More Council Tax Questions

[ParkaMark]

So this is a continuation of viewtopic.php?f=42&t=43771 (which went off topic and was moved). I shall aim to keep this thread on topic.

To summarize, I have a friend who's ex did not pay his bills (various utility and council tax). She was not aware of this. He has gone bankrupt, and so has left all "his" debts for her to pay. We have already won one battle with an outstanding bill of nearly 2 grand with an energy supplier. They were sending out final notices to her "care of" address so I phoned them up and asked them to provide proof of consent/contract that her legal person is liable for the outstanding debt. They re-opened the file and passed it to their legal team. A week and a bit later, they called her to say they have written off the debt because they have no proof of consent that a contract was formed between them and her legal person to pay the outstanding amount. Result!

The final thing left to address now is council tax. I need advice on the following:

1) Are council tax debts exempt from bankruptcy ? (I'm presuming so). Since her ex is now bankrupt, she is the only one they can chase now, right? Or is he still liable?

2) There are two accounts with the same council which remain unpaid, and are gathering extra "court" costs (I'm guessing, general administrative costs etc). They have (without advising her) started taking payments (at source, from her benefits) for the account with lower balance. They say they can't take payments for both as they are only allowed to re-claim money for one account at a time. The fact they have made up some numbers (all be it a couple of quid) for deduction from her benefit payments and are deducting this at source without her consent I find disturbing. Is this strictly legal?

3) What is the best course of action to take? Shall we go the PROOF OF CLAIM / AUTHORITY route with them or take a different approach?

4) The other option is to just file for bankruptcy and have done with it (I guess). Or possibly go the route that is before full bankruptcy - a debt relief order.

Thanks in advance to anyone who replies.

[ParkaMark]

I note this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=41777

which suggests councils are not companies (corporations), but trusts. This suggests they do not fall under contract law (like utility companies). If that's the case, is there any case for claiming that they have broken the trust agreement that she has with them since they failed to promptly advise her that debts were remaining unpaid and mounting up? (her ex hid notice letters from her so she was unaware, for some time, that council tax was not being paid - for at least 2 years). The council failed to even call her once during this time to advise her of non-payments. This suggests to me that they are incompetent and in breech of the "trust agreement" she has with them, and I question if they are actually capable of managing the trust they are allegedly administrators of.

Also, I have noticed that the legal person on the bills is not spelled correctly. In fact, it could be substantially different from the legal person printed on her birth certificate. Could this be another possible get out avenue? Or is it the case that because she has already been in communication with them (by phone), she has now shown that she is representing the legal person that they have addressed on the bills?

[umbongo82]

I note this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=17&t=41777

which suggests councils are not companies (corporations), but trusts. This suggests they do not fall under contract law (like utility companies). If that's the case, is there any case for claiming that they have broken the trust agreement that she has with them since they failed to promptly advise her that debts were remaining unpaid and mounting up? (her ex hid notice letters from her so she was unaware, for some time, that council tax was not being paid - for at least 2 years). The council failed to even call her once during this time to advise her of non-payments. This suggests to me that they are incompetent and in breech of the "trust agreement" she has with them, and I question if they are actually capable of managing the trust they are allegedly administrators of.

Also, I have noticed that the legal person on the bills is not spelled correctly. In fact, it could be substantially different from the legal person printed on her birth certificate. Could this be another possible get out avenue? Or is it the case that because she has already been in communication with them (by phone), she has now shown that she is representing the legal person that they have addressed on the bills?

1. No, council tax debts are not exempt from bankrupcty unless the debt arose as a result of benefit fraud then yes it would be. Whilst her ex is still technically liable (dividends could be realised from his bankruptcy) they will almost certainly just pursue her. Unfortunately, they will just go for the easiest option which kind of makes sense, who wouldn't?

2. I find it unlikely, nay untrue, that they didn't attempt to advise her of the deductions. Did they have an up to date address? Yes they are legal and no consent is necessary. I think the maximum deduction is about £3.50 per week (could be lower, not entirely sure).

3. Proof of Claim. Sigh. Apart from wasting your's and eveyone else's time, this achieves absolutely nothing. Just let the deductions carry on. I can't imagine £3.50 per week is any great hardship to clear what are her debts after all?

4. A debt relief order really would sort out her troubles but does she have any assests eg owned home? If so, it's a non-starter. Having said that you say she's currently on benefits so perhaps it is the best way to go. The CAB can help with this.

