Bury Council Tax
Email sent to council, 18th February
I received my first council tax bill, for £502.63 (apparently covering several months), approximately one month ago. I sent off the enclosed forms, pointing out that
a) I was, until very recently, unemployed
b) I am the only tax-payer living in this property, as I share it with a student.
I have now received two responses; a form for submitting a council tax student certificate, along with a reminder notice for the full some of £502.63, threatening legal action.
As I have already explained, I was unemployed during much of the period covered by the bill, and I am sharing the house with a student; I cannot possibly afford, or be held liable for, this bill.
The reference number on the bill is ***, property reference ***.
Yours Sincerely,
Reply from council
Message [***] triggered rule [Encrypted ] at 17:42:50 18/02/2007
Sender: ***
Recipient(s): counciltax@bury.gov.uk
Subject: Council Tax
An email item you sent to counciltax@bury.gov.uk
has been temporarily blocked because it appears to contravene
the Council's rules for email use, as defined in the Authority's
ICT Security Policy.
The email will be released within 24 hours, subject to review.
9th March
The Magistrates' Court send me a summons for non-payment of £567.63 council tax, plus £65 costs.
Letter sent to council, 11th March
On 4th January this year, you sent me a council tax bill for £502.63. Although this is the first council tax bill which I have received, you allege that this covers the period of 15th October '06 through to 31st March '07.
Included with the bill were forms for various types of appeal. As I could anyway not afford this bomb-shell, having been until recently unemployed, I submitted the enclosed forms, detailing my period of unemployment, and that I am the only tax-payer resident at the billed address.
On 14th February, you sent a reminder for the full bill, threatening a loss of my right to pay by instalments (which I had never been offered). The reminder ended with a paragraph asking me to get in contact if “you do not owe the amount shown above”.
In response, I sent an email to your published contact address on 18th February. You sent a reply the same day, stating that my email would be reviewed within 24 hours.
Having made two attempts to contact you with regards to resolving this issue, both at your invitation, I was shocked to receive a summons to court last Friday. I have not at any time indicated any unwillingness to pay such taxes as I am liable to; I have merely attempted to clarify the correct amount of tax, and to discuss an affordable regime of payments. By ignoring all my communications, and perusing an unwarranted legal aggression, you are clearly guilty of malicious harassment. In particular, your charge for costs is utterly unjustifiable.
I look forward to a prompt resolution.
Yours Sincerely,
On 26th March I called the council to discuss the issue, and the agent who answered the phone informed me that as their computer systems were broken, they couldn't do anything.
On 27th March I called the council again. The person I spoke to gave his name as Mr. Crook, but that could just as well have been his character profile.
Mr. Crook insisted that the council did not ignore the letter which I had sent them, then told me that they had had it on file for two weeks, but had not done anything about it. Apparently, in the council's Revenues/Thefts/Humpty-Dumpty department, not responding to a letter does not constitute ignoring it. He also insisted that they would not ignore any email, although in the 17th May letter (below) they admitted to having done just that.
Mr. Crook's attitude throughout the conversation was the most negative and unhelpful that I have ever experienced, but he did arrange a repayment plan.
Reply received from council, 27th March
I refer to your letter dated 11th March 2007 regarding the summons that was issued to you on 7th March 2007.
You stated in your letter that you had made two attempts to contact the council tax office and had sent an email that the Council tax office responded to. I have searched my records and can not find a copy of this email, please forward a copy of this email in order that it may be investigated further.
You also stated that you live in the above address on your own, however, on 16th January 2007 I received a discount form which stated that two adults lived at the address, (I have enclosed a copy of the form) and that one of the adults was a student. A student discount form was sent, but as yet this has not been returned.
A bill was issued to you on 4 January 2007 for £502.63. As no payment was made a reminder was issued on 12th February 2007. Again as no payment was made, a summons was issued on 7th March 2007 for £567.63 which includes £65 costs. As such the documents have been issued correctly and payment should now be made in full. If payment can not be made in full, please contact the office on 0161 253 5095 to make a payment arrangement.
