcompetence by the council where they get the figures
> totally wrong. Or I wonder if the council's breach of the DPA
> regarding my Subject Access Request is a relevant point of law.
>
> As no-one here seems to know I think I shall have to try something
> like a CAB or consumer organisation.
You could try to set aside the original judgement on some grounds.
Accidentally threw away the original notification unread?
--
Percy Picacity
Iain
Records will show that I contacted my council to try and sort things out, as
soon as I received the original notification. It is through their
incompetence and incorrect record-keeping and their failures to react and
respond that it did not get sorted out. The information used to obtain the
Liabilty Order was grossly inaccurate.
--
Iain
Iain
> Hi,
[snip]
I contacted the Local Government Ombudsman's office and they suggested that
I complain directly to the Chief Executive of my council. That's what I
have now done, and put the ball back into their court to sort out.
(However, I am still none the wiser as to how or even whether I can get a
Liability Order cancelled!)
--
Iain
Percy Picacity
news:8ib403...@mid.individual.net:
I still think the most obvious way to do so is to get the original
judgement reversed.
--
Percy Picacity
Iain
That is what I have been aiming to do, but no-one seems to know how.
According to the Harrow website I am out of time anyway (21 days is quoted).
I was told by my council over a month after the event. After that it seems
to have to be a judicial review. They will just have to pull their finger
out and do it themselves. The LGO also suggested the Valuation Tribunal,
but I contacted them and they told me that this was not in their remit.
I have two other Liability Orders against me from a long time ago - both of
which are probably still on record; but I was refunded the costs of those
because because they shouldn't have been brought against me either anyway.
Another attempt was described in an earlier post. Their record-keeping and
Data Protection record is not good. I had a previous successful complaint
against them over a decade ago (with the then Data Protection Registrar),
having had an order obtained against them also in the County Court.
Not good then, and not good now!!
--
Iain
S.P.
As nobody else has answered the question thus far, I'll proffer the
following:
Go to the court concerned ASAP. Aim to arrive as soon as they open, (so you
won't be hanging around all day). Ask to see the clerk. Inform them that
you with to make a Statutory Declaration as per the Magistrates' Courts Act
1980, section 1; CPR, rule 37.11.
(Your declaration will be to the effect that, having been informed of the
proceedings, you contacted the Local Authority (LA) and were informed of
inaccuracies in the paperwork and that they were not proceeding with the
Liability Order (LO). However, they then proceeded with their application,
based on information they knew, or ought to have known, to be inaccurate.
Additionally, you were denied the opportunity to defend their application.)
The LA are then back to square one and will need to re-instigate procedings
to obtain a new LO.
By then, I hope you've agreed the outstanding amount with them and have paid
it, so there will be no need for them to apply for a new LO.
If you have any questions, please post back to the group. I'm in the
unfortunate / fortunate position of having obtained a judgment for costs
against my LA in similar circumstances and may therefore be able to assist
further.
I trust this helps?
With Kindest Regards
S.P.
Ben Harris
S.P. <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Iain wrote:
>> What would be my best way forward - I want to have the LO set aside
>> (if that's the correct process), and also I shall need the data to
>> find out what they have been doing?
>
>following:
>
>Go to the court concerned ASAP. Aim to arrive as soon as they open, (so you
>won't be hanging around all day). Ask to see the clerk. Inform them that
>you with to make a Statutory Declaration as per the Magistrates' Courts Act
>1980, section 1; CPR, rule 37.11.
Since I found these references a bit opaque, here's a bit of explanation
for others: rule 37.11 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (not the civil
ones we're more used to) says that if a party is absent:
(e) the hearing must be treated as if it had not taken place at all if -
(i) the case started with a summons or requisition,
(ii) the defendant makes a statutory declaration of not having found
out about the case until after the hearing began, and
(iii) the defendant serves that declaration on the court officer not
more than 21 days after the date of finding out about the case,
unless the court extends that time limit.
So it's essential to act quickly in this case.
--
Ben Harris
Iain
Brilliant! Thanks very much both of you for that information. I have
listened to the recording following my receipt of the notification of the
summons. I was told that the summons would be put on hold and that someone
would call me back about it. My phone call was on 14-08-10 (my phone bill
confirms the call). The summons took place on 07-09-10. No-one had called
me back - nor had any message been left. (My phone is connected to my
computer which not only records messages but also logs all incoming calls,
whether answered or not.)
I wrote to them on 30-09-10, two items of which was asking them about the
"recent threats of council tax summons that you said you would be getting
back to me about" and the other was about the Subject Access Request. At
that stage I had no idea that the Liability Order had been granted on
07-09-10, until I received their formal notification on 18-10-10, when I
posted on here.
