Can a council refuse cash for council tax?

[Clive Page]

In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years. Given the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps understandable on cost grounds.

But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash. I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash - isn't that what "legal tender" means? A retailer can, obviously, refuse cash by refusing to sell. But a council isn't in quite the same position. Or is this notion now out-of-date? [I use direct-debit for my own council tax without problems, but it would be nice to know what the options are.]


--
Clive Page

[Roland Perry]

In message <fpsgcu...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:13:05 on Sun, 1 Jul
2018, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:

>In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
>householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
>payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years.

Whatever happened to the bank's vendetta against cheques, to be replaced
by something not quite the same but adequate enough for paying that kind
of bill?

>Given the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or
>trust direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps
>understandable on cost grounds.
>
>But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.

This is a perennial theme, paying by cash isn't accepted by lots of
institutions, including my District Council in the Midlands perhaps ten
years ago. They also stopped taking cheques "over the counter" so I used
to stick them through their letterbox (with a full remittance advice of
course).

As for legality, I haven't encountered a solicitor prepared to take more
than trivial amounts of cash as payment for a long time.

>I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash -
>isn't that what "legal tender" means?

No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a debt.

>A retailer can, obviously, refuse cash by refusing to sell. But a
>council isn't in quite the same position. Or is this notion now
>out-of-date? [I use direct-debit for my own council tax without
>problems, but it would be nice to know what the options are.]

Postal Orders?
--
Roland Perry

[Serena Blanchflower]

On 01/07/2018 18:13, Clive Page wrote:
> But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.  I was
> under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash - isn't
> that what "legal tender" means?  A retailer can, obviously, refuse cash
> by refusing to sell.  But a council isn't in quite the same position. Or
> is this notion now out-of-date?  [I use direct-debit for my own council
> tax without problems, but it would be nice to know what the options are.]

It clearly varies from council to council, as mine will still accept
both cash and cheques, if you pay in person. You can see the full list
of options for Winchester at
<http://www.winchester.gov.uk/council-tax/paying-your-council-tax>.

To find the options for your council, you'd need to check their website.



--
Best wishes, Serena
The advantage of a bad memory is that one enjoys several times the same
good things for the first time (Friedrich Nietzsche)

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:13:05 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:

>In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
>householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
>payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years. Given
>the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust
>direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps understandable
>on cost grounds.

I think it's entirely justified.

>But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.
>I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash -
>isn't that what "legal tender" means? A retailer can, obviously,
>refuse cash by refusing to sell. But a council isn't in quite the
>same position. Or is this notion now out-of-date?

That notion isn't out of date. It's just plain wrong. Legal tender
relates to a specific type of settlement of debt, when a payment is
made into court to settle a debt. There is no obligation in any
creditor to accept cash as a normal means of payment.

https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

>[I use direct-debit for my own council tax without problems, but
>it would be nice to know what the options are.]

The obvious alternative to cheque is debit card. You have to have a
bank account to be able to pay by cheque, and I'm not aware of any
bank which will now issue a chequebook but not a debit card. Although
direct debit is even easier.

Having said that, although many councils will no longer accept cheques
made payable directly to them, or cash handed over at their own
officers, many of them will accept payment in cash via a PayPoint
terminal, or over the counter at a post office. In this particular
case, it seems that the council in question does not use this service.
But if the taxpayer was to contact his councillor and ask for it to be
considered, it may well be. It is not implausible that the main reason
it hasn't been considered is because nobody has asked for it.

Mark

[spuorg...@gowanhill.com]

On Sunday, 1 July 2018 19:47:48 UTC+1, Clive Page wrote:
> In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a householder
> finding that his council now refuses to take council tax payment by cheque,
> although they had done so for many years. Given the number of older people
> that I know who don't bank on-line or trust direct-debit payments, this is
> unfortunate, though perhaps understandable on cost grounds.

They will probably take a card payment by phone.

They might take cash but only at a specified office due to cash handling security, or they'll offer Paypoint or similar through shops/post offices.

Owain

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:22:05 -0700 (PDT), spuorg...@gowanhill.com
wrote:

The council in question doesn't do PayPoint. At least, it isn't
mentioned on their website.

That may potentially be a problem for the small number of people who
still don't have a bank account, although I wonder how it's possible
to own or rent a property without one (or receive any form of salary
or benefits). But, in any case, it's clearly not an issue for the
person who wrote to the Sunday Times, as he must have a bank account
in order to pay by cheque. That being the case, he can also pay by
debit card, direct debit or standing order, all of which are accepted
by his council. So I don't have a lot of sympathy for him.

Mark

[Tim Watts]

On 01/07/18 21:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:13:05 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:
>
>> In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
>> householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
>> payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years. Given
>> the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust
>> direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps understandable
>> on cost grounds.
>
> I think it's entirely justified.
>
>> But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.
>> I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash -
>> isn't that what "legal tender" means? A retailer can, obviously,
>> refuse cash by refusing to sell. But a council isn't in quite the
>> same position. Or is this notion now out-of-date?
>
> That notion isn't out of date. It's just plain wrong. Legal tender
> relates to a specific type of settlement of debt, when a payment is
> made into court to settle a debt. There is no obligation in any
> creditor to accept cash as a normal means of payment.

It's an interesting point that I'd like to explore in more depth:

Normally, if one is buying something, there is a bi-lateral agreement
made: "Can I buy that for X pounds using Y payment method?"

And if payment method Y is not acceptable, one has the choice to go
elsewhere.

Council tax is a unilateral contract in so far as one doesn't really
have a choice - it's a compulsory tax for occupying a particular abode.

So it would seem reasonable that the council *should* accept any viable
payment?

What would happen if you went to their office, put a cheque or cash on
the counter, they refused and then took you to court for non payment.
How would the court view it? Has anyone ever done that?

[Tim Watts]

On 01/07/18 21:34, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:22:05 -0700 (PDT), spuorg...@gowanhill.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, 1 July 2018 19:47:48 UTC+1, Clive Page wrote:
>>> In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a householder
>>> finding that his council now refuses to take council tax payment by cheque,
>>> although they had done so for many years. Given the number of older people
>>> that I know who don't bank on-line or trust direct-debit payments, this is
>>> unfortunate, though perhaps understandable on cost grounds.
>>
>> They will probably take a card payment by phone.
>>
>> They might take cash but only at a specified office due to cash handling
>> security, or they'll offer Paypoint or similar through shops/post offices.
>
> The council in question doesn't do PayPoint. At least, it isn't
> mentioned on their website.
>
> That may potentially be a problem for the small number of people who
> still don't have a bank account, although I wonder how it's possible
> to own or rent a property without one

Clearly yes - one may have had a bank account to buy a property, but
closed it afterwards.

[Laurence Taylor]

On 01/07/2018 19:51, Roland Perry wrote:

> This is a perennial theme, paying by cash isn't accepted by lots of
> institutions, including my District Council in the Midlands perhaps ten
> years ago. They also stopped taking cheques "over the counter" so I used
> to stick them through their letterbox (with a full remittance advice of
> course).

Did they bank the cheques?

I know a company that does not bank cheques paid either over the counter
or by post, though I suspect that may be more due to incompetence than
policy.

--
rgds
LAurence
<><

[Clive Page]

On 01/07/2018 21:17, Serena Blanchflower wrote:
>
> To find the options for your council, you'd need to check their website.
>

Yes but that's not the question I was asking. My point was, essentially, this: are Councils required under the law to accept cash as being "legal tender"? Some people seem to think so, but I haven't so far heard a convincing legal opinion either way.

--
Clive Page

[Clive Page]

On 01/07/2018 20:51, Roland Perry wrote:
> Whatever happened to the bank's vendetta against cheques, to be replaced by something not quite the same but adequate enough for paying that kind of bill?

The Payments Council got involved and arranged a series of events, a couple of which I attended. There were lots of people at these meetings involved with small clubs, charities, etc. who were very upset that cheques might disappear. Surprisingly (to me) the banks later backed down and the end of cheques is now put into the category of "not in the foreseeable future". All the same the drop in use of cheques is around 15%/year and the number of cheque sorting centres has dropped from (I think) seven a few years ago to just one now. So the foreseeable future might not be so far ahead.

>
> No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a debt.
>

So if his Council sued him for the money, he could pay the cash into court to settle the debt? Perhaps not a very convenient or efficient way of paying, all the same.


--
Clive Page

[Roland Perry]

In message <mscijdto1dclpogus...@4ax.com>, at 21:20:22 on
Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:13:05 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:
>
>>In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
>>householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
>>payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years. Given
>>the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust
>>direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps understandable
>>on cost grounds.
>
>I think it's entirely justified.

On what grounds?

>>But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.
>>I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash -
>>isn't that what "legal tender" means? A retailer can, obviously,
>>refuse cash by refusing to sell. But a council isn't in quite the
>>same position. Or is this notion now out-of-date?
>
>That notion isn't out of date. It's just plain wrong. Legal tender
>relates to a specific type of settlement of debt, when a payment is
>made into court to settle a debt. There is no obligation in any
>creditor to accept cash as a normal means of payment.
>
>https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-g
>uidelines/
>
>>[I use direct-debit for my own council tax without problems, but
>>it would be nice to know what the options are.]
>
>The obvious alternative to cheque is debit card. You have to have a
>bank account to be able to pay by cheque, and I'm not aware of any
>bank which will now issue a chequebook but not a debit card.

I had one of those recently (for a CIC, but the same would true of many
charities, or small unincorporated clubs) on account of a necessary "two
signatures" policy.

I wonder if the average District Council has a debit card for one
officer's use, thus circumventing their "two signatures" policy for
cheques and electronic transfers?

FAOD, charities and small clubs have to pay various bills to District
Councils, as well as householders.

ps The only way I could find to comply with two-signature policies, and
*also* get a card for use as "petty cash(sic)" was to use the bank's
pre-pay debit card scheme, and top it up with small amounts based on an
electronic transfer *with* two signatures [well, PINs]. And then after a
couple of years they scrapped that prepay debit card <sigh>.

>Although direct debit is even easier.

There's all sorts of reasons that DDs can backfire. Once when I moved
from one house to another *in the same band and District* and by every
single rule in the book this should have been cashflow neutral, I still
had to spend weeks sorting out the miscalculated overpayments taken by
DD.

>Having said that, although many councils will no longer accept cheques
>made payable directly to them, or cash handed over at their own
>officers, many of them will accept payment in cash via a PayPoint
>terminal, or over the counter at a post office. In this particular
>case, it seems that the council in question does not use this service.
>But if the taxpayer was to contact his councillor and ask for it to be
>considered, it may well be. It is not implausible that the main reason
>it hasn't been considered is because nobody has asked for it.

"Nobody" is a very low bar. I bet "somebody" has, there's just too much
chatter arriving at council helpdesks for it never to have cropped up.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <nbOdnTrTzJAO2aTG...@brightview.co.uk>, at
21:16:03 on Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Laurence Taylor
<see-h...@nospam.plus.com> remarked:

>On 01/07/2018 19:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> This is a perennial theme, paying by cash isn't accepted by lots of
>> institutions, including my District Council in the Midlands perhaps ten
>> years ago. They also stopped taking cheques "over the counter" so I used
>> to stick them through their letterbox (with a full remittance advice of
>> course).
>
>Did they bank the cheques?

Yes, and logged the account as paid. Otherwise within a few days they'd
have sent a threatening latter in the post.

--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <qmqn0f-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>, at 21:38:18 on
Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> remarked:

>What would happen if you went to their office, put a cheque or cash on
>the counter, they refused and then took you to court for non payment.
>How would the court view it? Has anyone ever done that?

