Council tax nonpayment cases - what on earth is going on?

A little article on council tax cases, looking at things which will no doubt be obvious for all those that are going through a process of challenging the procedure on recovery of unpaid council tax revenue - in other words not challenging the liability to council tax per se, but instead looking at the procedure on recovery for nonpayment. I am sure all of those that have ever bothered, or had to, delve into this, are scratching their heads over it.  

I am writing this article not because I am in the middle of any sort of personal challenge about payment of council tax, nor am I in any sort of personal challenge about the procedure for recovery. Others, such as Martin Geddes are, as I am sure you know, and you can find his updates about the same here if you want to read about what he has done. I make no comment on whether I think Mr Geddes is right or wrong – I am just linking to his channel for you to check out if you want to.

I should make clear that this article is neither suggesting that I am mounting a challenge nor that anyone reading this should just stop paying their council tax and get into such a challenge. It is not that type of thing. Rather, this is an article asking questions about things that just do not make sense to me about the recovery procedure. Sadly, however, I have to caution that this article will not provide the answers to my questions. Sorry about that, but I just do not have the answers. At all. Even after writing the article, I just have more questions. But I have written the article anyway, as why should I suffer alone in these things! Just kidding, as I have of course written it to share my questions for your own thoughts.

Below I have given some of my own musings about what could be going on, and some commentary on why these cases seem wildly out of the bounds of normal procedure. But I do not know if any of my conclusions or opinions about these cases are right. To be honest, there is so much obfuscation around this area that it is quite breathtaking. However, it is certainly not by chance, and I feel sure that no one is ever supposed to be able to get to the bottom of what I ask below. What is worse is that I very much doubt that any magistrate has ever put their mind to the things that I raise.

Feel free to chip in with your comments and thoughts on this article in comments, but please do not resort to “the court not being a court and being convened by the council route”. I am not saying that is wrong, but I am not looking at that particular area in this piece. Rather I want to know what jurisdiction these cases fall under, (particularly subject matter jurisdiction meaning the authority granted to a court to hear and decide a case, and whether a court has the authority to hear a particular type of case), and it really should not be as hard, no sorry, impossible, to find this out, especially given that people can lose their liberty for nonpayment of council tax.

So, as always, I am not saying I am right about the views expressed herein. I am just a woman rambling on Substack who is very confused about what council tax nonpayment cases are, and hence I am asking things that I really feel our judiciary and all those working in the legal profession should ask so that we can get to the bottom of matters. I will happily change my mind about any tentative conclusions I make below, if more evidence, (that frankly I have been unable to find to date), is presented to me.

So, first up, a UK Parliament written question and answer tells us that (1) “Non-payment of council tax is not a criminal offence and cannot attract a custodial sentence, and (2) “But as a last resort, a magistrates’ court has the option to commit an individual to prison for non-payment, and a local authority applies for that committal to prison”.

Firstly on (1), can someone please explain this sentence to me in light of (2)? It is not a criminal offence, but a magistrate can decide to send someone to prison?  On what basis? I am of course aware that we can have a civil contempt of court, which can result in imprisonment if someone disobeys a court order. So, my first question here is – is that what these council tax cases are somehow being caught by where a person ends up in prison, given the written question and answer tells us these cases are civil and not criminal? And on (2), for reasons that will become clear below, I mention now that neither a lay person, a corporate entity, nor a private individual, has the authority to commit someone to prison, but instead can initiate certain legal actions that might lead to imprisonment if the Court finds it appropriate. For instance, by initiating a private criminal prosecution (PCP), or in a civil case, as mentioned above, on application due to a civil contempt of court.