HMCS states that the court and counter both open at 9am. I shall be there
tomorrow morning. Fortunately the court is just around the corner from me!
Thank you both again for your information and help. Very useful - I shall
take printouts of your posts with me to make sure I get it right! ... and
probably prepare a rough statement before I go so I get all the facts
correct.
--
Iain
Iain
As I mentioned elsewhere - very many thanks for this info.
Checking the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, should this not be S.14,
'Proceedings invalid where accused did not know about them'. (You put S.1.)
I had prepared a lengthy statement, but have found a form online that I
shall complete in readiness for tomorrow morning. Thank goodness that I
recorded all of the telephone conversations - I have been able to go through
them to confirm all of the details. A later telephone conversation confirms
that the summons would have been on hold for a month, but it was in fact
issued within before month was up (14th Aug it was put on hold - the LO was
issued on 7th Sept - but they should have got back to me anyway).
The form I found mentions S.14:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/criminal/procrules_fin/contents/formssection/pdf/statutory-declaration.pdf
I shall prepare this declaration anyway and take it with me.
--
Iain
Iain
I have just got back from the Magistrates Court. I was turned away. I was
speaking to the supervisor and she told me that all applications to set
aside an LO had to be made through the council. I asked for that in
writing. She gave it to me, but later asked for it back. She kept on
saying that she had to contact the council. I kept on saying that I wanted
to make the Statutory Declaration (SD) and that that is not the council's
business. I said that I had a fuller statement with me and that I was
prepared to go in front of the magistrate. She went away initially to speak
to a legal advisor.
She said that if it gets listed the council need to be advised anyway. I
kept on saying that the council should have nothing to do with me wanting to
make a SD. At one stage she even said that she worked for the Court Service
and not for the council. Strange - I didn't prompt that, although her
insistence on wanting to contact the council could have given that
impression. She said that she had to follow procedures. At one stage she
even said that she had to contact the council to see if they would authorise
it! I immediately repeated that the council should have nothing to do with
the legal process of me wanting to make an SD.
So I left without having had the SD signed, but they have that copy. It had
my shorter statement on the back. She also kept a copy of my fuller
statement. She said she will again speak to the legal advisor. I left my
phone number with her and with her saying that she didn't know if there is a
legal advisor free this morning.
Very unsatisfactory, for me, but maybe that _is_ the law.
--
Iain
Fredxx
This sort of thing is very rare, and most councils will not press the matter
any further and play ball. I once phoned the day before a hearing stating
that if I attend, I will be asking for loss of earnings and travelling
costs, possibly an overnight stay on top. They said they would stop the
process in as many words. So I guess 99% of the time the court never get to
hear this sort of request to set the order aside. Don't expect her legal
adviser to know any more either!!
In the interest of mitigating costs, I would however contact the council and
inform the Chief Exec what you're doing. Also threaten the Local Ombudman
if he still exists.
Janitor of Lunacy
The person you spoke to was wrong to decline your application- that's for
the Court to decide. Unless it's changed radically since the 1970s, when I
practised as a Justices' Clerk's Assistant, SDs are made ex parte and do not
require notice to the "other side". You should write to the Clerk to the
Justices seeking clarification, and preferably before your SD application
gets "lost in the filing system".
S.P.
It brings me no pleasure to say it, but the "supervisor" to whom you were
speaking was wrong, as was the "legal advisor" with whom she spoke.
At the foot of this reply, and to remove all possible doubt, I have included
a copy of The Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 Section 14, (BTW, you were right
elsewhere in the thread, my original reference contained a typo) and Section
37.11 of the Criminal Procedure Rules.
I would suggest that you print out a copy of both of those and take it back
to the Court with you ASAP and ask, again, to make a Stat Dec.
A problem you have, and it is a serious one, is that you only have 21 days
from becoming aware of the hearing to make your Stat Dec. That clock is now
ticking and misleading information from Clerks and their legal advisors
won't help you when you're out of time. :-(
On your next visit to the Court, (armed with the print outs suggested
above), if the "clerk", their "supervisor", and / or their "legal advisor",
prevents you from making your Stat Dec, respectfully point them to
37.11(3)(e)(ii) and (iii).
There are no ifs, buts or maybes. You were not aware of the procedings.
The correct, (and possibly only!), recourse is to make a Stat Dec and then
serve that on the relevant court officer.
If the person to whom you speak refuses to allow you to do so, I suggest
asking to make a complaint to the most senior person present in the Court at
the time.
Do not allow yourself to be fobbed off and do not leave Court until you have
either:
(1) made your Stat Dec
(2) received written confirmation that the Court will not allow you to make
a Stat Dec.