There must be a case of someone turning up with a wheelbarrow full of
pound coins - it's just too tempting a stunt.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <fpt367...@mid.individual.net>, at 23:33:43 on Sun, 1 Jul

2018, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:

>On 01/07/2018 20:51, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Whatever happened to the bank's vendetta against cheques, to be
>>replaced by something not quite the same but adequate enough for
>>paying that kind of bill?
>
>The Payments Council got involved and arranged a series of events, a
>couple of which I attended. There were lots of people at these
>meetings involved with small clubs, charities, etc. who were very upset
>that cheques might disappear. Surprisingly (to me) the banks later
>backed down and the end of cheques is now put into the category of "not
>in the foreseeable future". All the same the drop in use of cheques is
>around 15%/year and the number of cheque sorting centres has dropped
>from (I think) seven a few years ago to just one now. So the
>foreseeable future might not be so far ahead.

They need to listen to their colleagues in the branches. Whenever I'm in
one of the banks in town I observe what's going on and a large number of
the transactions (and queues building up behind) are less financially
literate customers trying to do something which they don't understand,
and which in the past would probably have been as simple as posting a
cheque. Sometimes over the counter, sometimes having to be hand-held
through a five minute session at an indoor ATM.

>> No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a
>>debt.
>
>So if his Council sued him for the money, he could pay the cash into
>court to settle the debt? Perhaps not a very convenient or efficient
>way of paying, all the same.

Problems also that the punter may have court fees in addition, and the
council can withdraw the concession to pay by instalments, and require
the remaining balance immediately.
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Watts]

On 02/07/18 07:39, Jeff wrote:
>
>> But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.  I
>> was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash -
>> isn't that what "legal tender" means?
>

> No, legal Tender has a very narrow meaning, and only applies to monies
> paid into court to settle a debt.
>
> It has no bearing, in general, on what a person may accept in pay of
> payment.
>
> Jeff

Ordinarily (a point I raised earlier but will repeat here) there is a
bilateral agreement made and if the choice of payment offered does not
meet with approval, the parties can walk away from the deal.

But tax is a unilateral obligation - the payee does not have the choice
"to go somewhere else".

What if, for some reason, no bank will give him an account (and for the
sake of completeness, let's assume he has no computer and cannot sign up
to a pay as you go debit card online)?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 21:38:18 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net>
wrote:

>What would happen if you went to their office, put a cheque or cash on
>the counter, they refused and then took you to court for non payment.
>How would the court view it? Has anyone ever done that?

I think it would depend very much on whether the debtor has another
viable and reasonable means of payment. If the debtor really had no
means of payment other than cash, I think the court would agree that
the council needs to make an exception in their case even if that goes
against the council's usual policies. But I don't think the court
would uphold a person's right to pay in cash merely as a protest or
publicity stunt. If you are perfectly capable of paying via some other
method, then it is entirely reasonable for the council to require you
to do so.

Mark

[Flop]

Some do - some dont.

As an example of what can be done.....

Wokingham District Council:

"Pay online

Pay your Council Tax online – credit and debit cards are accepted


Other ways to pay

You can pay by:

Direct Debit - Complete a Direct Debit Mandate (PDF document) and
return to us - alternatively complete our new online Direct Debit form
on our online Council Tax website - using the Microsoft Internet
Explorer 11 browser - contact us if you experience any difficulties -
you can pay on the 1st, 10th, or 20th of the month.

Kiosk – behind main reception at our Shute End office by cash,
debit or credit card
Telephone (24 hour payment line): 0300 456 0505 - have your debit
or credit card details, council tax account number and how much you want
to pay to hand
Post Office or at a Payzone outlet - call us on 0118 974 6000 and
we'll give you a key fob so you can make payments. Visit the Payzone
website to find your nearest Payzone."


--

Flop

“I needed a password eight characters long so I picked Snow White and
the Seven Dwarves.”

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:09:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <mscijdto1dclpogus...@4ax.com>, at 21:20:22 on
>Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:13:05 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:
>>
>>>In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
>>>householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
>>>payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years. Given
>>>the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust
>>>direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps understandable
>>>on cost grounds.
>>
>>I think it's entirely justified.
>
>On what grounds?

Because cheques cost a lot more to process than other forms of
payment. I don't think it's reasonable that other council tax payers
have to subsidise the processing costs of someone else's choice of
payment.

I agree that it may be reasonable to expect a council to make an
exception to its policies and accept payments in cash if the taxpayer
really has no alternative. I also agree that there are some cases
where organisations need to pay by cheque because of the need for
multiple signatories.

But council tax is not paid by organisations, it is paid for by
householders. Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 08:15:40 +0100, Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net>
wrote:

>Ordinarily (a point I raised earlier but will repeat here) there is a
>bilateral agreement made and if the choice of payment offered does not
>meet with approval, the parties can walk away from the deal.
>
>But tax is a unilateral obligation - the payee does not have the choice
>"to go somewhere else".
>
>What if, for some reason, no bank will give him an account (and for the
>sake of completeness, let's assume he has no computer and cannot sign up
>to a pay as you go debit card online)?

I think that's a question that would have to be answered by the
courts. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, I think the courts
would be sympathetic to a debtor who was willing and able to pay, but
could not in practice do so as they had no means of payment available
to them that was accepted by the creditor. Indeed, this is precisely
where legal tender does come into it: the debtor can *always*
discharge the debt by means of legal tender paid into court. But I
don't think a court would uphold a person's right to choose one form
of payment when they are perfectly capable of using other forms that
are acceptable to the creditor.

Mark

[Nightjar]

Although I suspect that the number of people who are both liable for the
payment of Council Tax and don't have a bank account will be very small
indeed.

--
--

Colin Bignell

[Roland Perry]

In message <85ljjdt537ikkfbih...@4ax.com>, at 08:36:14 on
Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:
>On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 07:09:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <mscijdto1dclpogus...@4ax.com>, at 21:20:22 on
>>Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>>>On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:13:05 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
>>>>householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
>>>>payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years. Given
>>>>the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust
>>>>direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps understandable
>>>>on cost grounds.
>>>
>>>I think it's entirely justified.
>>
>>On what grounds?
>
>Because cheques cost a lot more to process than other forms of
>payment. I don't think it's reasonable that other council tax payers
>have to subsidise the processing costs of someone else's choice of
>payment.

Councils exist in an anything but level playing field. Most of what they
do is one set of taxpayers "subsidising", as you put it, others. Whether
that's council housing, picking up the litter one set dropped to the
detriment of another lot, carrying out means testing to reduce council
tax liability on those regarded as less able to pay (let alone getting
less tax as a result), and so on. Cheque processing fees on a tax of
anything up to £2000 per annum is down in the noise level.

>I agree that it may be reasonable to expect a council to make an
>exception to its policies and accept payments in cash if the taxpayer
>really has no alternative. I also agree that there are some cases
>where organisations need to pay by cheque because of the need for
>multiple signatories.
>
>But council tax is not paid by organisations, it is paid for by
>householders.

Council tax isn't the only income stream they have (building regs,
planning permission and so on are still required for non-domestic
premises). Then there's the commercial waste collection you've mentioned
many times before. So they can't simply decide one set of debtors *can*
pay by cheque, and another set can't.

>Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
>card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
>not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
>other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.

That's a political stance, and I detest the current trend for "devil
take the hindmost" politics, which we seem to be importing from the USA.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <KqydnckKE7JjfqTG...@giganews.com>, at 09:36:14
on Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Nightjar <c...@bignell.me.uk> remarked:

>I suspect that the number of people who are both liable for the payment
>of Council Tax and don't have a bank account will be very small indeed.

I agree, but much of the problem is people who are fearful of modern
banking processes. We bend over backwards to spend council tax to
"subsidise" anyone with restricted mobility, but what about people with
reduced mental agility?
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <qjljjdp36snhfd0f2...@4ax.com>, at 08:43:31 on
Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>I don't think a court would uphold a person's right to choose one form
>of payment when they are perfectly capable of using other forms that
>are acceptable to the creditor.

And what of those who aren't "perfectly capable", because they have
technophobia? Or are maybe simply an old enough dog you can't teach new
tricks to?
--
Roland Perry

[Ian Jackson]

In message <fpt367...@mid.individual.net>, Clive Page
<use...@page2.eu> writes

Exactly my thoughts whenever this subject arises.

However, what about the court costs? Should these be paid by the person
being sued (who has all along been perfectly willing to pay the debt
directly to the council), or by the council (who have vexatiously been
refusing to accept the payment)?
--
Ian

[Robin]

On 02/07/2018 08:36, Mark Goodge wrote:

>
> But council tax is not paid by organisations, it is paid for by
> householders. Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
> card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
> not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
> other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.
>

Is it?

I'd like to see you (or the council leader) face to face in front of the
cameras with a nonagenarian who has been paying council tax compliantly
for decades by cheque but cannot get to the bank (mobility), cannot use
telephone banking (hearing loss), does not have and has never used
online banking (or online anything). What would you tell her? That she
*must* give the Council a direct debit mandate (something she has never
done before and does not understand)? If so, on what authority?

I know full well why councils are seeking to cut their banking costs.
DWP, HMRC, DVLA etc have been doing the same for decades. HMRC eg have
just gone a step further and removed the option of making
self-assessment payments at post offices. OTOH DWP, HMRC etc also know
that they have to watch for exceptions. Hence eg the statutory
exemption from electronic filing for PAYE and VAT on religious grounds
(Article 9 rights); and the Payment Exception Service for those who
can't or won't have even a basic bank account to receive benefits from DWP.

Hence among other things I'd be asking the council leader (or you) for
copies of your Equality Act and HRA impact assessments.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

[Theo]

Tim Watts <tw_u...@dionic.net> wrote:
> Council tax is a unilateral contract in so far as one doesn't really
> have a choice - it's a compulsory tax for occupying a particular abode.
>
> So it would seem reasonable that the council *should* accept any viable
> payment?

The issue here is that Council Tax is a statutory charge, not a regular
contract. Therefore it isn't government by regular contract law, but by
specific legislation (both primary and a big pile of SIs).

Even being taken to court for non-payment is not a regular court sitting,
it's a process run by the authority who is doing the collection.
The appeals process is also not a regular court - it's the VOA tribunal,
and only if you want to appeal that do you escape into regular courts with a
challenge in the High Court.

So for anything in this space you would have to look at the legislation and
case law as regards council tax specifically, because until such time as you
reach the High Court the process is outwith regular law of contract. It is
therefore not appropriate to apply general contractual principles.

Theo
(IANAL)

[Tim Watts]

On 02/07/18 11:05, Robin wrote:

> Hence eg the statutory
> exemption from electronic filing for PAYE and VAT on religious grounds
> (Article 9 rights); and the Payment Exception Service for those who

Which religion can't file electronically (curious)?

> can't or won't have even a basic bank account to receive benefits from DWP.

That's not uncommon - particularly homeless folks who couldn't get a
bank account if they tried.

[Robin]

On 02/07/2018 12:46, Tim Watts wrote:
> On 02/07/18 11:05, Robin wrote:
>
>> Hence eg the statutory exemption from electronic filing for PAYE and
>> VAT on religious grounds (Article 9 rights); and the Payment Exception
>> Service for those who
>
> Which religion can't file electronically (curious)?
>

The group(s) HMRC (and Parliament) had in mind were the Brethren.

