Enforcement Notice

[Lestrange87]

Hi

Hoping to get advice please. My husband has received 4 letters from Rossendales giving notice of enforcement. The debt goes back to council tax with a liability order dated in 2005 and further for old addresses with this being the first we have ever heard of it! We have never received anything from the council.

The letter that came was addressed to him (name spelled incorrectly) and also addressed to his ex at our address which she has never lived at as they split up 10 years ago. When my husband was with her all tenancies were in her name only and she was the one who agreed to pay the rent and bills with my husband giving her cash each month to pay bills. It's turned out though she didn't pay any as he also lost his motorbike despite him giving her the cash each month to pay the bills!

Question is where do we go from this as surely she is liable for half of the amount, we also have no proof as it was so long ago! We can't afford to pay the whole amount but we do know of an address his ex can be contacted at. What do we do, what do we say and what options do we have.

Any help will be most grateful my husband is struggling with his mental health at the moment and this is the tip of the iceberg for him.

Many Thanks

[zeke]

The liability is more than 6 years old and is well out of time.

Council tax is a statutory debt and it falls under section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.

You do not need to acknowledge any correspondence.

[John The Baptist]

I will offer a different perspective and it's not good news:

A council must obtain a LO within 6 years from the date on the bill. However, once one is obtained, there is no time limit on how long it takes to enforce it.

If the husband moved address and did not inform the council then the council are entitled by law to send correspondence to the last known address.

Council tax payers are jointly liable for the tax. It doesn't matter if the ex eas paying the bills, if the husband's name was on the bill, the council may go after him - This is why councils like to get as many names on bills as possible.

With the above in mind, although it doesn't seem fair, in the eyes of the law, once one person is located, the council may pursue that person for the entire debt.

The glimmer of hope that you have is via the council's complaints procedure.

You have grounds for complaint:

1: Maladministration as the council do not appear to have acted in a timely manner. Furthermore, knowing full well that the debtor(s) did not reside at the relevant address, the council have passed the matter on to bailiffs in order to ensure tracing will take place. By doing so, the debtor (the husband) has been deprived the opportunity to attend to this matter prior to incurring further charges by way of bailiff fees.

You should go on to explain the situation as you have done above (tenancy in wife's name, bills paid by wife, husband just passing money onto wife each week to cover part of the outgoings). It is not reasonable to leave this matter for so long and then justify bailiff fees simply because that was the best way of tracing the debtor.

2: Furthermore you should supply the ex wife's address and ask that the council pursue her equally (they are not obliged to by law but given the time delay, perhaps they could)

3. Suggest that a commitment could be made whereby both parties agree to pay 50% of the debt. I've never heard of this happening before but there is no reason why an authority couldn't set up such an arrangement. Alternatively, the 2 people should agree this between themselves and pay half each.

4. Ask that enforcement be suspended whilst the complaint is being reviewed.

I'm unsure as to whether you have 4 lots of debt or just 4 letters. If you have 4 years of debt, it will be harder to negotiate with the council but whilst the complaint procedure is ongoing, it should place a hold on further enforcement.

Another option available is to refuse to deal with the bailiff. They have no right of forced entry. However, they can seize belongings outside, cars included. Personally, I would go down the complaint procedure route before considering the second option.

[John The Baptist]

Just to expand on the above post, Section 9 of the LA is not applicable to Council Tax.

No time limit can be implemented once a LO is obtained.

[John The Baptist]

Regrettably, there are still some armchair lawyers and general idiots out there who have read s9 of the LA and have decided that it applies to council tax.

I'll try to make it simple:

1. S39 LA:

This Act shall not apply to any action or arbitration for which a period of limitation is prescribed by or under any other enactment

2. Reg 34(3) Council Tax (A&E) Regulations 1992:

.... no application may be instituted in respect of a sum after the period of six years beginning with the day on which it became due...

When does the period of 6 years begin? THE DATE IT BECOMES DUE (the date on the bill).

3. Lord Justice Lloyd:

It seems to me that the correct view is that section 9 of the 1980 Act does not apply as regards unpaid council tax. Instead, regulation 34(3) imposes an equivalent restriction on obtaining an order to enforce the liability.

So the restriction imposed by Reg 34(3) is that no application may be made for a LO after 6 years. There is nothing within the regulations that restricts the time limit on enforcing the LO - Nor can there be. Once a LO is issued, the debt is being enforced under the order, NOT the original council tax.

4. Lord Justice Lloyd:

By the same token, it seems to me logical as a matter of policy that a time bar should apply to a liability for unpaid council tax once, namely at the stage of the application for a liability order, but that it should not apply thereafter, once a liability order has been made. By that stage, it seems to me, the liability which is to be enforced is under the liability order, not for the original council tax.

5. Lord Justice Gross:

I agree

6. Lord Justice Laws:

I also agree

7. The Gift That Keeps on Giving:

I disagree

Says it all.

Incidentally, even if S9 of the LA were applicable, it too prescribes an almost identical time bar:

An action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued

Lord Goddard:

"Mr. Squibb's main argument was that the limitation imposed by the section runs from the date of the accrual of the cause of action, and he contended that as no action lies for rates there could be no cause of action. But if the word "action" is to embrace proceedings which are not actions in the true sense it seems to me that for "cause of action" must be read "cause of proceeding," and the cause of the proceeding in this case is the failure to pay on demand. I would accordingly hold that time runs from the demand."