---

Councils fall under contract law if they enter into a contract with someone. Council tax is not contractural debt so contract law has no relevance.

There is no such thing as a 'trust agreement'. I'm unsure what this is even supposed to mean.

If she was living there with the ex as man and wife, she is liable. It seems that they were pursuing him first which was good for your friend for a while but it seems that luck has run out.

Spelling is irrelevant. Could be a get out avenue? Simply put, no. This only applies to limited companies eg:

Company UK Ltd
Company (UK) Ltd

Two different companies.

The spelling of name doesn't matter as it is all about whether they have the intended person, which seemingly is the case.

Best two options? DRO or just let the deductions run their course.

[ParkaMark]

Councils fall under contract law if they enter into a contract with someone. Council tax is not contractural debt so contract law has no relevance.

Can you clarify what you mean here. You say councils fall under contract law if they enter into a contract with someone. This is what they do. For example, to pay my council tax, they sent me a document to fill out and sign, thus forming a contract making me liable to pay their charges.

Then, in your second sentence, you seem to imply the opposite - "Council tax is not contractual debt so contract law has no relevance." ??? Please clarify.

There is no such thing as a 'trust agreement'. I'm unsure what this is even supposed to mean.

Ok, the council in question is Maidstone Borough Council. Taken from the wikipedia site, I have highlighted important phrases in bold:

The Borough of Maidstone is a local government district with borough status in Kent, England. Its administrative centre is Maidstone which is also the County town of Kent. grid reference TQ760560

The district was formed on 1 April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972, and was a merger of the former municipal borough of Maidstone with the rural districts of Hollingbourne and Maidstone.[1]

Couple of points to note about the above:

1) The legal entity known as "Maidstone Borough Council" was created and is administered by the Government.
2) The district that the entity administers was created under the Local Government Act 1972.
3) Both (1) and (2) above place this concretely in the realms of statute law and legislation.

The "trust agreement" (which I'm assuming exists, it is not something we are actively told about as they most likely do not want you to realise the implications of its existence) stems from the birth certificate that is created (a receipt) when a birth is registered in the UK. Unless advised otherwise, I am assuming that this creates a trust agreement allowing that person to receive basic services from the state (health care, rubbish collection on properties etc). Thus, this is why I think Councils do not fall under contract law at all - they instead fall under trust law, as they are trusts and their primary purpose is to provide services to their local community (police, hospitals etc).

My friend was living with her (then current) boyfriend at 2 different properties over 4 years. She claims that she paid her half of the council tax to him, and thought that he was paying them. It turns out this was not the case. When the council started to send notices about arrears in payment, he hid them from her and so she claims she was unaware this was happening. Thus, one might have expected the council to start proactively contacting her (a polite phone call, knock at the door) to advise her earlier that this was the case, but instead, they let debts mount up for years before she finally found out about any of it. Thus, in my opinion, they have been negligent in their duties to retrieve monies owed to them and letting her know about this issue (assuming council tax is even lawful, based on another thread I've read here, but I'm not going down that path just now).

The general passive/aggressive/laziness of them astounds me. She has recently had to deal with the police due to a robbery which took place at her mums house, where some of her stuff is. From what I have seen, the police are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. They have failed to do anything remotely proactive in attempting to locate the persons responsible, and have not even called back her or her mother with updates as to the ongoing status of the crime. Coupled with other incidents she has told me about with the police where they have "stolen her property", her general attitude towards the police is that they are corrupt, useless power monkeys. Given this, it makes me wonder why the council have the audacity to be claiming outstanding debt from her (some of this which will go to Maidstone Police service, as itemised on her council statements) as even the police seem incapable or unwilling (corrupt) to do their job (I know crimes generate a lot of paper work for them, which is probably why they don't / can't be bothered following up a lot of the petty ones, like burglaries).

I sound bitter don't I ? I know she is. Is closing all bank accounts, ceasing claiming of all benefits, selling/exporting all assets (her car) and moving abroad a viable option?

[umbongo82]

Councils fall under contract law if they enter into a contract with someone. Council tax is not contractural debt so contract law has no relevance.

Can you clarify what you mean here. You say councils fall under contract law if they enter into a contract with someone. This is what they do. For example, to pay my council tax, they sent me a document to fill out and sign, thus forming a contract making me liable to pay their charges.