To help us out with the initial questions above, if we look at s47 (3) of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 we seem to get confirmation that we are, in fact, not dealing with a contempt of court issue but instead, as the legislation says, a “wilful refusal” or “culpable neglect” issue. Wilful refusal in English law refers to a deliberate decision not to fulfil a known obligation and actually most commonly relates to annulment of marriage for failure to consummate the same. Strange then that this term is connected to council tax cases. Culpable neglect in English law refers to a situation where an individual fails to meet a known obligation, not due to an inability to do so, but because they have chosen to prioritize other matters or have organized their affairs in such a way that they cannot fulfil their obligations. This is to be contrasted with wilful refusal, where the individual explicitly decides not to meet their obligations. Culpable neglect cases are common in child maintenance arrears matters and in the context of criminal law under the broader implications of recklessness and negligence which are both related to the concept of culpable neglect. Of note in this area is that the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 includes provisions for prosecuting care workers who neglect their duties, and provides a framework for understanding culpable neglect in the context of care.

So we can take from the above that broadly speaking the overriding principle is that both wilful refusal and culpable neglect are mainly considered a criminal area of law, except when it comes to marriage annulment, child maintenance arrears, (and nonpayment of magistrates court fines). Why then do we find these terms in council tax nonpayment cases?

My broad thinking when I started looking at these cases was that if nonpayment of council tax is not a criminal offence, then it MUST be a case that is civil in nature, as we ONLY have criminal and civil law in this country. Whilst it is true to say that there are specialised courts and tribunals for certain types of cases, they all fall under the umbrella of civil law if they are not criminal in nature. So all legal cases in England are either part of civil law or criminal law. Nothing else as far as I know. As I have outlined above, the Parliament written question and answer states that council tax nonpayment cases are civil in nature. But if we are to believe this, this leads us to the natural questions “why do these cases not have to follow the civil procedure rules for debt recovery”, and “why are these cases dealt with in the magistrates’ court, rather than the county court or small claims court like all other debt recovery cases typically are”? Does ANYONE know?

Given that our parliamentary written question and answer firmly states that council tax nonpayment cases are not criminal, (so by default must be civil cases), I became a bit angry on recalling what us plebs would have to go through to recover a debt we claim is owed to us. In such a scenario if you or I wanted to start action to recover a debt we would have to file a claim with the Court. For debts up to £10,000, this would generally be in the small claims court and for larger amounts at the County Court, by way of lodging form N1. (NB in both cases we may be able to now also use the online money claim procedure here). We would have to pay a fee for commencing the court action, and the scale of that would depend on what we claim is owed to us. In addition to this we would have to follow the protocol laid down in the civil procedure rules for our case. Local authorities do not have to do this. Seems a tad unfair and completely unjust if you ask me.

At this point in researching these cases I was starting to think that (a) ALL cases whatsoever in England are either criminal or civil, EXCEPT council tax nonpayment cases. It was starting to look to me like such cases have, for some reason, been given their own special and unique hallowed status by the State, and worse, no one can make head nor tail of the process linked to them in any sense of the legal procedure that applies to civil debt recovery. Later I thought that perhaps it is more accurate to say that (b) we are told that these cases are civil in nature, but really, they are criminal, even though our parliamentary question and answer states that nonpayment of council tax is not a criminal offence. Later still I concluded that (c) it may be more accurate to say that we are told that these cases are one thing, but they self-identify as a mix of both civil and criminal and follow a procedure outside of both branches of rules which govern civil and criminal cases, which of course led me back to (a). The truth is that I still do not know the answer to whether council tax nonpayment cases are really civil or criminal in nature, and this is only because they follow NONE OF the rules for either civil recovery of a debt, or criminal cases. How can this be right? How have we ended up here? What I do know is that anyone questioning these cases and from where a council’s powers of enforcement for recovery come, are hit with answers directing them to copious legislation which apparently gives enforcement powers. Nevertheless, that legislation does not provide an answer at law as to why council tax nonpayment cases can follow their own procedure rules that no one else can adopt for anything. That is, unless we accept that the State has given their agents a pass on having to follow the rules that all of must follow. I think this is the natural place that you land once you have read the above and all the below, and I have a MASSIVE problem with this.