So surely, S9 places a time bar on a creditor instigating proceedings? Once those proceedings have been instigated (and concluded), S9 is no longer applicable.

This was confirmed by Lord Justice Lloyd:

There is therefore no provision in the Limitation Act 1980 which affects the enforcement.....It is not at all illogical that time limits should apply differently where the creditor already has a judgment. In such a case it is unnecessary to protect the defendant from stale claims on the basis that it may be difficult for him to collect together the relevant evidence. The parties' rights have been established by court proceedings, and it is only then a question of enforcement. The lapse of time may be relevant to that, but the legislative policy, as explained in Lowsley v Forbes, is not to use the 1980 Act.

It never ceases to amaze me that people who struggle to read and write, read a few posts on the internet and usually misunderstand what is written can then hold themselves as some kind of expert in ALL areas of law, expecting people to take them seriously. It's absurd

[Curious]

Hi

I have asked these questions on another site but have not received an answer. Can anyone help please?

What is the case referred to in this thread?
Also, it has been claimed that the case is irrelevant. Please can anyone confirm if and why it is irrelevant?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[John The Baptist]

If you have asked where I think you have asked then you will be waiting a long time. The individual concerned is a liar and a bluffer. He no more knows what case I was referring to than he does which numbers will come up in tomorrow nights Euro millions.

Besides, it was clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of law, case law and enforcement that I had referred to more than one case. One quote refers to council tax and specifically the 1992 regulations and another refers to rates (which were replaced in in the 1980s) It was possibly the word "rates" that led the bluffer into thinking that the case was old and irrelevant. However, he does also struggle when dealing with two different laws in the same matter. In this case, we are talking about council tax law and bailiff law. The individual concerned can never quite grasp the the two are entirely separate and do not cross over. It is a mistake that he has made many times over the years. Whilst bailiff law is indeed virtually all irrelevant, council tax law is nearly all still relevant.

The main case that I was referring to is Bolsover District Council and Mansfield District Council v Ashfield Nominees Ltd and others. It is 10 years old (2010) Anyone with any knowledge of council tax recovery will be familiar with this case and aware of just how relevant it is, along with the precedent it has set.

The other cases that I referred to were:

China v Harrow Urban Council
Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall

It is clear that over the years, the courts have held that limitation is in place to protect a debtor from "stale" claims. However, once a judgement or order is obtained from the court, there is no time bar. Limitation is not in place to give a debtor some kind of amnesty after a 6 year period. In the case of council tax, many cash strapped councils are now reviewing historic debts with a view to procuring money owed. It is possible that a council may not have acted in a timely manner, in which case there may be an opportunity to claim maladministration but regrettably, it is often the case that the debtor has simply moved on without leaving a forwarding address. In these instances, councils are permitted in law to send correspondence to the last known address. Provided that they have done so and obtained a LO within 6 years, there is no time bar on the LO.

To suggest that the Bolsover case is old and irrelevant (without even being aware of it) is just about as reprehensible as it could get. It lulls a debtor into the false sense of security that (s)he is protected from enforcement if a period of 6 or more years pass. This is most definitely not the case and the claim is reckless and dangerous - Without an iota of care for anyone who may be enticed into feeling exempt from enforcement (or other measures available to councils).

[Curious]

Thank you.

That makes perfect sense.

It would also explain why he failed to publish my questions, let alone answer them.

[John The Baptist]

No problem - He now appears to be agreeing that a LO cannot be time barred after all. How strange?

Ironically, the thread he has linked has confirmed exactly my stance on whether a complaint can or can't be considered for maladministration.

In essence, if a debtor fails to leave a forwarding address, the council cannot be guilty of maladministration. However, if the council were aware of the debtor's address, there COULD be a claim of maladministration due to the council failing to act in a timely manner.

We got there in the end.

[Curious]

Great - So now everyone is in agreement that a liability order is not restricted to a 6 year lifespan.

So just to be 100% correct - Is the Bolsover case still relevant or is it irrelevant as claimed elsewhere?

[John The Baptist]

Yes, the case is a precedent and means that liability orders for council tax are not time barred.

I have posted statutes and case law to support my argument - The other bloke has googled an internet forum to glean his information, has side stepped from one stance to a completely different stance, ignored your request to him to name the case (because he didn't know what it was) and failed to realise that there were actually 3 cases being quoted, not one.

I'll leave it to you to decide who is correct.

[Syd Snitkin]

Perhaps he thinks quoting from a previous poster (with no context and using the quote in an argument that has no relevance) makes him knowledgable. And why does he keep referring to himself in the third person and referring to the 'SOL'? Do we have a Statute of Limitation now?

[John The Baptist]

I'm just baffled as to why he would think that the quote proves he had knowledge of the case. The LGO mention "a" case but make no reference to what it actually was. The only online comments I can find regarding the case appear in a thread on LB from 2015 where you and I discussed it.

I actually think it's quite pathetic when he refers to himself in the 3rd party and/or responds to himself. I find it rather scary that a grown man would behave in such a way. His trade mark spelling and grammatical errors make his posts stand out like a sore thumb in any case.

[Syd Snitkin]

Bit of deleting seems to be the order of the day.

Unless Charlie's flapped a finger on a wrong button.