But IIRC some others individuals (7th Day Adventists?) won exemption at
the First Tier tribunal.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:51:37 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

I doon't think merely being fearful is sufficient justification for
special treatment. But the question of disability is an interesting
one. Particularly in relation to being "dementia friendly", which is a
buzzword currently doing the rounds. I will have to ask my local
Dementia Action Alliance what they think.

Mark

[Martin Brown]

On 01/07/2018 21:20, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 18:13:05 +0100, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> wrote:
>
>> In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
>> householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
>> payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years. Given
>> the number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust
>> direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps understandable
>> on cost grounds.
>
> I think it's entirely justified.

Why? It would seem to be deliberately targeting the elderly who do not
trust direct debit and find debit cards and online banking very scary.

>
>> But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.
>> I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash -

>> isn't that what "legal tender" means? A retailer can, obviously,
>> refuse cash by refusing to sell. But a council isn't in quite the
>> same position. Or is this notion now out-of-date?
>
> That notion isn't out of date. It's just plain wrong. Legal tender
> relates to a specific type of settlement of debt, when a payment is
> made into court to settle a debt. There is no obligation in any
> creditor to accept cash as a normal means of payment.
>
> https://www.royalmint.com/aboutus/policies-and-guidelines/legal-tender-guidelines/

So the debtor should wait until the council gets judgement against them
and then pay cash into the court as settlement?
I can't see that being cost effective for the council - YMMV

>
>> [I use direct-debit for my own council tax without problems, but
>> it would be nice to know what the options are.]
>
> The obvious alternative to cheque is debit card. You have to have a
> bank account to be able to pay by cheque, and I'm not aware of any

> bank which will now issue a chequebook but not a debit card. Although

> direct debit is even easier.

Direct debit may be easier if you trust banks but many elderly people do
not and sometimes with good reason. Debit cards likewise they find a bit
scary as too much like credit card.

> Having said that, although many councils will no longer accept cheques
> made payable directly to them, or cash handed over at their own
> officers, many of them will accept payment in cash via a PayPoint
> terminal, or over the counter at a post office. In this particular
> case, it seems that the council in question does not use this service.
> But if the taxpayer was to contact his councillor and ask for it to be
> considered, it may well be. It is not implausible that the main reason
> it hasn't been considered is because nobody has asked for it.

How curious. I can see that they might be a bit miffed if you turned up
with your cheque written on the side of an elephant or the cash in 1p
pieces but it does seem a bit unreasonable to me for them to refuse to
accept forms of payment that are normally available elsewhere.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:48:57 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <85ljjdt537ikkfbih...@4ax.com>, at 08:36:14 on
>Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:

>>I agree that it may be reasonable to expect a council to make an
>>exception to its policies and accept payments in cash if the taxpayer
>>really has no alternative. I also agree that there are some cases
>>where organisations need to pay by cheque because of the need for
>>multiple signatories.
>>
>>But council tax is not paid by organisations, it is paid for by
>>householders.
>
>Council tax isn't the only income stream they have (building regs,
>planning permission and so on are still required for non-domestic
>premises). Then there's the commercial waste collection you've mentioned
>many times before. So they can't simply decide one set of debtors *can*
>pay by cheque, and another set can't.

They can, and do. My council accepts cheque payments for commercial
waste collection, for example, but not for council tax (although it
does accept cash via PayPoint).

There is, though, another aspect to it. With most council services
(eg, commercial waste), non-payment simply means no service. So there
is little need to enforce debts. Either the payment is made up-front,
in which case the service is supplied, or it isn't made and it isn't
supplied. It is difficult to incur a debt to the council for the
majority of chargeable services it supplies.

Council tax, though, is a statutory obligation and not linked to the
provision of services. So people can, and do, get into arrears. This
incurs non-trivial enforcement and collection costs, not all of which
can be recouped from the debtors. So, again, the costs of unpaid
council tax fall on other taxpayers.

That means there is a powerful public interest justification for
strongly encouraging, if not actually mandating, means of payment
which minimise the prospect of arrears. Direct Debit and Continuous
Charge Authority don't just save the council money, they save the
taxpayer money.

>>Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
>>card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
>>not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
>>other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.
>
>That's a political stance, and I detest the current trend for "devil
>take the hindmost" politics, which we seem to be importing from the USA.

It depends on whether the hindmost are there by their own choice, or
through circumstances beyond their control.

Mark

[tabb...@gmail.com]

It's also just plain wrong. DD is routinely abused by companies to their advantage, and the default position over payment questions is one of you paid anyway. And frankly to give free unfettered access of one's bank account to a bunch of profit making companies strikes me as more than a bit irresponsible.


NT

[Roland Perry]

In message <8i6kjdpf7784pg1b3...@4ax.com>, at 13:31:11 on
Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:51:37 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <KqydnckKE7JjfqTG...@giganews.com>, at 09:36:14
>>on Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Nightjar <c...@bignell.me.uk> remarked:
>>
>>>I suspect that the number of people who are both liable for the payment
>>>of Council Tax and don't have a bank account will be very small indeed.
>>
>>I agree, but much of the problem is people who are fearful of modern
>>banking processes. We bend over backwards to spend council tax to
>>"subsidise" anyone with restricted mobility, but what about people with
>>reduced mental agility?
>
>I doon't think merely being fearful is sufficient justification for
>special treatment.

You don't believe in agoraphobia (or many other debilitating
conditions)?

>But the question of disability is an interesting
>one. Particularly in relation to being "dementia friendly", which is a
>buzzword currently doing the rounds. I will have to ask my local
>Dementia Action Alliance what they think.

Dementia isn't the only reason people resemble what you characterise as
"luddites". Just as being an amputee isn't only what a generation ago we
stopped characterising people as "cripples".
--
Roland Perry

[Reentrant]

On 01/07/2018 18:13, Clive Page wrote:
> In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
> householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
> payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years.  Given the
> number of older people that I know who don't bank on-line or trust
> direct-debit payments, this is unfortunate, though perhaps
> understandable on cost grounds.
>

> But it also said that this council also refused payment by cash.  I was
> under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash - isn't
> that what "legal tender" means?  A retailer can, obviously, refuse cash
> by refusing to sell.  But a council isn't in quite the same position.

> Or is this notion now out-of-date?  [I use direct-debit for my own

> council tax without problems, but it would be nice to know what the
> options are.]
>
>

See "Inland Revenue v Haddock".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Inland_Revenue_v_Haddock

--
Reentrant

[Clive Page]

On 02/07/2018 07:18, Roland Perry wrote:
> They need to listen to their colleagues in the branches. Whenever I'm in one of the banks in town I observe what's going on and a large number of the transactions (and queues building up behind) are less financially literate customers trying to do something which they don't understand, and which in the past would probably have been as simple as posting a cheque. Sometimes over the counter, sometimes having to be hand-held through a five minute session at an indoor ATM.

I have observed the same thing, having (for reasons that I hope won't recur) had to use a bank branch to see a human teller a couple of times lately. It involved waiting in a queue for about 30 minutes behind all manner of financial incompetents with what appeared to be trivial problems, but weren't trivial to them.

A club that I help to run has tried to move all payments to an on-line system. Most members have adopted it easily. But we have a few members in their 80s or older who have no home computer and are unlikely every to learn how to use one. A few also claim to have had sufficiently awful experiences of the banking system that they refuse to set up a direct-debit in the club's favour. They *might* have been willing to set up a standing order but these don't work for variable amounts. For the moment we have had to agree to continue to take payments by cheque. But I really do wonder how these elderly folk manage to pay their council tax and utility bills. The options for doing this by cheque are vanishing.


--
Clive Page

[Ian Jackson]

In article <D0e7DhEw...@brattleho.plus.com>,

Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <fpt367...@mid.individual.net>, Clive Page
><use...@page2.eu> writes

>>So if his Council sued him for the money, he could pay the cash into
>>court to settle the debt? Perhaps not a very convenient or efficient
>>way of paying, all the same.
>
>Exactly my thoughts whenever this subject arises.
>
>However, what about the court costs? Should these be paid by the person
>being sued (who has all along been perfectly willing to pay the debt
>directly to the council), or by the council (who have vexatiously been
>refusing to accept the payment)?

I think the legal tender defence comes to the defendant's rescue,
here. It's a defence to the claim, and therefore the defendant has
succeeded. The court should order the actual money paid out to the
claimant, minus, presumably the defendant's costs of attending the
hearing.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 11:05:22 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 02/07/2018 08:36, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>
>> But council tax is not paid by organisations, it is paid for by
>> householders. Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
>> card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
>> not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
>> other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.
>>
>
>Is it?
>
>I'd like to see you (or the council leader) face to face in front of the
>cameras with a nonagenarian who has been paying council tax compliantly
>for decades by cheque but cannot get to the bank (mobility), cannot use
>telephone banking (hearing loss), does not have and has never used
>online banking (or online anything). What would you tell her? That she
>*must* give the Council a direct debit mandate (something she has never
>done before and does not understand)? If so, on what authority?

"We appreciate that not everybody is familiar with electronic banking,
and may not be able to able to use the telephone. That's why my
council has partnered with local agencies who will help anyone fill in
the form to set up a direct debit. It only takes a few minutes of
someone's time, and once it's done, it never needs to be repeated."

A printed direct debit form is really simple to complete. It needs
just three sets of data supplied by the user: their bank details,
their address, and their signature. The bank details can be copied
from a cheque. Their address can be taken from the council tax
statement. The form can be pre-filled by the council, and either
posted to the user or taken round by a friendly volunteer from Age
Concern et al. All the user needs to do is sign it, and then either
post it back to the council or hand it back to the volunteer who
brought it round to them.

>I know full well why councils are seeking to cut their banking costs.
>DWP, HMRC, DVLA etc have been doing the same for decades. HMRC eg have
>just gone a step further and removed the option of making
>self-assessment payments at post offices. OTOH DWP, HMRC etc also know
>that they have to watch for exceptions. Hence eg the statutory
>exemption from electronic filing for PAYE and VAT on religious grounds
>(Article 9 rights); and the Payment Exception Service for those who
>can't or won't have even a basic bank account to receive benefits from DWP.
>
>Hence among other things I'd be asking the council leader (or you) for
>copies of your Equality Act and HRA impact assessments.

You don't need to use electronic services to set up a direct debit.
Like a cheque, it can be done entirely on paper. So the religious
exemptions to electronic services don't apply. The HRA impact can be
covered by providing the necessary assistance for someone to set up a
direct debit if they have never done one before.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:53:42 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

It's perfectly possible to set up a direct debit entirely on paper.
There's no need to do it electronically. My council will post a form
to you if you ask for one, or you can collect one at a contact centre.
If you go to a contact centre, they'll even help you fill it in.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:41:44 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>

wrote:

>In message <8i6kjdpf7784pg1b3...@4ax.com>, at 13:31:11 on
>Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>>On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:51:37 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <KqydnckKE7JjfqTG...@giganews.com>, at 09:36:14
>>>on Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Nightjar <c...@bignell.me.uk> remarked:
>>>
>>>>I suspect that the number of people who are both liable for the payment
>>>>of Council Tax and don't have a bank account will be very small indeed.
>>>
>>>I agree, but much of the problem is people who are fearful of modern
>>>banking processes. We bend over backwards to spend council tax to
>>>"subsidise" anyone with restricted mobility, but what about people with
>>>reduced mental agility?
>>
>>I doon't think merely being fearful is sufficient justification for
>>special treatment.
>
>You don't believe in agoraphobia (or many other debilitating
>conditions)?

I wouldn't call that "merely" fearful.