Before we get to my massive problem, I want you to know what you will find if you do go searching for an answer to the question “why do local authorities not have to follow the civil procedure rules for debt recovery in council tax cases”. A simple internet search using that specific question will yield an answer “it is because they are governed by specific, (aka special imho), legislation and procedures designed for local government finance”. Not good enough for me I am afraid. I want to know WHY they get special privileges and a pass on how debt recovery is normally carried out. The primary piece of legislation governing council tax is of course the Local Government Finance Act 1992, but there is also the Local Government Finance Act 2012 , the Local Government Act 2003, the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, (CTAER) all of which have a bearing on nonpayment cases, (and do also be aware that there are even more regulations which relate to council tax disregards, exemptions and reductions). Good luck reading through all of this legislation and making sense of it. No chance, unless you are polymath of the century, or an expert in law in my opinion. Nevertheless, the CTAER may be of particular interest to anyone looking at this topic, as it covers the administration and enforcement of council tax, including the issuance of demand notices, collection of payments, and enforcement actions such as liability orders and attachment of earnings orders.

You will also get an answer in addition to the above that “council tax is a statutory debt, meaning it is created and regulated by specific laws (aka special again), and instead of following the usual civil court process, local authorities can apply for a liability order from the magistrates’ court”.  Why though? And what does this mean? Well in my opinion it reinforces the special treatment afforded to these cases, and I have come to the conclusion that this is the State creating simplified procedures for its agents to collect revenue. I am not happy about this, and neither should you be. Why should the State, and its agents known as local authorities, be given a “special place” in law regarding council tax enforcement, and not have to follow the same process for recovery of debts as the rest of us? The State giving government agencies, because that is what local authorities are, special legal processes, completely eviscerates the principle that ALL legal cases must follow the same legal processes and procedures - often referred to as the rule of law. It also obliterates the maxim that all are equal under the law. The rule of law principle IS SUPPOSED TO ensure that all individuals and institutions are subject to and accountable under the law, fairly applied and equally enforced under the consistent application of legal rules applicable to ALL.  The principle “no one is above the law”, is fundamental to the rule of law, and means that every individual, (count statutory corporations, which all local authorities are, as individuals when considering this), regardless of status, wealth, or power, is subject to the same laws and legal processes. Yet with council tax enforcement cases this is clearly not the case, as they do not follow any of the same processes or procedure rules that the rest of us must follow in civil cases for recovery of a debt.

The bottom line is that we appear to be in a situation that local authorities follow a recovery procedure that no one can really explain, and therefore adequately challenge. A process outside of the normal procedure rules that everyone else must follow for recovery of debts. A process that seems, well, unique to local authorities alone. This is not being ‘equal under the law’. This is not “no one is above the law”. This is a whole separate system for councils, enacted through and enforced by the magistrates court. It therefore looks and feels like council tax nonpayment cases have their own rules especially just for them, putting them above other categories of debtors looking to reclaim money. I repeat, not equality, and instead, the State giving its own agents special legal procedural ‘rules’ and ‘enforcement powers’, which none of us have ever agreed to, to the best of my knowledge. I cannot help but think about the Star Chamber here, during the reign of Charles I in the early 17th century, notorious for its arbitrary and oppressive methods.

It gets worse because digging further into this complete lacuna of legal procedure, I found some prima facie evidence which conflicts with these cases being civil cases at all. So, despite what internet searches say, there may be a chance that these cases are criminal in nature, anyway. If this is correct, these cases are not, of course, following the criminal procedure rules either.

To explain my thinking around the possible criminal nature of these cases I should say that under Section 34 of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, a local authority can apply to a magistrates’ court for a summins and liability order when dealing with enforcement over nonpayment of council tax. Applying for a summons must surely involves laying an information before a magistrate, because the issue of a summons is a judicial process. Now you have read that, go and type into a search engine “in Crown Court do criminal cases start with laying an information”? You will receive an answer along the lines of:

In Crown Court criminal cases in England, the process typically starts in the Magistrates’ Court. Here is how it works:

1. Laying an Information: For criminal cases, an information is laid before a magistrate. This is a formal accusation that an individual has committed an offence. It is usually done by a police officer or a prosecutor

2. The case begins in the Magistrates’ Court, where the magistrates decide whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed. For serious offences (indictable-only), the case is sent to the Crown Court for trial, and this process is governed by sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980

So, in summary, while in criminal cases the initial laying of an information occurs in the Magistrates’ Court, serious criminal cases are then sent to the Crown Court for trial.