(You can use item two to make item (1) when the 21 days has elapsed.)
As I've said above, the clock is now ticking and you have 21 days from the
date you became aware of the case to make your Stat Dec.
Do not delay whilst others try and figure out the correct procedure.
By the way, just so you know, I'm not making theoretical suggestions herein.
I have actually made a Stat Dec myself against a Local Authority who did
exactly the same to me but I had no such problems at my Court.
Please do let us know how you get on.
Regards
S.P.
14.
Proceedings invalid where accused did not know of them.
- (1) Where a summons has been issued under section 1 above and a
magistrates' court has begun to try the information to which the summons
relates, then, if-
(a)
the accused, at any time during or after the trial, makes a statutory
declaration that he did not know of the summons or the proceedings until a
date specified in the declaration, being a date after the court has begun to
try the information; and
(b)
within 21 days of that date the declaration is served on the [F1 designated
officer for the court],
without prejudice to the validity of the information, the summons and all
subsequent proceedings shall be void.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a statutory declaration shall
be deemed to be duly served on the [F2 designated officer] if it is
delivered to him, or left at his office, or is sent in a registered letter
or by the recorded delivery service addressed to him at his office.
(3) If on the application of the accused it appears to a magistrates' court
(which for this purpose may be composed of a single justice) that it was not
reasonable to expect the accused to serve such a statutory declaration as is
mentioned in subsection (1) above within the period allowed by that
subsection, the court may accept service of such a declaration by the
accused after that period has expired; and a statutory declaration accepted
under this subsection shall be deemed to have been served as required by
that subsection.
(4) Where any proceedings have become void by virtue of subsection (1)
above, the information shall not be tried again by any of the same justices.
Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)
F1 Words in s. 14(1) substituted (1.4.2005) by Courts Act 2003 (c.
39), ss. 109(1), 110, Sch. 8 para. 205(2) ; S.I. 2005/910, art. 3(y)
F2 Words in s. 14(2) substituted (1.4.2005) by Courts Act 2003 (c.
39), ss. 109(1), 110, Sch. 8 para. 205(3) ; S.I. 2005/910, art. 3(y)
Procedure where a party is absent
37.11
(1) This rule-
(a) applies where a party is absent; but
(b) does not apply where the defendant has served a notice of guilty plea
under rule 37.8 (written guilty plea: special rules).
(2) Where the prosecutor is absent, the court may-
(a) if it has received evidence, deal with the case as if the prosecutor
were present; and
(b) in any other case-
(i) enquire into the reasons for the
prosecutor's absence, and
(ii) if satisfied there is no good reason,
exercise its power to dismiss the allegation.
(3) Where the defendant is absent-
(a) the general rule is that the court will proceed as if the defendant-
(i) were present, and
(ii) had pleaded not guilty (unless a plea
already has been taken)
and the court must give reasons if it does not do so; but
(b) the general rule does not apply if the defendant is under 18;
(c) the general rule is subject to the court being satisfied that-
(i) any summons or requisition was served on
the defendant a reasonable time before the hearing, or
(ii) in a case in which the hearing has been
adjourned, the defendant had reasonable notice of where and when it would
resume;
(d) the general rule is subject also to rule 37.10(10)(a) (restrictions
on passing sentence in the defendant's absence); and
(e) the hearing must be treated as if it had not taken place at all if-
(i) the case started with a summons or
requisition,
(ii) the defendant makes a statutory declaration
of not having found out about the case until after the hearing began, and
(iii) the defendant serves that declaration on the
court officer not more than 21 days after the date of finding out about the
case, unless the court extends that time limit.
(4) Where the defendant is absent, the court-
(a) must exercise its power to issue a warrant for the defendant's
arrest, if it passes a custodial sentence; and
(b) may exercise its power to do so in any other case, if it does not
apply the general rule in paragraph (3)(a) of this rule about proceeding in
the defendant's absence.
[Note. See sections 11, 14, 15 and 16 of the Magistrates' Courts Act
1980([1]).
Under section 27 of the 1980 Act, where a magistrates' court dismisses an
allegation of an offence classified as one that can be tried either in a
magistrates' court or in the Crown Court (in other legislation, described as
triable either way), that dismissal has the same effect as an acquittal in
the Crown Court.
Under section 14(3) of the 1980 Act, a single justice of the peace may
extend the time limit for serving a declaration to which rule 37.11(3)(e)
applies.
Under section 11 of the 1980 Act, the court may pass a custodial sentence in
the defendant's absence if the case started with the defendant's arrest and
charge (and not with a summons or requisition). Section 11(3A) requires
that, in that event, the defendant must be brought before the court before
being taken to a prison or other institution to begin serving that sentence.