If you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me on 0161 253 7096.
Letter sent to council, 27th March
On 18 February, I sent an email to counciltax@bury.gov.uk, which I quote in full:
Your email system sent a reply the same day, promising that it would be reviewed within 24 hours; I have enclosed a copy of this reply. The encryption referred to is my digital signature, a standard means of verifying the senders of email; the text itself was not encrypted in any way.
Three weeks after promising to “review” this email, you did indeed reply – with a summons to court, and a further bill for legal costs. Responding to an attempt at dialogue with aggressive legal action is clearly unjustified, and charging me for the cost of your unwarranted harassment is ludicrous.
I understand that the council's policy is to rebuff any attempts at communication and to reach straight for the legal guns. However, as a reasonable person, I would prefer to settle this out of court. Is there any ombudsman or independent tribunal who could arbitrate?
Yours Sincerely,
10th May
One and a half months having passed, I call the council to nag for a response.
Reply received from council 17th May
The summons that was issued to you on 7th March 2007 is correct and according to my records a payment arrangement has been made. As your discount has now been granted and your bill reduced, I have amended your arrangement and enclosed a new instalment letter.
With regards to your claim for Council Tax benefit, please contact our Housing and Council Tax Benefit office on 0161 253 5008. Please pay as billed until any amended bills are issued.
The email that you received from our ICT unit saying that your email would be reviewed within 24 hours meant that it would be reviewed before it could be sent to the Council Tax office, however, as it contravened the council's rules for email use, it was not sent to us. I am sorry for any inconvenience caused.
If you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me on 0161 253 7096.
18th May
I attempt to call the contact given in the Council's letter; she is away until Monday, but will call me back. In the meantime, my single person discount (on account of my student housemate) and council tax benefit (for my period of unemployment) are finally processed, and confirmation letters received.
21st May
I get a call back, who declares my original email to be irrelevant, thus discarding the High Court ruling that an email arriving at a published address must be considered as a properly served document, regardless of what the recipient's IT does with it.
However, she does agree to withdraw the summons, if I receive council tax benefit for my period of unemployment. She insists that there is no such benefit registered on my account. After I pointed out the specific bill on which this benefit appeared, she backtracked, and said that withdrawing the summons did not mean cancelling the charge for costs.
Complaint to Local Government Ombudsman, 21st May
I was sent a bill for £502.63 council tax while unemployed. I sent an email to the council's published email address, explaining the situation. The next communication I received from the council was a summons to court, including £65 costs. The council have since admitted to receiving my email, but discarding it, since it "contravened the council's rules for email use". They have not been able to explain which rule was contravened. They also cannot explain how an unemployed person with no income could possibly pay the sum which they were demanding. Nevertheless, during my last conversation with the council (Mrs C Stredder), she insisted that they are right, and that the only avenue of further recourse is to contact the ombudsman.
During the course of this conversation, she agreed to withdraw the summons, if I receive council tax benefit for my period of unemployment, while insisting that there is no such benefit registered on my account. After I pointed out the specific bill on which this benefit appeared, she backtracked, and said that withdrawing the summons did not mean cancelling the charge for costs.
The letters which I received from the council regarding this issue listed Mrs C Stredder as the appropriate contact. My account reference with the council is 43291028.
I have been subjected to unjustified legal belligerence, and spent dozens of hours fending off the council's revenue department, which is behaving like a band of robber barons from the Middle Ages. Additionally, they have charged me £65 for costs which the council have incurred while harassing me without cause.
Ombudsman replies, saying that he will resubmit my complaint to the Council's complaints procedures.
4 July
Receive a four page letter from the council, mostly rehashing everything which has happened to date. They state that "council tax legislation is written to imply that all charge-payers are equal and can afford to pay their liability". I.e., they are legally entitled to behave like robber-barons. Nevertheless, without prejudice, and on this occasion only, they will waiver the legal costs.
However, they still consider it acceptable that their e-mail server throws away anything with a digital signature.