>>But the question of disability is an interesting
>>one. Particularly in relation to being "dementia friendly", which is a
>>buzzword currently doing the rounds. I will have to ask my local
>>Dementia Action Alliance what they think.
>
>Dementia isn't the only reason people resemble what you characterise as
>"luddites". Just as being an amputee isn't only what a generation ago we
>stopped characterising people as "cripples".

No, but it's a well-understood disability that has advocates who will
have encountered this issue. So their experience is valuable input.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 13:37:52 +0100, Martin Brown
<'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>On 01/07/2018 21:20, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> The obvious alternative to cheque is debit card. You have to have a
>> bank account to be able to pay by cheque, and I'm not aware of any
>> bank which will now issue a chequebook but not a debit card. Although
>> direct debit is even easier.
>
>Direct debit may be easier if you trust banks but many elderly people do
>not and sometimes with good reason. Debit cards likewise they find a bit
>scary as too much like credit card.

I don't think that "a bit scary" is sufficient justification for
special treatment. Others have raised the issue of disability, which
clearly does require reasonable adjustment. But the keyword here is
"reasonable". I think it's entirely reasonable, for example, that the
council should offer assistance to someone who has never completed a
direct debit form before, either talking them through it or even
filling it in for them so that all they need to do is sign it.

>> Having said that, although many councils will no longer accept cheques
>> made payable directly to them, or cash handed over at their own
>> officers, many of them will accept payment in cash via a PayPoint
>> terminal, or over the counter at a post office. In this particular
>> case, it seems that the council in question does not use this service.
>> But if the taxpayer was to contact his councillor and ask for it to be
>> considered, it may well be. It is not implausible that the main reason
>> it hasn't been considered is because nobody has asked for it.
>
>How curious. I can see that they might be a bit miffed if you turned up
>with your cheque written on the side of an elephant or the cash in 1p
>pieces but it does seem a bit unreasonable to me for them to refuse to
>accept forms of payment that are normally available elsewhere.

As I said, maybe they haven't actually refused. It is entirely
plausible that they have never been asked.

In practice, the number of people who actually want to pay their
council tax by cheque is minimal. As a general rule, cheques are even
less popular with payers than they are with payees. It took a fairly
concerted campaign by parents to get my children's school to set up a
usable online payment system, for example. And even those who say they
prefer them will, when that option is removed, typically switch to
another form of payment, even if they do so with much grumbling.

The council referred to in the letter to the Sunday Times[1] which
prompted this thread, Three Rivers Council, is both relatively small
(in district council terms) and located in a relatively prosperous
area. I do not think it is at all improbable that the number of
council tax payers in their district who genuinely need to pay by cash
or cheque is actually zero, and only a trivial number who would even
prefer to[2]. On the other hand, a larger council in a more deprived
area - a unitary authority in the north of England, say - is likely to
have a very different demographic, and therefore much more of a need
to continue to offer payment by cash or cheque. There isn't a one size
fits all solution.

[1] It's also worth noting that the letter writer in question didn't
give any reasons for preferring to pay by cheque. The letter was
simply an attempt to argue that cheques must be legal tender, because
HMRC still accept them[3].

[2] According to the response to the letter in the Sunday Times
"Question of Money" column, the council told the journalist that it
had not received any complaints about the withdrawal of cash and
cheque payments until their attention was drawn to this letter.

[3] It's very much the kind of letter that will be familiar to readers
of this group: a post where the author is not really asking for
information, but merely seeking affirmation of their prejudice.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <RjncQOdk...@perry.co.uk>, at 07:18:12 on Mon, 2 Jul
2018, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>Whenever I'm in one of the banks in town I observe what's going on and
>a large number of the transactions (and queues building up behind) are
>less financially literate customers trying to do something which they
>don't understand, and which in the past would probably have been as
>simple as posting a cheque. Sometimes over the counter, sometimes
>having to be hand-held through a five minute session at an indoor ATM.

I thought I'd try my bank's ATM "pay bills" feature, to inform this
discussion. Turns out that it doesn't allow you to include any kind of
reference number with the payment, and is therefore completely and
utterly useless.

One doesn't have to be 'technophobic' to get put off using that kind of
broken-by-design technology.

At the counter, the person in front said how they'd tried to pay their
credit card bill online "but couldn't work out how to do it".

The cashier patiently explained (the whole lack-of-transaction took a
shade over five minutes) that in order to pay such a bill over the
counter at the bank, the customer did at last have to bring the bill
which needed paying, with them.
--
Roland Perry

[Janet]

In article <n+OBHgWB...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk says...
>
> In message <fpsgcu...@mid.individual.net>, at 18:13:05 on Sun, 1 Jul
> 2018, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:

> >In today's Sunday Times financial problem page there is a case of a
> >householder finding that his council now refuses to take council tax
> >payment by cheque, although they had done so for many years.
>

> Whatever happened to the bank's vendetta against cheques, to be replaced
> by something not quite the same but adequate enough for paying that kind
> of bill?

Customers objected and the banks backed down.

I still use cheques to make the point that banks are supposed to
provide services clients want, not the other way round.

Janet.

[Tim Watts]

On 02/07/18 12:58, Robin wrote:
> On 02/07/2018 12:46, Tim Watts wrote:
>> On 02/07/18 11:05, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> Hence eg the statutory exemption from electronic filing for PAYE and
>>> VAT on religious grounds (Article 9 rights); and the Payment
>>> Exception Service for those who
>>
>> Which religion can't file electronically (curious)?
>>
>
> The group(s) HMRC (and Parliament) had in mind were the Brethren.
>
> But IIRC some others individuals (7th Day Adventists?) won exemption at
> the First Tier tribunal.
>
>

Interesting - thank you.

[Robin]

I never said that you do. Indeed, that is why I very carefully referred
to direct debit as the one method on your list that my nonagenarian
could manage if she was forced to adopt one from your list.

> Like a cheque, it can be done entirely on paper. So the religious
> exemptions to electronic services don't apply. The HRA impact can be
> covered by providing the necessary assistance for someone to set up a
> direct debit if they have never done one before.

I think you've got that the wrong way round - ie it is the Equality Act
requirement rather than Article 9 which can be satisfied by providing
the assistance.

Of course you don't then address the other aspects of the direct debit
such as:

a. trusting a new procedure;

b. allowing a stranger in to the home to get the person's bank details
and signature on an authority to take money from the account: after all
the coverage of people being scammed I do not accept that is a trivial
point;

c. I don't know all the "local agencies" in the example. You mention
Age Concern. I have limited experience of them. But one was person who
ended up subject to a DWP investigation because the lady from Age
Concern insisted she could fill in the form to claim pension credits,
and proceeded to make a right royal cock-up that took me several lengthy
letters to DWP to sort out;

d. loss of control - or at east sense of such loss: it is easy for those
who use online banking to forget that without it there is no replacement
for the cheque stub and running balance.

You may be right that councils would survive a legal challenge. But I'd
still like to get someone in front of the cameras.

[Theo]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> That means there is a powerful public interest justification for
> strongly encouraging, if not actually mandating, means of payment
> which minimise the prospect of arrears. Direct Debit and Continuous
> Charge Authority don't just save the council money, they save the
> taxpayer money.

However Direct Debit doesn't always minimise the prospect of arrears, they
transfer the risk of arrears onto the account holder.

If the account holder doesn't have money in their account, the DD will
bounce. The account holder will get charged a fee by their bank. If the
council tax payee doesn't pay by cash or cheque, the authority must take
action against them. If the payee can't pay there is a process the
authority must go through, while the bank will treat the bounced DD as a
commercial debt and apply terms which are typically more onerous than the
statutory process (for instance, black marks against credit files).

> >>Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
> >>card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
> >>not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
> >>other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.
> >
> >That's a political stance, and I detest the current trend for "devil
> >take the hindmost" politics, which we seem to be importing from the USA.
>
> It depends on whether the hindmost are there by their own choice, or
> through circumstances beyond their control.

Today, using modern payment methods (DD, online bank transfer) are typically
easier for the majority of people. Therefore the people who aren't using
them (what you refer as 'Luddism') need either simply encouragement,
retraining or there's a reason why they *aren't* easier for someone. Those
reasons may be varied, but it is frustrating that people who aren't in that
category say to those who are: 'let them eat cake'.

Theo

[Mark Goodge]

On 02 Jul 2018 17:36:26 +0100 (BST), Theo

<theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:

>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>> That means there is a powerful public interest justification for
>> strongly encouraging, if not actually mandating, means of payment
>> which minimise the prospect of arrears. Direct Debit and Continuous
>> Charge Authority don't just save the council money, they save the
>> taxpayer money.
>
>However Direct Debit doesn't always minimise the prospect of arrears, they
>transfer the risk of arrears onto the account holder.
>
>If the account holder doesn't have money in their account, the DD will
>bounce. The account holder will get charged a fee by their bank. If the
>council tax payee doesn't pay by cash or cheque, the authority must take
>action against them. If the payee can't pay there is a process the
>authority must go through, while the bank will treat the bounced DD as a
>commercial debt and apply terms which are typically more onerous than the
>statutory process (for instance, black marks against credit files).

In practice, though, DD has an arrears rate which is an order of
magnitude lower than manual monthly payments (of any type).

>> >>Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
>> >>card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
>> >>not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
>> >>other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.
>> >
>> >That's a political stance, and I detest the current trend for "devil
>> >take the hindmost" politics, which we seem to be importing from the USA.
>>
>> It depends on whether the hindmost are there by their own choice, or
>> through circumstances beyond their control.
>
>Today, using modern payment methods (DD, online bank transfer) are typically
>easier for the majority of people. Therefore the people who aren't using
>them (what you refer as 'Luddism') need either simply encouragement,
>retraining or there's a reason why they *aren't* easier for someone. Those
>reasons may be varied, but it is frustrating that people who aren't in that
>category say to those who are: 'let them eat cake'.

That's why my preferred solution is to provide the necesary help to
people who aren't sufficiently familiar with DD to set one up on their
own. Or, alternatively, assistance getting to grips with using a debit
card, although DD is likely to be simpler for most of those whose
reason for wanting to continue with cheques is simply lack of
familiarity.

I don't think there is any reason why someone who *can* pay by cheque,
*cannot* pay by direct debit (or a debit card or standing order)[1].
To be in that situation would require having a bank account that
doesn't permit direct debits and standing orders or issue debit cards,
but does issue cheque books. Which, as far as I am aware, simply does
not exist.

Someone being only able to pay by cash is possible, although still
unlikely in the context of council tax. But I think it's more
reasonable to expect a council to make special arrangements for
someone in that position than it is for someone who wants to continue
to pay by cheque.

[1] Excluding corporate persons which have a need for multiple
signatories on a cheque, of course, But that's not relevant to this
particular issue.

Mark

[Robin]

On 02/07/2018 18:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> Someone being only able to pay by cash is possible, although still
> unlikely in the context of council tax. But I think it's more
> reasonable to expect a council to make special arrangements for
> someone in that position than it is for someone who wants to continue
> to pay by cheque.

That depends on your definition of "only able to pay by cash".
Consider a nonagenarian who has used "jam jar budgeting" for 70 years,
paid her bills in cash at the post office, never been in debt, saved by
going to the BS with a passbook, but has basic bank account because she
was told that's the only way she can get her state pension which she
draws out in cash. She undoubtedly has an account able to support DDs.
Whether she is able to cope is another matter.

Bear in mind the advice given about the downside of DDs - eg by the
Money Advice Service:

"Are there any disadvantages?

You need to stay in control. Keep track of your Direct Debits and
make sure there is enough money to cover the payments - try setting
yourself a reminder to check. This is easy to do, especially if you have
online access to your account. If not you might end up being charged by
your bank – see ‘Do they cost anything’ below."