Then, in your second sentence, you seem to imply the opposite - "Council tax is not contractual debt so contract law has no relevance." ??? Please clarify.

Sorry let me clarify. If a council enters into a contract with say a catering company to supply school meals then yes, contract law would come into play but with regards to council tax (which is not contractural) it has no bearing.

There is no such thing as a 'trust agreement'. I'm unsure what this is even supposed to mean.

Ok, the council in question is Maidstone Borough Council. Taken from the wikipedia site, I have highlighted important phrases in bold:

The Borough of Maidstone is a local government district with borough status in Kent, England. Its administrative centre is Maidstone which is also the County town of Kent. grid reference TQ760560

The district was formed on 1 April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972, and was a merger of the former municipal borough of Maidstone with the rural districts of Hollingbourne and Maidstone.[1]

Couple of points to note about the above:

1) The legal entity known as "Maidstone Borough Council" was created and is administered by the Government.
2) The district that the entity administers was created under the Local Government Act 1972.
3) Both (1) and (2) above place this concretely in the realms of statute law and legislation.

The "trust agreement" (which I'm assuming exists, it is not something we are actively told about as they most likely do not want you to realise the implications of its existence) stems from the birth certificate that is created (a receipt) when a birth is registered in the UK. Unless advised otherwise, I am assuming that this creates a trust agreement allowing that person to receive basic services from the state (health care, rubbish collection on properties etc). Thus, this is why I think Councils do not fall under contract law at all - they instead fall under trust law, as they are trusts and their primary purpose is to provide services to their local community (police, hospitals etc).

You assume wrong and council tax is does not fall under trust law at all, it isn't a trust but a tax. I'm not sure what has led you to believe this but would be interested in reading your sources.

My friend was living with her (then current) boyfriend at 2 different properties over 4 years. She claims that she paid her half of the council tax to him, and thought that he was paying them. It turns out this was not the case. When the council started to send notices about arrears in payment, he hid them from her and so she claims she was unaware this was happening. Thus, one might have expected the council to start proactively contacting her (a polite phone call, knock at the door) to advise her earlier that this was the case, but instead, they let debts mount up for years before she finally found out about any of it. Thus, in my opinion, they have been negligent in their duties to retrieve monies owed to them and letting her know about this issue (assuming council tax is even lawful, based on another thread I've read here, but I'm not going down that path just now).

If they sent her notices in her name to the correct address they have not acted negligently at all. What else are they supposed to do? They cannot legislate for someone potentially hiding her post? If she argued that course in court it wouldn't get her anywhere. Forget that line of argument, there is statute and caselaw that will debunk it immediately.

The general passive/aggressive/laziness of them astounds me. She has recently had to deal with the police due to a robbery which took place at her mums house, where some of her stuff is. From what I have seen, the police are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. They have failed to do anything remotely proactive in attempting to locate the persons responsible, and have not even called back her or her mother with updates as to the ongoing status of the crime. Coupled with other incidents she has told me about with the police where they have "stolen her property", her general attitude towards the police is that they are corrupt, useless power monkeys. Given this, it makes me wonder why the council have the audacity to be claiming outstanding debt from her (some of this which will go to Maidstone Police service, as itemised on her council statements) as even the police seem incapable or unwilling (corrupt) to do their job (I know crimes generate a lot of paper work for them, which is probably why they don't / can't be bothered following up a lot of the petty ones, like burglaries).

I sound bitter don't I ? I know she is. Is closing all bank accounts, ceasing claiming of all benefits, selling/exporting all assets (her car) and moving abroad a viable option?

As I said in my last post, Debt Relief Order would be her best option. Have a look: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAnd ... /DG_187427

[jimdeans]

umbongo82 I have read your posts and you are clued up on an area I need some advice on, can you message me or let me know you are still on the forum, I have an issue with some very old Housing Benefit repayment and have just had a CCJ overturned at court, even though it had a part admission on it, I have received the councils bundle and they go back to 2003, I am doing this for a disabled partner who before we got together was bullied by the council into admitting to debt she did not owe, I believe I have proven the debt should never have happened, but in the bundle there is references to a repayment plan agreed for overpayment of Council Tax prior to this, The Council had recovered some of the money but my partner went bankrupt. I would have thought this debt would have been added to the bankruptcy but it appears not to, the council knew about the bankruptcy because they even interviewed the receiver.

Maybe I can outline this better,
Jim