I received my first council tax bill, for £502.63 (apparently covering several months), approximately one month ago. I sent off the enclosed forms, pointing out that
a) I was, until very recently, unemployed
b) I am the only tax-payer living in this property, as I share it with a student.
I have now received two responses; a form for submitting a council tax student certificate, along with a reminder notice for the full some of £502.63, threatening legal action.
As I have already explained, I was unemployed during much of the period covered by the bill, and I am sharing the house with a student; I cannot possibly afford, or be held liable for, this bill.
The reference number on the bill is ***, property reference ***.
Yours Sincerely,
Reply from council
Message [***] triggered rule [Encrypted ] at 17:42:50 18/02/2007
Sender: ***
Recipient(s): counciltax@bury.gov.uk
Subject: Council Tax
An email item you sent to counciltax@bury.gov.uk
has been temporarily blocked because it appears to contravene
the Council's rules for email use, as defined in the Authority's
ICT Security Policy.
The email will be released within 24 hours, subject to review.
9th March
The Magistrates' Court send me a summons for non-payment of £567.63 council tax, plus £65 costs.
Letter sent to council, 11th March
On 4th January this year, you sent me a council tax bill for £502.63. Although this is the first council tax bill which I have received, you allege that this covers the period of 15th October '06 through to 31st March '07.
Included with the bill were forms for various types of appeal. As I could anyway not afford this bomb-shell, having been until recently unemployed, I submitted the enclosed forms, detailing my period of unemployment, and that I am the only tax-payer resident at the billed address.
On 14th February, you sent a reminder for the full bill, threatening a loss of my right to pay by instalments (which I had never been offered). The reminder ended with a paragraph asking me to get in contact if “you do not owe the amount shown above”.
In response, I sent an email to your published contact address on 18th February. You sent a reply the same day, stating that my email would be reviewed within 24 hours.
Having made two attempts to contact you with regards to resolving this issue, both at your invitation, I was shocked to receive a summons to court last Friday. I have not at any time indicated any unwillingness to pay such taxes as I am liable to; I have merely attempted to clarify the correct amount of tax, and to discuss an affordable regime of payments. By ignoring all my communications, and perusing an unwarranted legal aggression, you are clearly guilty of malicious harassment. In particular, your charge for costs is utterly unjustifiable.
I look forward to a prompt resolution.
Yours Sincerely,
On 26th March I called the council to discuss the issue, and the agent who answered the phone informed me that as their computer systems were broken, they couldn't do anything.
On 27th March I called the council again. The person I spoke to gave his name as Mr. Crook, but that could just as well have been his character profile.
Mr. Crook insisted that the council did not ignore the letter which I had sent them, then told me that they had had it on file for two weeks, but had not done anything about it. Apparently, in the council's Revenues/Thefts/Humpty-Dumpty department, not responding to a letter does not constitute ignoring it. He also insisted that they would not ignore any email, although in the 17th May letter (below) they admitted to having done just that.
Mr. Crook's attitude throughout the conversation was the most negative and unhelpful that I have ever experienced, but he did arrange a repayment plan.
Reply received from council, 27th March
I refer to your letter dated 11th March 2007 regarding the summons that was issued to you on 7th March 2007.
You stated in your letter that you had made two attempts to contact the council tax office and had sent an email that the Council tax office responded to. I have searched my records and can not find a copy of this email, please forward a copy of this email in order that it may be investigated further.
You also stated that you live in the above address on your own, however, on 16th January 2007 I received a discount form which stated that two adults lived at the address, (I have enclosed a copy of the form) and that one of the adults was a student. A student discount form was sent, but as yet this has not been returned.
A bill was issued to you on 4 January 2007 for £502.63. As no payment was made a reminder was issued on 12th February 2007. Again as no payment was made, a summons was issued on 7th March 2007 for £567.63 which includes £65 costs. As such the documents have been issued correctly and payment should now be made in full. If payment can not be made in full, please contact the office on 0161 253 5095 to make a payment arrangement.
If you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me on 0161 253 7096.