Under section 7(1) of the Bail Act 1976([2]), the court has power to issue a
warrant for the arrest of a defendant released on bail who has failed to
attend court when due to do so.
Under section 13 of the 1980 Act([3]), the court has power to issue a
warrant for the arrest of an absent defendant, instead of proceeding, where-
(1) the case started with-
(a) the defendant's arrest and charge, or
(b) a summons or requisition, if-
(i) the court is satisfied that that summons
or requisition was served on the defendant a reasonable time before the
hearing, or
(ii) the defendant was present when the hearing
was arranged; and
(2) the offence is punishable with imprisonment; or
(3) the defendant has been convicted and the court considers imposing a
disqualification.
The Practice Direction sets out a form of declaration for use in connection
with rule 37.11(3)(e)(ii).]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
([1]) 1980 c. 43; section 14 was amended by section 109 of, and paragraph
205 of Schedule 8 to, the Courts Act 2003 (c. 39).
([2]) 1976 c. 63.
([3]) 1980 c. 43; section 13 was amended by section 45 of, and paragraph 3
of Schedule 5 to, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33),
section 48 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (c. 25),
section 3 of the Magistrates' Courts (Procedure) Act 1998 (c. 15), sections
31 and 332 of, and Part 12 of Schedule 37 to, the Criminal Justice Act 2003
(c. 44) and sections 54 and 149 of, and Part 4 of Schedule 28 to, the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (c. 4).
Chris R
news:4cc57aa5$0$12171$fa0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
the OP was aware of the proceedings (ie had received the summons) but did
not attend based on assurances from the local authority. Is the stat dec
procedure available in those circumstances?
Chris R
Iain
> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:30:02 +0100, "Chris R"
> > <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > I may not have picked up all the information in the thread, but i
> > > thought the OP was aware of the proceedings (ie had received the
> > > summons) but did not attend based on assurances from the local
> > > authority.
> >
> >
> > > To be quite honest with my attempts to get it resolved, I forgot
> > > about the date of the court hearing otherwise I would definitely
> > > have attended.
>
> forgetting was intentional, or more specific it was purposely
> ignored, because I was told that it was being put on hold. And
> (again from another recording) a more recent conversation confirmed
> from their notes that it was put on hold.
> "What I'll do, again, is this - I'll put the summons on hold." That
> cannot be clearer. That was 3 weeks prior to the hearing. I also
> reminded them during another call a few days later to get back to me
> (also recorded). I would say that this is a more accurate account
> than my previous one above, which was from memory.
Also, making further enquiries, apparently, since 2004, a Liability Order
can only be cancelled by the council / authority. I'm not sure what
happened in 2004. This seems to support the information I was given at the
magistrates court. However, it seems that there is no means by which _I_
can force the cancellation of the LO (should it be appropriate) except by
going through the complaints procedure, and then the Local Government
Ombudsman. I'm going through that process anyway.
I have a copy of the completed statutory declaration on the computer ready
to print off, but at the moment it's on hold.
--
Iain
S.P.
> I may not have picked up all the information in the thread, but i
> thought the OP was aware of the proceedings (ie had received the
> summons) but did not attend based on assurances from the local
> authority. Is the stat dec procedure available in those circumstances?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: It depends on the exact circumstances.
In the instant case, my understanding is that the OP was aware the summons
had been issued, but, following a telephone conversation with the LA, (which
the OP recorded), was told it would be "put on hold and that someone would
call him back about it". [1]
In the absence of futher information from the LA, I contend that the OP was
at liberty to conclude that procedings against him would not take place on
the date notified on the summons.
The relevant legislation says, (in part), "the hearing must be treated as if
it had not taken place at all if the defendant makes a statutory declaration
of not having found out about the case until after the hearing began".
By saying the case would be put on hold and then proceding with it, I
believe the test of "not having found out about the case until after the
hearing began" is met.
Regards
S.P.
[1] In Message-ID: <8ibmoa...@mid.individual.net> the OP said:
<quote>
I have listened to the recording following my receipt of the notification of
the summons. I was told that the summons would be put on hold and that
someone would call me back about it. My phone call was on 14-08-10 (my
phone bill confirms the call). The summons took place on 07-09-10. No-one
had called me back - nor had any message been left. (My phone is connected
to my computer which not only records messages but also logs all incoming
calls, whether answered or not.)
I wrote to them on 30-09-10, two items of which was asking them about the
"recent threats of council tax summons that you said you would be getting
back to me about" and the other was about the Subject Access Request. At
that stage I had no idea that the Liability Order had been granted on
07-09-10, until I received their formal notification on 18-10-10, when I
posted on here.
</quote>