What's the equivalent of "jam jar budgeting" for a bank account and DDs?
A spreadsheet? A council-provided App?

[Theo]

Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> That depends on your definition of "only able to pay by cash".
> Consider a nonagenarian who has used "jam jar budgeting" for 70 years,
> paid her bills in cash at the post office, never been in debt, saved by
> going to the BS with a passbook, but has basic bank account because she
> was told that's the only way she can get her state pension which she
> draws out in cash. She undoubtedly has an account able to support DDs.
> Whether she is able to cope is another matter.

Exactly. DD is a good solution for people who have enough money that the DD
can go out without needing fine control of your finances. If you don't have
enough cash to meet bills, DD is worse because you lose control. For
instance, you don't get to vary the DD date. If your income is a day late,
you can just delay sending the cheque by a day. You might get into some
small amount of trouble but much less than a bounced DD payment, which will
also incur fees (did we mention you're living hand-to-mouth as it is?)

> What's the equivalent of "jam jar budgeting" for a bank account and DDs?
> A spreadsheet? A council-provided App?

Back in the day, cheque stubs used to allow you to keep a running tally of
your account as you made them out. Not much hope of that today.

Theo

[Roland Perry]

In message <cZt*IR...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 19:14:34 on Mon,
2 Jul 2018, Theo <theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

<Applause> Someone who does fully "get it".
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 18:46:23 +0100, Robin <rb...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 02/07/2018 18:16, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>> Someone being only able to pay by cash is possible, although still
>> unlikely in the context of council tax. But I think it's more
>> reasonable to expect a council to make special arrangements for
>> someone in that position than it is for someone who wants to continue
>> to pay by cheque.
>
>
>That depends on your definition of "only able to pay by cash".
>Consider a nonagenarian who has used "jam jar budgeting" for 70 years,
>paid her bills in cash at the post office, never been in debt, saved by
>going to the BS with a passbook, but has basic bank account because she
>was told that's the only way she can get her state pension which she
>draws out in cash. She undoubtedly has an account able to support DDs.

Which is what matters, in this context.

>Whether she is able to cope is another matter.

Unless it counts as a protected characteristic, though, I don't think
that's the council's problem.

Mark

[Serena Blanchflower]

There's the added complication for people who's main income is from a
pension or benefits, in that they are paid n weekly, while most bills
are payable on a calendar month basis. This means that income and
outgoings aren't necessarily in sync and there may well be some months
when the Direct Debit is taken (or attempted) a few days before the
pension is paid.


--
Best wishes, Serena
....running like a slug on valium (Tony Gardner)

[Robin]

You may be right. It's an area of the Equality Act where I am even more
ignorant than usual. All I know for sure is that (a) age is a protected
characteristic, (b) if stopping payment in cash puts older people at a
disadvantage, compared with other people, directly or indirectly it may
be unlawful discrimination, plus (c) anyone collecting council tax is
going to be subject to the public sector equality duty.

So I'd again be happy to get someone in front of the cameras to answer
questions. I don't doubt they'd be able to show a real business need to
save on banking costs. But if that is the justification I would like to
probe (among other things) whether denying the possibility of payment in
cash to *everyone* is a proportionate measure - bearing in mind that the
number of nonagenarians operating jam jar budgeting is likely to
diminish quite rapidly by natural wastage.

[GB]

On 02/07/2018 20:44, Robin wrote:

> You may be right.  It's an area of the Equality Act where I am even more
> ignorant than usual.  All I know for sure is that (a) age is a protected
> characteristic, (b) if stopping payment in cash puts older people at a
> disadvantage, compared with other people, directly or indirectly it may
> be unlawful discrimination, plus (c) anyone collecting council tax is
> going to be subject to the public sector equality duty.
>
> So I'd again be happy to get someone in front of the cameras to answer
> questions.  I don't doubt they'd be able to show a real business need to
> save on banking costs.  But if that is the justification I would like to
> probe (among other things) whether denying the possibility of payment in
> cash to *everyone* is a proportionate measure - bearing in mind that the
> number of nonagenarians operating jam jar budgeting is likely to
> diminish quite rapidly by natural wastage.

Am I right that one solution for the council would be to provide advice
and assistance for the elderly in completing the DD mandate? That seems
to me to be a reasonable adjustment.

[Robin]

I thought we were now discussing someone used to budgeting with and
paying by cash. The transition from that to a bank account and DDs
seems to me to require rather more than help completing a DD mandate.

Dare I ask, have you ever known someone who lives by "jam jar budgeting"
and cash payments?

[Mark Goodge]

In practice, a preference for cash correlates more with socio-economic
category than age.

>So I'd again be happy to get someone in front of the cameras to answer
>questions. I don't doubt they'd be able to show a real business need to
>save on banking costs. But if that is the justification I would like to
>probe (among other things) whether denying the possibility of payment in
>cash to *everyone* is a proportionate measure - bearing in mind that the
>number of nonagenarians operating jam jar budgeting is likely to
>diminish quite rapidly by natural wastage.

If necessary, then making a case-by-case exception from the general
rule would, of course, be acceptable. I'm sure it would be possible to
set up a facility for one person to make payment by a non-standard
means if that was genuinely all that was reasonable. But the problem
with allowing a generally available exception for the benefit of a
very small number of people is that people who don't need it will use
it, and then it gets harder to eventually remove it because they
themselves become used to it and can make the argument that they can't
change.

In any case, the reality is that cheques are going to go away. Not as
quickly as had been expected, but they will, eventually. So this isn't
an isssue that can be ignored forever.

Mark

[Robin]

Indeed. But there can of course be correlations with more than one
characteristic. And AFAIK it is not a defence to indirect age
discrimination to argue "possibly, but we are discriminating even *more*
against poor people". Also, contrary to the impression Lord Willetts
likes to give, there are still some poor old people.

>> So I'd again be happy to get someone in front of the cameras to answer
>> questions. I don't doubt they'd be able to show a real business need to
>> save on banking costs. But if that is the justification I would like to
>> probe (among other things) whether denying the possibility of payment in
>> cash to *everyone* is a proportionate measure - bearing in mind that the
>> number of nonagenarians operating jam jar budgeting is likely to
>> diminish quite rapidly by natural wastage.
>
> If necessary, then making a case-by-case exception from the general
> rule would, of course, be acceptable. I'm sure it would be possible to
> set up a facility for one person to make payment by a non-standard
> means if that was genuinely all that was reasonable. But the problem
> with allowing a generally available exception for the benefit of a
> very small number of people is that people who don't need it will use
> it, and then it gets harder to eventually remove it because they
> themselves become used to it and can make the argument that they can't
> change.

And at long last we have the concept of the exercise of discretion.

> In any case, the reality is that cheques are going to go away. Not as
> quickly as had been expected, but they will, eventually. So this isn't
> an isssue that can be ignored forever.
>

I thought this was about paying in cash? Anyhow, to repeat, the people
I have had in mind won't be around for another 10 years, let alone forever.

[Theo]

I think the 'modern' approach to this kind of 'jam jar budgeting', in the
face of systems that are designed for people who aren't living
hand-to-mouth, is overdrafts, bank charges, payday loans and foodbanks.

I don't think that's a better place to be.

Theo

[Janet]

In article <7ed1e5d8-d46c-20ad...@hotmail.com>, rbw0
@hotmail.com says...

> Dare I ask, have you ever known someone who lives by "jam jar budgeting"
> and cash payments?

My previous next door neighbour never had a bank account, and dealt
entirely in cash all his life, until around 20 years ago. I don't think
it was terribly unusual for his old-fashioned generation in rural
Scotland.

He had the same job all his working life, paid in cash; drew his state
pension in cash from the PO, and paid all his bills in cash.

Janet.

[Clive Page]

On 02/07/2018 14:35, Mark Goodge wrote:

> [2] According to the response to the letter in the Sunday Times
> "Question of Money" column, the council told the journalist that it
> had not received any complaints about the withdrawal of cash and
> cheque payments until their attention was drawn to this letter.

But in the comments made on-line following this article, someone asserted that they and others had complained about the withdrawal of cheque payments; it seems quite likely that the council had no mechanism for counting complaints of that sort and so their spokesman simply said that the number of complains was zero not knowing the truth.


--
Clive Page

[Theo]

Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
> There's the added complication for people who's main income is from a
> pension or benefits, in that they are paid n weekly, while most bills
> are payable on a calendar month basis. This means that income and
> outgoings aren't necessarily in sync and there may well be some months
> when the Direct Debit is taken (or attempted) a few days before the
> pension is paid.

Ironically, Universal Credit is supposed to fix that. However its version
of 'let them eat cake' seems to be "we'll move you from weekly payments to
monthly paid in arrears, without anything to tide you over - and by the way
we're incompetent so that'll be two or three months arrears instead of one".
At which point any semblance of operating a bank account like someone who is
in a regular job goes out the window.

Theo

[Norman Wells]

He probably went everywhere on horseback too.

Times change. Time moves on. Life doesn't revolve around people who
insist on the world always being as it once was.

[Martin Harran]

On Mon, 02 Jul 2018 13:41:17 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:

>On Mon, 2 Jul 2018 09:48:57 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <85ljjdt537ikkfbih...@4ax.com>, at 08:36:14 on

>>Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>

>>>I agree that it may be reasonable to expect a council to make an
>>>exception to its policies and accept payments in cash if the taxpayer
>>>really has no alternative. I also agree that there are some cases
>>>where organisations need to pay by cheque because of the need for
>>>multiple signatories.

>>>
>>>But council tax is not paid by organisations, it is paid for by
>>>householders.
>>

>>Council tax isn't the only income stream they have (building regs,
>>planning permission and so on are still required for non-domestic
>>premises). Then there's the commercial waste collection you've mentioned
>>many times before. So they can't simply decide one set of debtors *can*
>>pay by cheque, and another set can't.
>
>They can, and do. My council accepts cheque payments for commercial
>waste collection, for example, but not for council tax (although it
>does accept cash via PayPoint).
>
>There is, though, another aspect to it. With most council services
>(eg, commercial waste), non-payment simply means no service. So there
>is little need to enforce debts. Either the payment is made up-front,
>in which case the service is supplied, or it isn't made and it isn't
>supplied. It is difficult to incur a debt to the council for the
>majority of chargeable services it supplies.
>
>Council tax, though, is a statutory obligation and not linked to the
>provision of services. So people can, and do, get into arrears. This
>incurs non-trivial enforcement and collection costs, not all of which
>can be recouped from the debtors. So, again, the costs of unpaid
>council tax fall on other taxpayers.

>
>That means there is a powerful public interest justification for
>strongly encouraging, if not actually mandating, means of payment
>which minimise the prospect of arrears. Direct Debit and Continuous
>Charge Authority don't just save the council money, they save the
>taxpayer money.
>

>>>Any householder who can pay by cheque can pay by debit
>>>card, standing order, bank transfer or direct debit. The only reason
>>>not to use one of those other means of payment is pure Luddism. And
>>>other taxpayers should not have to subsidise the local Luddites.
>>
>>That's a political stance, and I detest the current trend for "devil
>>take the hindmost" politics, which we seem to be importing from the USA.
>
>It depends on whether the hindmost are there by their own choice, or
>through circumstances beyond their control.

I would think it rather obvious that problems arising from ageing -
which are a major contributor to the problems being discussed here -
are beyond people's control.