Letter sent to council, 27th March
On 18 February, I sent an email to counciltax@bury.gov.uk, which I quote in full:
{copy of email}
Your email system sent a reply the same day, promising that it would be reviewed within 24 hours; I have enclosed a copy of this reply. The encryption referred to is my digital signature, a standard means of verifying the senders of email; the text itself was not encrypted in any way.
Three weeks after promising to “review” this email, you did indeed reply – with a summons to court, and a further bill for legal costs. Responding to an attempt at dialogue with aggressive legal action is clearly unjustified, and charging me for the cost of your unwarranted harassment is ludicrous.
I understand that the council's policy is to rebuff any attempts at communication and to reach straight for the legal guns. However, as a reasonable person, I would prefer to settle this out of court. Is there any ombudsman or independent tribunal who could arbitrate?
Yours Sincerely,
10th May
One and a half months having passed, I call the council to nag for a response.
Reply received from council 17th May
The summons that was issued to you on 7th March 2007 is correct and according to my records a payment arrangement has been made. As your discount has now been granted and your bill reduced, I have amended your arrangement and enclosed a new instalment letter.
With regards to your claim for Council Tax benefit, please contact our Housing and Council Tax Benefit office on 0161 253 5008. Please pay as billed until any amended bills are issued.
The email that you received from our ICT unit saying that your email would be reviewed within 24 hours meant that it would be reviewed before it could be sent to the Council Tax office, however, as it contravened the council's rules for email use, it was not sent to us. I am sorry for any inconvenience caused.
If you wish to discuss this matter, please contact me on 0161 253 7096.
18th May
I attempt to call the contact given in the Council's letter; she is away until Monday, but will call me back. In the meantime, my single person discount (on account of my student housemate) and council tax benefit (for my period of unemployment) are finally processed, and confirmation letters received.
21st May
I get a call back, who declares my original email to be irrelevant, thus discarding the High Court ruling that an email arriving at a published address must be considered as a properly served document, regardless of what the recipient's IT does with it.
However, she does agree to withdraw the summons, if I receive council tax benefit for my period of unemployment. She insists that there is no such benefit registered on my account. After I pointed out the specific bill on which this benefit appeared, she backtracked, and said that withdrawing the summons did not mean cancelling the charge for costs.
Complaint to Local Government Ombudsman, 21st May
I was sent a bill for £502.63 council tax while unemployed. I sent an email to the council's published email address, explaining the situation. The next communication I received from the council was a summons to court, including £65 costs. The council have since admitted to receiving my email, but discarding it, since it "contravened the council's rules for email use". They have not been able to explain which rule was contravened. They also cannot explain how an unemployed person with no income could possibly pay the sum which they were demanding. Nevertheless, during my last conversation with the council (Mrs C Stredder), she insisted that they are right, and that the only avenue of further recourse is to contact the ombudsman.
During the course of this conversation, she agreed to withdraw the summons, if I receive council tax benefit for my period of unemployment, while insisting that there is no such benefit registered on my account. After I pointed out the specific bill on which this benefit appeared, she backtracked, and said that withdrawing the summons did not mean cancelling the charge for costs.
The letters which I received from the council regarding this issue listed Mrs C Stredder as the appropriate contact. My account reference with the council is 43291028.
I have been subjected to unjustified legal belligerence, and spent dozens of hours fending off the council's revenue department, which is behaving like a band of robber barons from the Middle Ages. Additionally, they have charged me £65 for costs which the council have incurred while harassing me without cause.
Ombudsman replies, saying that he will resubmit my complaint to the Council's complaints procedures.
4 July
Receive a four page letter from the council, mostly rehashing everything which has happened to date. They state that "council tax legislation is written to imply that all charge-payers are equal and can afford to pay their liability". I.e., they are legally entitled to behave like robber-barons. Nevertheless, without prejudice, and on this occasion only, they will waiver the legal costs.
However, they still consider it acceptable that their e-mail server throws away anything with a digital signature.
posted by G. Eek! at
11:29 am
0 Comments