Can you see where my thinking is going on this?

Clearly no police officer or CPS prosecutor lays an information in a council tax case. So how is one then laid for these cases? We can look to private criminal prosecutions, (PCP’s), for an answer. Now do an internet search asking, “in private criminal prosecutions is an information laid?” You will get an answer along the lines of:

“In private criminal prosecutions, an information is laid to initiate the process. This involves the private individual or entity presenting a formal accusation to a magistrate, detailing the alleged offense. The magistrate then decides whether to issue a summons or a warrant based on the information provided”

The RSPCA are probably the best-known institution for bringing PCP’s in relation to animal cruelty cases, but local authorities in England can issue private criminal prosecutions too, as under s6(1) of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, any individual, company, or organization, including local authorities, has the right to bring a private prosecution. Local authorities in England commonly prosecute a variety of offences privately, such as:

1. Environmental Offences: - illegal dumping of waste (fly-tipping), breaches of environmental regulations, and pollution control violations.

2. Housing Offences: - landlords failing to comply with housing standards, such as providing unsafe living conditions or not adhering to licensing requirements.

3. Trading Standards: - offences related to consumer protection, such as selling counterfeit goods, misleading advertising, and breaches of product safety regulations.

4. Health and Safety Violations: - prosecutions for breaches of health and safety regulations in workplaces, public spaces, and rental properties.

5. Licensing Offences: - violations of licensing laws, such as operating without the necessary licenses for alcohol sales, taxis, or entertainment venues.

6. Benefit Fraud: - cases where individuals falsely claim benefits they are not entitled to, which local authorities investigate and prosecute.

So, tell me folks, where are we now? Are we in the realm of council tax nonpayment cases being civil in nature, but not following the civil procedure rules because local authorities have special powers granted to them by the State, on behalf of itself, PURELY to benefit its own agents? Or are we in the realms of a criminal case that is woefully outside of the criminal procedure rules, possibly making all cases ultra vires or void ab initio, or both.

I honestly do not know what the correct answer is, even after spending a VERY LONG time looking to get sense from all that I have read around this subject. The truth of whether these cases are civil or criminal, like so much these days, seems to be hidden. And there is no point in asking anyone in local government, central government, or even any lawyer, because they just defer to the Local Government and Finance Act and all the other legislation that I have listed above, without thinking about the points that I have raised. So, I am more confused than ever and can only think a judge, and I mean a real one, not a magistrate, would be able to answer my questions. But that would cost a fortune to pursue. So, I am stuck on this. And likewise you are now most probably stuck too.

Perhaps the real answer as to why council tax recovery cases do not follow either the civil or criminal procedure rules may lie in an answer I received to a further search on this which said rather scarily, “Efficiency and Consistency: The specialised process is designed to be more efficient and consistent across different local authorities, ensuring that council tax, which is a crucial source of local government revenue, is collected effectively”. Of course, it all makes sense now. When government, central or local, wants money from us, it can invent whatever procedure it likes to recover the same, never mind the rule of law or the accepted and indeed required procedure that everyone else in the country must follow for all other cases. And never mind asking for our agreement to the same. In some worlds this type of behaviour might be called extortion, maybe even economic terrorism, and it most certainly would be regarded as criminal if anyone other than the local authority or the State was engaging in it.

In conclusion, I have to say, that perhaps these council tax cases constitute, as Martin Geddes states in his Substack “part of a wider system of treasonous harvesting of the public for money. Although it is in the adjacent topic of Penalty Charge Notices (i.e. fake fines), this video is a succinct and thorough introduction to the illegality involved. Specifically, it violates the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights 1689, which is very much still the law of the land in England. Endlessly reasserting authority you do not have does not make it so; it just deepens the injustice”.

I am signing off now as “yours very confused”, so do let me know what you think. Have you anything to add or any insights? Am I just wildly off track or are we on to something that we need to get to the bottom of?

Part 2 of this is coming! Where I will look at the validity of the actual summonses issued in these cases. Stay tuned and stay sane in a mad world!