[Roland Perry]

In message <fpvl8n...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:54:30 on Mon, 2 Jul
2018, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:

He was probably referring to "Formal complaints", because reasons for
people grumbling loudly (on a day to day basis) at the customer services
desk (in person or over the phone) is unlikely to be logged at that
level of detail.

And to some extent you can understand why - the CS staff would have to
score every grumble on a scale of 1-5 between

"I wish I could still pay by cheque, because I really miss the running
balance on my cheque stubs, but in reality what can I do about it", to

"This is a complete and utter disgrace and I'm going to complain(sic) to
my councillor about it".

Even if the latter happens, I again doubt the council will be asking
councillors to keep a log of everyone who grumbled(sic) about every
issue, and it would be off the official radar if the councillor
persuaded the person not to put in a formal(sic) complaint.
--
Roland Perry

[Robin]

On 02/07/2018 23:05, Theo wrote:
> Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>> There's the added complication for people who's main income is from a
>> pension or benefits, in that they are paid n weekly, while most bills
>> are payable on a calendar month basis. This means that income and
>> outgoings aren't necessarily in sync and there may well be some months
>> when the Direct Debit is taken (or attempted) a few days before the
>> pension is paid.
>
> Ironically, Universal Credit is supposed to fix that.

Although universal credit does not apply to those above State Pension
age. AFAIK there are no plans to switch state pension to monthly payment.

[Mark Goodge]

It's about both. The letter cited by the OP was mainly about payment
by cheque. The OP extended that to a question about legal tender.

But I don't think the two are equivalent. As long as cash itself
exists, and as long as it's possible to live without a bank account,
there will always be a need to allow council tax (or equivalent)
payments in cash, in extremis. But this can be catered for on a
case-by-case basis, if necessary, without a need to make cash payments
generally available to the wider public (or even to advertise their
availability). Cheques, on the other hand, can always be replaced by a
different method of payment.

Mark

[Ian Jackson]

In article <80nkjdh11kbv4l42t...@4ax.com>,

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On 02 Jul 2018 17:36:26 +0100 (BST), Theo
><theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>However Direct Debit doesn't always minimise the prospect of arrears, they
>>transfer the risk of arrears onto the account holder.
>>
>>If the account holder doesn't have money in their account, the DD will
>>bounce. The account holder will get charged a fee by their bank. If the
>>council tax payee doesn't pay by cash or cheque, the authority must take
>>action against them. If the payee can't pay there is a process the
>>authority must go through, while the bank will treat the bounced DD as a
>>commercial debt and apply terms which are typically more onerous than the
>>statutory process (for instance, black marks against credit files).
>
>In practice, though, DD has an arrears rate which is an order of
>magnitude lower than manual monthly payments (of any type).

You have completely missed Theo's point.

The "arrears rate" you are talking about is the arrears *visible to
the council's tax collectors*. Theo's point is that when a taxpayer
has difficulty paying, DD will shuffle the debt around, so that the
taxpayer now owes money to other people than the council. That
probably makes the taxpayer's debts harder to manage.

--
Ian Jackson <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

[Robin]

On 03/07/2018 12:02, Mark Goodge wrote:

>
> But I don't think the two are equivalent. As long as cash itself
> exists, and as long as it's possible to live without a bank account,
> there will always be a need to allow council tax (or equivalent)
> payments in cash, in extremis. But this can be catered for on a
> case-by-case basis, if necessary, without a need to make cash payments
> generally available to the wider public (or even to advertise their
> availability). Cheques, on the other hand, can always be replaced by a
> different method of payment.
>

If an authority doesn't volunteer the availability of a method of
payment it may lead people - including vulnerable people - to suffer
costs or other disbenefits which they could have avoided if they had
known they were, or might have been, given the right to pay by cash.
And as a matter of law it seems to me at least a questionable if its
publication scheme withholds the possibility of cash payments. I can't
immediately see how any of the exemptions in Part II FoIA applies.

Anyhow, I have yet to find a council that doesn't allow payment in cash
in practice if only at PO, Paypoint, Payzone etc.

[Mark Goodge]

On 03 Jul 2018 12:41:55 +0100 (BST), ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

(Ian Jackson) wrote:

>In article <80nkjdh11kbv4l42t...@4ax.com>,
>Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 02 Jul 2018 17:36:26 +0100 (BST), Theo
>><theom...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>>However Direct Debit doesn't always minimise the prospect of arrears, they
>>>transfer the risk of arrears onto the account holder.
>>>
>>>If the account holder doesn't have money in their account, the DD will
>>>bounce. The account holder will get charged a fee by their bank. If the
>>>council tax payee doesn't pay by cash or cheque, the authority must take
>>>action against them. If the payee can't pay there is a process the
>>>authority must go through, while the bank will treat the bounced DD as a
>>>commercial debt and apply terms which are typically more onerous than the
>>>statutory process (for instance, black marks against credit files).
>>
>>In practice, though, DD has an arrears rate which is an order of
>>magnitude lower than manual monthly payments (of any type).
>
>You have completely missed Theo's point.
>
>The "arrears rate" you are talking about is the arrears *visible to
>the council's tax collectors*. Theo's point is that when a taxpayer
>has difficulty paying, DD will shuffle the debt around, so that the
>taxpayer now owes money to other people than the council. That
>probably makes the taxpayer's debts harder to manage.

If the bank bounces the DD (Theo's words), it is an arrears to the
council because it hasn't been paid. If the bank allows the account
holder to go overdrawn in order to pay the DD, then yes, it's a debt
to the bank, not the council. But it would be exactly the same if the
bank honoured a cheque that takes the account holder overdrawn.

In reality, cheques are more likely to lead to the account holder
going overdrawn, as you can't control or predict when a cheque will be
cashed. So you have to leave enough money in the account to cover it
until you know it has been, and it's easy to assume that it's been
cashed when it hasn't (especially if, due to vagaries of the calendar,
the recipient is running later than normal in their monthly process
schedule). With a DD, the money goes out predictably on the same date
evey month, and there's no guesswork involved. That makes it a lot
easier to budget for.

Mark

[Ian Jackson]

In article <glpmjdhuha7od565d...@4ax.com>,

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On 03 Jul 2018 12:41:55 +0100 (BST), ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
>(Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>You have completely missed Theo's point.
>>
>>The "arrears rate" you are talking about is the arrears *visible to
>>the council's tax collectors*. Theo's point is that when a taxpayer
>>has difficulty paying, DD will shuffle the debt around, so that the
>>taxpayer now owes money to other people than the council. That
>>probably makes the taxpayer's debts harder to manage.
>
>If the bank bounces the DD (Theo's words), it is an arrears to the
>council because it hasn't been paid. If the bank allows the account
>holder to go overdrawn in order to pay the DD, then yes, it's a debt
>to the bank, not the council. But it would be exactly the same if the
>bank honoured a cheque that takes the account holder overdrawn.
>
>In reality, cheques are more likely to lead to the account holder
>going overdrawn, as you can't control or predict when a cheque will be
>cashed.

It is a long time since I had little enough money that I had this kind
of problem, but I can still see what apparently you can't.

People who have difficulty making ends meet will know exactly how much
money there is and won't write a cheque that will bounce. The result
is, of course, that they show up as "in arrears" from the Council's
point of view.

That person ends up in debt to the council, rather than to the bank.
And it is much better to be in debt to to the council than to the
bank. That is why a person in such a situation won't write a cheque
to pay the council tax until they can cover it.

If the taxpayer is forced to pay by DD instead, this option goes away.
The "arrears rate" reduces as far as the council is concerned, but
what is going on is that the lives of poor people are being made much
more difficult. Those people's overall arrears become larger (because
of bank fees etc.) and harder for them to manage.

All of this assumes that the taxpayer has enough attention to spare
for this stuff in amongst dealing with their childcare
responsibilities / bad housing situation / lack of food / several gig
economy jobs / etc. But if they don't, then DD still makes things
worse for them by turning debts to the council into debts to the bank.

If the council regularly fails to bank its cheques promptly, the
taxpayer might well choose to pay by cash instead. But IME it's
relatively rare for big organisations (as opposed to individuals) to
sit on cheques for ages.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 13:08:30 +0100, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:

>On 03/07/2018 12:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>
>> But I don't think the two are equivalent. As long as cash itself
>> exists, and as long as it's possible to live without a bank account,
>> there will always be a need to allow council tax (or equivalent)
>> payments in cash, in extremis. But this can be catered for on a
>> case-by-case basis, if necessary, without a need to make cash payments
>> generally available to the wider public (or even to advertise their
>> availability). Cheques, on the other hand, can always be replaced by a
>> different method of payment.
>>
>
>
>If an authority doesn't volunteer the availability of a method of
>payment it may lead people - including vulnerable people - to suffer
>costs or other disbenefits which they could have avoided if they had
>known they were, or might have been, given the right to pay by cash.
>And as a matter of law it seems to me at least a questionable if its
>publication scheme withholds the possibility of cash payments. I can't
>immediately see how any of the exemptions in Part II FoIA applies.

By "advertised", I mean it simply doesn't need to be listed on the
council's "How to pay" page. It can still be offered in response to a
direct request.

>Anyhow, I have yet to find a council that doesn't allow payment in cash
>in practice if only at PO, Paypoint, Payzone etc.

https://www.threerivers.gov.uk/egcl-page/how-to-pay-your-council-tax

Mark

[Clive Page]

On 03/07/2018 08:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> He was probably referring to "Formal complaints", because reasons for people grumbling loudly (on a day to day basis) at the customer services desk (in person or over the phone) is unlikely to be logged at that level of detail.
>

You may be right. In my limited experience of making complaints to a council, I find that they take very little notice of informal complaints and put every possible obstacle in the way of anyone contemplating making a formal complaint.


--
Clive Page

[Clive Page]

On 03/07/2018 06:53, Jethro_uk wrote:
> Until banks have something to replace what cheques do, they are likely to
> be stuck with them.
>
> What they do, is allow *someone* to receive funds without having to
> disclose anything other than their name, leaving the destination of the
> funds unknown to the sender.

But the donor of the funds reveals their bank account incl sort-code and a good specimen of their signature. Not all that secure, really. The cheque enthusiasts don't seem to care, somehow.

But on your first point: several countries in Europe have already managed to give up on cheques, though I don't know what, if anything, has replaced them.

--
Clive Page

[Roland Perry]

In message <9f494f6b-05e2-d8b2...@outlook.com>, at
09:00:39 on Tue, 3 Jul 2018, Robin <r...@outlook.com> remarked:

>On 02/07/2018 23:05, Theo wrote:
>> Serena Blanchflower <nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:
>>> There's the added complication for people who's main income is from a
>>> pension or benefits, in that they are paid n weekly, while most bills
>>> are payable on a calendar month basis. This means that income and
>>> outgoings aren't necessarily in sync and there may well be some months
>>> when the Direct Debit is taken (or attempted) a few days before the
>>> pension is paid.
>> Ironically, Universal Credit is supposed to fix that.
>
>Although universal credit does not apply to those above State Pension
>age.

I didn't know that. Are such folks kept on the old smorgasbord of
intertwined individual benefits?

>AFAIK there are no plans to switch state pension to monthly payment.

Rather than 4-weekly? I clearly remember queues in the Post Office every
week.
--
Roland Perry

[Jeff Gaines]

On 01/07/2018 in message <n+OBHgWB...@perry.co.uk> Roland Perry wrote:

>No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a debt.

That's not how the Bank of England defines it:

http://edu.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-tender/

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK
I take full responsibility for what happened - that is why the person that
was responsible went immediately.
(Gordon Brown, April 2009)

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 08:06:20 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

>In message <fpvl8n...@mid.individual.net>, at 22:54:30 on Mon, 2 Jul
>2018, Clive Page <use...@page2.eu> remarked:
>>> [2] According to the response to the letter in the Sunday Times
>>> "Question of Money" column, the council told the journalist that it
>>> had not received any complaints about the withdrawal of cash and
>>> cheque payments until their attention was drawn to this letter.
>>
>>But in the comments made on-line following this article, someone
>>asserted that they and others had complained about the withdrawal of
>>cheque payments; it seems quite likely that the council had no
>>mechanism for counting complaints of that sort and so their spokesman
>>simply said that the number of complains was zero not knowing the truth.
>
>He was probably referring to "Formal complaints", because reasons for
>people grumbling loudly (on a day to day basis) at the customer services
>desk (in person or over the phone) is unlikely to be logged at that
>level of detail.

Indeed. If a lot of people are saying the same thing at the counter,
then it is likely to get mentioned. But, as a general rule, front
office staff aren't expected to relay every conversation they have
with the public.

And, although it's unlikely to apply to the letter writer, there are a
lot of people who are under the impression that "having a moan on
Facebook" counts as making a formal complaint, and that "lots of
people having a moan on Facebook" constitutes a binding referendum.

>And to some extent you can understand why - the CS staff would have to
>score every grumble on a scale of 1-5 between
>
>"I wish I could still pay by cheque, because I really miss the running
>balance on my cheque stubs, but in reality what can I do about it", to
>
>"This is a complete and utter disgrace and I'm going to complain(sic) to
>my councillor about it".
>
>Even if the latter happens, I again doubt the council will be asking
>councillors to keep a log of everyone who grumbled(sic) about every
>issue, and it would be off the official radar if the councillor
>persuaded the person not to put in a formal(sic) complaint.

Also true. As well as the fact that the tone and wording of any
complaint to the councillor makes a big difference to whether it gets
passed on or not. Green ink may have gone out of fashion, but
conspiracy theories and prejudice-based abuse have not.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On 03 Jul 2018 13:23:27 +0100 (BST), ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk

Except, again in real life, they do tend to write cheques that bounce
(or take them overdrawn).

>That person ends up in debt to the council, rather than to the bank.
>And it is much better to be in debt to to the council than to the
>bank.

No, it isn't. Council tax is a statutory debt, and owing it makes you
liable for a hearing in the Magistrates' court and, if still unpaid, a
visit from the bailiffs - a process which can be pretty swift from
start to finish. Owing the bank money is a civil debt, which will take
considerably longer to reach court (if, indeed, it goes that far).

>That is why a person in such a situation won't write a cheque
>to pay the council tax until they can cover it.

In reality, they write the cheque anyway, hoping they'll have funds
when it comes to be cashed.

>If the taxpayer is forced to pay by DD instead, this option goes away.
>The "arrears rate" reduces as far as the council is concerned, but
>what is going on is that the lives of poor people are being made much
>more difficult. Those people's overall arrears become larger (because
>of bank fees etc.) and harder for them to manage.

In reality, it is not "poor people" who typically use cheques. A
preference for cheques is a hallmark of the elderly middle classes,
who wish to carry on doing things the way they have always done them
because they believe that their personal preferences are too important
to be challenged. Those in deprived circumstances almost always prefer
cash. Which is a very different scenario.

>All of this assumes that the taxpayer has enough attention to spare
>for this stuff in amongst dealing with their childcare
>responsibilities / bad housing situation / lack of food / several gig
>economy jobs / etc. But if they don't, then DD still makes things
>worse for them by turning debts to the council into debts to the bank.

If they don't have enough attention to spare to manage their finances,
then DD helps them by regularising payments and minimising their
probability of falling into debt. Having to write out a cheque every
month is time-consuming and easily missed when you are up to your
eyeballs in other things.

>If the council regularly fails to bank its cheques promptly, the
>taxpayer might well choose to pay by cash instead. But IME it's
>relatively rare for big organisations (as opposed to individuals) to
>sit on cheques for ages.

It doesn't have to be a case of sitting on them for ages. Something as
simple as a bank holiday coinciding with the normal cheque processing
day can easily end up putting it back a week. Which can cause issues
for people expecting them to be banked on a certain date.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2018-07-03, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 01/07/2018 in message <n+OBHgWB...@perry.co.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
>>No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a debt.
>
> That's not how the Bank of England defines it:
>
> http://edu.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-tender/

This subject has come up in this group several times before, and the
general consensus seems to be that the Bank of England, in common
with everyone else, has no idea what legal tender actually means.

[Roland Perry]

In message <xn0lc0k5m...@news.individual.net>, at 11:48:19 on Tue,
3 Jul 2018, Jeff Gaines <jgaines...@yahoo.co.uk> remarked:

>On 01/07/2018 in message <n+OBHgWB...@perry.co.uk> Roland Perry wrote:
>
>>No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a debt.
>
>That's not how the Bank of England defines it:
>
>http://edu.bankofengland.co.uk/knowledgebank/what-is-legal-tender/

It is, if you accept that in dumbing it down they failed to mention that
the debt in question is being paid by lodging an amount with the court.

Which is why they say it "has little practical use".
--
Roland Perry

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2018-07-03, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> On 03 Jul 2018 13:23:27 +0100 (BST), ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> (Ian Jackson) wrote:
>>That person ends up in debt to the council, rather than to the bank.
>>And it is much better to be in debt to to the council than to the
>>bank.
>
> No, it isn't. Council tax is a statutory debt, and owing it makes you
> liable for a hearing in the Magistrates' court and, if still unpaid, a
> visit from the bailiffs - a process which can be pretty swift from
> start to finish. Owing the bank money is a civil debt, which will take
> considerably longer to reach court (if, indeed, it goes that far).

I think you're missing Ian's point that the *practical* consequences
of owing money to the bank (e.g. that you have no money to buy food)
are much worse than the consequences of owing money to the council
(e.g. that annoying people might bang on your door). The bank doesn't
even need to go through any legal process to take your money, it just
does so instantly as soon as any comes into your account.

[Robin]

On 03/07/2018 13:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 13:08:30 +0100, Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>
>> On 03/07/2018 12:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But I don't think the two are equivalent. As long as cash itself
>>> exists, and as long as it's possible to live without a bank account,
>>> there will always be a need to allow council tax (or equivalent)
>>> payments in cash, in extremis. But this can be catered for on a
>>> case-by-case basis, if necessary, without a need to make cash payments
>>> generally available to the wider public (or even to advertise their
>>> availability). Cheques, on the other hand, can always be replaced by a
>>> different method of payment.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If an authority doesn't volunteer the availability of a method of
>> payment it may lead people - including vulnerable people - to suffer
>> costs or other disbenefits which they could have avoided if they had
>> known they were, or might have been, given the right to pay by cash.
>> And as a matter of law it seems to me at least a questionable if its
>> publication scheme withholds the possibility of cash payments. I can't
>> immediately see how any of the exemptions in Part II FoIA applies.
>
> By "advertised", I mean it simply doesn't need to be listed on the
> council's "How to pay" page. It can still be offered in response to a
> direct request.

I understood you to mean that. That is why I questioned how such a
practice can be reconciled with the FoIA.

>> Anyhow, I have yet to find a council that doesn't allow payment in cash
>> in practice if only at PO, Paypoint, Payzone etc.
>
> https://www.threerivers.gov.uk/egcl-page/how-to-pay-your-council-tax
>

OK, thanks. And another example of gov.uk's broad-brush (ie inaccurate)
approach:

"You can also use ‘Paypoint’, ‘Payzone’ or ‘Quickcards’ for cash
payments at post offices, banks, newsagents and convenience stores."

https://www.gov.uk/council-tax/paying-your-bill

[Theo]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> Except, again in real life, they do tend to write cheques that bounce
> (or take them overdrawn).

One M.O. of the 'jam jar bankee' is to write a cheque while at the same time
paying that amount of cash into the bank.

You might ask why couldn't they pay the bill at the bank directly instead,
and there are several reasons:

- lack of a branch of their bank (see bank closures passim)
- payee accepts Payzone/point/etc and one of those isn't within range,
or every payee uses a different system, while a means to deposit cash into
their bank _is_ convenient and familiar (eg Post Office)
- using the delay between posting a cheque and the cheque clearing as a few
days extra leeway

> >That person ends up in debt to the council, rather than to the bank.
> >And it is much better to be in debt to to the council than to the
> >bank.
>
> No, it isn't. Council tax is a statutory debt, and owing it makes you
> liable for a hearing in the Magistrates' court and, if still unpaid, a
> visit from the bailiffs - a process which can be pretty swift from
> start to finish. Owing the bank money is a civil debt, which will take
> considerably longer to reach court (if, indeed, it goes that far).

IME the magistrates court procedure, from missing your payment date to a
court date, is far from swift. I don't know if it's different for different
councils.

> >That is why a person in such a situation won't write a cheque
> >to pay the council tax until they can cover it.
>
> In reality, they write the cheque anyway, hoping they'll have funds
> when it comes to be cashed.

Depends on the use case. The jam jar bankee is more cautious.
Someone who has lost control might do that, in which case they're in just as
much of a pickle as using DD and a debt advisor would suggest they don't do
it.

Theo

[Mark Goodge]

It's impossible to refuse to accept a letter. The problem is that,
especially these days, there are a lot of people who are unreasonably
averse to putting pen (or printer) to paper.

Mark

[Jeff Gaines]

On 03/07/2018 in message <slrnpjmsv4.b...@sable.unequivocal.eu>

I've emailed to ask them. Certainly when I was studying what I was taught
was what the Bank of England website says.

--
Jeff Gaines Wiltshire UK

All things being equal, fat people use more soap

[Paul Cummins]

In article <n+OBHgWB...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
Perry) wrote:

> >I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash
> - >isn't that what "legal tender" means?

>
> No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a
> debt.

But if you offer to settle the Council Tax demand in cash, and the
council refuses to accept that cash, they are estopped from bringing
enforcement proceedings against you, as you have not failed to pay.

--
If you need to reconsider your life, there are 3 things to do.
1) Don't believe everything you see in the media
2) Don't Dance to others tunes
3) Stop crossing the Jordan

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 12:11:51 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 03 Jul 2018 12:02:58 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Cheques, on the other hand, can always be replaced by a different method
>> of payment.
>

>However, unless that different method allows - as cheques do - a *person*
>to be paid, rather than a specified account somewhere, then you are
>losing a feature with no replacement.

Only an uncrossed cheque (which is practically none of them, these
days) allows a person to be paid. A crossed cheque pays into a
specified account. It's just that the account is specified by name,
rather than number.

>Unless I am mistaken, unless there is a formal accusation of fraud,
>there's no legitimate way to determine what bank and account a cheque was
>paid into ?

That's one of the biggest disadvantages of cheques. It makes errors
irrecoverable.

Mark

[Ian Jackson]

In article <phfp67$3k0$1...@dont-email.me>,

Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>Unless I am mistaken, unless there is a formal accusation of fraud,
>there's no legitimate way to determine what bank and account a cheque was
>paid into ?

I think that's not true. AIUI you can just ask your bank for the
return of cheques you issued and which have been paid. Many years ago
I did this and discovered that the director of a company which had
gone bust owing me money had endorsed the cheque to be paid onto their
personal account.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2018 14:32 +0100 (BST), agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk
(Paul Cummins) wrote:

>In article <n+OBHgWB...@perry.co.uk>, rol...@perry.co.uk (Roland
>Perry) wrote:
>
>> >I was under the impression that all debts could be settled by cash
>> - >isn't that what "legal tender" means?
>>
>> No, legal tender is something that you pay into court to settle a
>> debt.
>
>But if you offer to settle the Council Tax demand in cash, and the
>council refuses to accept that cash, they are estopped from bringing
>enforcement proceedings against you, as you have not failed to pay.

Which form of estoppel do you think that falls under?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel_in_English_law

Mark

[Robin]

I think that's a wee bit harsh. The Bank used to publish quite a good
note on the subject. (So too I think did the Treasury but that was back
in the 1980s.) But, like so many public bodies, the communications
specialists have been at its public utterances.

And AIUI (albeit very possibly wrongly) legal tender is relevant
_without_ payment into court in as much as a person (A) who pays in
legal tender the exact amount owed to the other party to a contract (B)
has a good defence in law if B subsequently sues for non-payment of the
debt.

I thought the "payment into court" aspect arose if A offers payment to B
which B declines to accept in settlement of the debt. Then, by paying
the money into court, A can defend action by B with a "plea of tender".

[Ian Jackson]

In article <4e03937d-eb86-25d9...@outlook.com>,

Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>And AIUI (albeit very possibly wrongly) legal tender is relevant
>_without_ payment into court in as much as a person (A) who pays in
>legal tender the exact amount owed to the other party to a contract (B)
>has a good defence in law if B subsequently sues for non-payment of the
>debt.

But A surely has a good defence if they send a bank transfer from
their account to B's account. So the concept of legal tender doesn't
seem to assist A very much.

>I thought the "payment into court" aspect arose if A offers payment to B
>which B declines to accept in settlement of the debt. Then, by paying
>the money into court, A can defend action by B with a "plea of tender".

That seems to be the case now.

I'm sure that it used to be the case that by refusing the payment in
legal tender, B was effectively letting A off the hook: A could walk
way without pyaing and the plea of tender operated as a defence to B's
claim. But last time this came up here, legislation was quoted which
now requires A to pay the money into court as you describe.

[Robin]

On 03/07/2018 15:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <4e03937d-eb86-25d9...@outlook.com>,
> Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> And AIUI (albeit very possibly wrongly) legal tender is relevant
>> _without_ payment into court in as much as a person (A) who pays in
>> legal tender the exact amount owed to the other party to a contract (B)
>> has a good defence in law if B subsequently sues for non-payment of the
>> debt.
>
> But A surely has a good defence if they send a bank transfer from
> their account to B's account. So the concept of legal tender doesn't
> seem to assist A very much.

Sorry. I _think_ the answer is that the bank transfer is not "payment".
And I once saw an analysis of the question from case law so I ought to
know. But there's not room in this brain to contain the the solution :(

>> I thought the "payment into court" aspect arose if A offers payment to B
>> which B declines to accept in settlement of the debt. Then, by paying
>> the money into court, A can defend action by B with a "plea of tender".
>
> That seems to be the case now.
>
> I'm sure that it used to be the case that by refusing the payment in
> legal tender, B was effectively letting A off the hook: A could walk
> way without pyaing and the plea of tender operated as a defence to B's
> claim. But last time this came up here, legislation was quoted which
> now requires A to pay the money into court as you describe.
>

I think the answer may be yes and no :)

Yes, A can walk away.

But no, A can't defend a claim by entering a "plea of tender" unless A
pays the sum into court. And I think only the payment into court
protects A from action by B - eg a lien on goods supplied.

Oh, and I think A has to tell B that the money's in court in order to
get protection from costs, not wait until they submit a defence.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <18f9beb1-11ec-ae27...@outlook.com>,

Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>On 03/07/2018 15:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> But A surely has a good defence if they send a bank transfer from
>> their account to B's account. So the concept of legal tender doesn't
>> seem to assist A very much.
>
>Sorry. I _think_ the answer is that the bank transfer is not "payment".
> And I once saw an analysis of the question from case law so I ought to
>know. But there's not room in this brain to contain the the solution :(

Cor. This all sounds very odd. So if B decided to be an arse, they
go to court for non-payment of the debt, and then the judge rejects
A's defence of having already paid, and issues an order that B should
transfer the money back to A's bank account and that A should pay B
(by some other means specified in the order, presumably) ? Seems
far-fetched.

>> I'm sure that it used to be the case that by refusing the payment in
>> legal tender, B was effectively letting A off the hook: A could walk
>> way without pyaing and the plea of tender operated as a defence to B's
>> claim. But last time this came up here, legislation was quoted which
>> now requires A to pay the money into court as you describe.
>
>I think the answer may be yes and no :)
>
>Yes, A can walk away.
>
>But no, A can't defend a claim by entering a "plea of tender" unless A
>pays the sum into court. And I think only the payment into court
>protects A from action by B - eg a lien on goods supplied.
>
>Oh, and I think A has to tell B that the money's in court in order to
>get protection from costs, not wait until they submit a defence.

AIUI previously A could walk away *and keep the money*. If A pays the
money into court my understanding (from what was asserted here) was
that the judge would grant costs against B but order the money paid
into court to be paid out to B.

[Robin]

On 03/07/2018 16:27, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <18f9beb1-11ec-ae27...@outlook.com>,
> Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> On 03/07/2018 15:19, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> But A surely has a good defence if they send a bank transfer from
>>> their account to B's account. So the concept of legal tender doesn't
>>> seem to assist A very much.
>>
>> Sorry. I _think_ the answer is that the bank transfer is not "payment".
>> And I once saw an analysis of the question from case law so I ought to
>> know. But there's not room in this brain to contain the the solution :(
>
> Cor. This all sounds very odd. So if B decided to be an arse, they
> go to court for non-payment of the debt, and then the judge rejects
> A's defence of having already paid, and issues an order that B should
> transfer the money back to A's bank account and that A should pay B
> (by some other means specified in the order, presumably) ? Seems
> far-fetched.

If the contract provides for bank transfer to that account then the bank
transfer is all that's needed. My point (which may be wrong) is that it
ain't the same as a coins and currency passing. Eg if B's bank sets
A's payment against debts which B disputes, has A paid B?

>>> I'm sure that it used to be the case that by refusing the payment in
>>> legal tender, B was effectively letting A off the hook: A could walk
>>> way without pyaing and the plea of tender operated as a defence to B's
>>> claim. But last time this came up here, legislation was quoted which
>>> now requires A to pay the money into court as you describe.
>>
>> I think the answer may be yes and no :)
>>
>> Yes, A can walk away.
>>
>> But no, A can't defend a claim by entering a "plea of tender" unless A
>> pays the sum into court. And I think only the payment into court
>> protects A from action by B - eg a lien on goods supplied.
>>
>> Oh, and I think A has to tell B that the money's in court in order to
>> get protection from costs, not wait until they submit a defence.
>
> AIUI previously A could walk away *and keep the money*.

Again, I just don't know. But then I am struggling to see why B would
refuse payment in legal tender of the precise price agreed.

> If A pays the
> money into court my understanding (from what was asserted here) was
> that the judge would grant costs against B but order the money paid
> into court to be paid out to B.
>

AIUI, yes.

And I on coming back I think was wrong and money doesn't have to be paid
into court in order to get protection from a seller exercising a lien
on goods or the like, just tendered to the seller.

[Ian Jackson]

In article <ca46b846-ee28-c400...@outlook.com>,

Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>Again, I just don't know. But then I am struggling to see why B would
>refuse payment in legal tender of the precise price agreed.

We have an alleged example in the start of this thread of a such a B -
although the debt is not a "price agreed", the practical
considerations are the same.

I can imagine other reasons. Maybe B wants A to set up a DD so that
they can have first call on A's money. Or so that it is A not B who
bears the main costs of B's shambolic billing system...

[Robin]

On 03/07/2018 17:40, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In article <ca46b846-ee28-c400...@outlook.com>,
> Robin <r...@outlook.com> wrote:
>> Again, I just don't know. But then I am struggling to see why B would
>> refuse payment in legal tender of the precise price agreed.
>
> We have an alleged example in the start of this thread of a such a B -
> although the debt is not a "price agreed", the practical
> considerations are the same.

> I can imagine other reasons. Maybe B wants A to set up a DD so that
> they can have first call on A's money. Or so that it is A not B who
> bears the main costs of B's shambolic billing system...
>

Oh I see. Sorry to be slow.

Mmm. I am due to make my second SA payment on account later this month.
I'll think about asking HMRC what action they'll take if I tender
payment (in legal tender) at the Board's head office and, if payment is
declined, pay it into court (though I haven't the faintest idea *which*
court). Trouble is HMRC's a very big tiger. And while the Inland
Revenue used took pride in being too polite to persecute anyone, Customs
& Excise brought a very different style to the merger.

[Jon Ribbens]

This idea came up last time and I believe Chris R was of the opinion,
if I am remembering correctly, that legal tender didn't really have
much to do with the plea of tender before claim. You need to make
a reasonable good-faith offer to pay, which may or may not involve
legal tender, and legal tender may not necessarily count.

[Robin]

I'll defer to Chris R. In addition to his qualifications, innate
superiority, youth etc he probably has access to Chitty on Contracts ;)

[Theo]

Paul Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> wrote:
> But if you offer to settle the Council Tax demand in cash, and the
> council refuses to accept that cash, they are estopped from bringing
> enforcement proceedings against you, as you have not failed to pay.

Supposing you refuse to pay by Direct Debit, and the council takes you to
court. Can you now pay the debt into the court in legal tender?

Theo

[GB]

On 02/07/2018 21:03, Robin wrote:
> On 02/07/2018 20:49, GB wrote:
>> On 02/07/2018 20:44, Robin wrote:
>>
>>> You may be right.  It's an area of the Equality Act where I am even
>>> more ignorant than usual.  All I know for sure is that (a) age is a
>>> protected characteristic, (b) if stopping payment in cash puts older
>>> people at a disadvantage, compared with other people, directly or
>>> indirectly it may be unlawful discrimination, plus (c) anyone
>>> collecting council tax is going to be subject to the public sector
>>> equality duty.
>>>
>>> So I'd again be happy to get someone in front of the cameras to
>>> answer questions.  I don't doubt they'd be able to show a real
>>> business need to save on banking costs.  But if that is the
>>> justification I would like to probe (among other things) whether
>>> denying the possibility of payment in cash to *everyone* is a
>>> proportionate measure - bearing in mind that the number of
>>> nonagenarians operating jam jar budgeting is likely to diminish quite
>>> rapidly by natural wastage.
>>
>> Am I right that one solution for the council would be to provide
>> advice and assistance for the elderly in completing the DD mandate?
>> That seems to me to be a reasonable adjustment.
>
> I thought we were now discussing someone used to budgeting with and
> paying by cash.  The transition from that to a bank account and DDs
> seems to me to require rather more than help completing a DD mandate.
>
> Dare I ask, have you ever known someone who lives by "jam jar budgeting"
> and cash payments?
>

But "but has basic bank account because she was told that's the only way
she can get her state pension".

So, that allows DDs, and it's just a question of filling in the mandate.

[Robin]

I stand ready to be corrected but your insistence that switching from
jam jar budgeting and cash payments to DDs is "just a question of
filling in the mandate" suggests to me that you have never known anyone
who manages income and expenditure with cash in jam jars, and are
unaware of how hard it is to reproduce it with bank accounts and DDs.

If you want to get a better feel for it you could start by looking at

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/managing-your-money-using-the-jam-jar-approach

where the experts (?) in such matters suggest jam jar budgeting can be
done without real jam jars and cash by opening several banks accounts.
Then setting up automatic transfers between them. Then appropriate DDs
for each account.

Apart from anything else, do you reckon someone without online banking
can juggle that?