Where a local authority/council (the 'Billing Authority') in England has reasonable grounds for believing that a person (or persons; whether individual(s) or company(ies)) is liable for council tax in respect to a chargeable dwelling (defined in section 4[1] of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (the '1992 Act')), the Billing Authority is likely to serve a demand notice[2a] (a bill) on the person (or persons) identified as liable (on the Billing Authority's reading of, principally, section 6[2b] of the 1992 Act), demanding that the set council tax[3] for that valuation band[4] (subject to any reductions/reliefs etc.[5a]), for the relevant financial year(s) (liability period(s)), be paid by the person (or persons[5b])(the 'Taxpayer'[5c]) - potentially by instalments. Such a demand notice forms part of the wider council tax statutory scheme (described in a footnote [6a]).
Where the demand notice sum (or instalment thereof) is not paid, and the applicable reminder notice (reg.23(1))/final notice is sent, and the sum (or instalment thereof) remains unpaid for the prescribed time[6b], the Billing Authority is likely to apply to the Magistrates Court for a council tax liability order ('CTLO') against the Taxpayer. This article will consider one point in relation to that application - that is, how reg.53(5) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992/613 ('1992/613 Regs') makes admissible in the Magistrates Court: (1) a statement in a Billing Authority computer print out (the 'Print Out') that a Taxpayer has failed to pay due council tax, and (2) a certificate, containing a statement, that the Billing Authority computer was, when the Print Out was generated, operating (in essence) satisfactorily. The article will also consider the only reported authority on reg.53(5), namely Williams v East Northamptonshire DC [2016] EWHC 470 (Admin); [2016] R.A. 191 ('Williams'), a decision of Mr Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge (the 'Judge')).
Prelude to an Application by way of Complaint for a CTLO
Where council tax has become payable to the Billing Authority (under Part V of the 1992/613), but remains unpaid, reg. 32 provides that regs. 33 to 53 of 1992/613 Regs shall apply, as to the mechanisms for recovery of a sum by the Billing Authority.
Save in case of default in payment of instalments in respect of which a separate regime is laid down in reg.23 (see reg.33(3)), reg. 33[7] requires that, before a Billing Authority can apply for a council tax liability order ('CTLO'), the Billing Authority must ('shall') serve on the Taxpayer a notice (called a 'final notice'), which: (1) must state 'every amount in respect of which the [Billing Authority] is to make the application' (reg.33.(1))(i.e. must state every amount the Billing Authority is proposing to apply for a CTLO in respect of); and (2) 'may be served in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due.' (reg.33(2)).
Reg. 34(3)[8a] provides that no application may be made for a CTLO in respect of a sum after the period of six years beginning with the day on which it became due under Part V of the 1992/613 Regs.
The Application by way of Complaint for a CTLO
Reg.34 of the 1992/613 Regs is entitled 'Application for liability order' and reg.34(1) provides:
'If an amount which has fallen due under paragraph (3) or (4) of regulation 23 (including those paragraphs as applied as mentioned in regulation 28A(2)) is wholly or partly unpaid, or (in a case where a final notice is required under regulation 33) the amount stated in the final notice is wholly or partly unpaid at the expiry of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the notice was issued, the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph (2), apply to a magistrates' court for an order against the person by whom it is payable.' [bold added]
Reg.34(2) of the 1992/613 Regs provides:
'The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding.'
On such an application, reg. 34(6) provides that the court shall make the CTLO if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the Taxpayer and has not been paid. Reg.34(6) provides:
'The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.'
Proving the Council Tax is Due but Unpaid
It is for the Billing Authority to prove its case for a CTLO (assuming the Taxpayer does not admitted a failure to pay due and payable council tax). That is, to satisfy the Magistrates Court that the council tax sum has become due and payable by the Taxpayer and has not been paid (note readers should familiarise themselves with the jurisdictional divide between the Magistrates Court and the Valuation Tribunal of England, in respect to disputing various aspects of council tax 'liability to pay'/'duty to pay'[8b]).
Typically, the Billing Authority will produce for the Magistrates Court, a 'Print Out' document, generated by the Billing Authority's computer hosting/running its council tax billing/enforcement software. The Print Out will contain multiple rows (perhaps about 5 rows per page), each row in respect to a Taxpayer, a property (Hereditament), a council tax liability period/year - each row recording what council tax is said to be due and payable, but unpaid (amongst other things). The Billing Authority will rely upon this Print Out document, as accurately recording all the unpaid council tax due and payable, on all the cases CTLOs are applied for.
The 1992/613 Regs anticipated:
(1) these Print Outs being tendered as evidence in the Magistrates Court, to prove that unpaid council tax is due and payable, and that a CTLOs ought to be made; and
(2) certificates being presented to the Magistrates Court, to stand towards the veracity of the information contained in the statements on the Print Out; addressing the natural concerns which might arise in the Magistrates Court, as to whether the computer that generated the Print Out, was operating properly when it generated the Print Out (or at least, that any operating improperly/'out of operation' occasions, would not have affected the accuracy of the information/statements in the Print Out).
The 1992/613, reg.53 (entitled 'Magistrates Court') stipulates the following in relation to these Print Outs, in reg.53(4) to (6):
'(4) In any proceedings under regulation 34 (application for liability order), or regulation 47 (commitment to prison), a statement contained in a document constituting or forming part of a record compiled by the applicant authority or an authorised person shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible.
(5) In proceedings where the applicant authority or an authorised person desires to give a statement in evidence in accordance with paragraph (4), and the document containing that statement is produced by a computer, a certificate-
(a) identifying the document containing the statement and the computer by which it was produced;
(b) containing a statement that at all material times the computer was operating properly, or if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents;
(c) giving such explanation as may be appropriate of the content of the document; and
(d) purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible position in relation to the operation of the computer,
shall be admissible as evidence of anything which is stated in it to the best of the signatory's information and belief.
(6) In paragraph (4) above, “statement” includes any representation of fact, whether made in words or otherwise; and the reference to an application under regulation 47 includes a reference to an application made in the circumstances mentioned in regulation 48(3).' [Bold added]
Accordingly:
(1) statements in these Print Outs are admissible in the Magistrates Court as evidence of the facts stated in them (to the extent that direct oral evidence could be given of those facts);
(2) certificates, issued by a Billing Authority, are also admissible in the Magistrates Court as evidence of the facts ('anything') which is stated in the certificate, provided that the certificates:
(a) are given because the Billing Authority desired to make statements in a Print Out document;
(b) the Print Out document is produced by a computer; and
(c) the certificate meets each of the 4 conditions contained in reg.53(5)(a) to (d) inclusive.
Otherwise, the certificate does not benefit from admissibility under reg.53(5).
Further, in the author's opinion:
(3) Each of reg.53(4) and reg.53(5) are drafted to operate independently of each other, each providing admissibility upon, respectively, (1) the Print Out; and (2) the certificate.
Though each is independent, clearly though, the admission/admissibility of a certificate is there to assist the Magistrates Court, in its task of assessing the veracity of the information contained in the statements made on the Print Out.
Given the large scale of council tax collection in any Billing Authority, Billing Authority's, and in turn, the Magistrates Court are heavy dependant on the computer keeping track and accurately recording each council tax account/position. The Magistrates Court will be naturally concerned to know that the computer was operating properly (etc.) when the Print Out was produced. To put it another way, without the admission of a certificate, evidencing that the computer that generated the Print Out, was operating properly (etc.), the Magistrates Court might well hesitate long and hard, before accepting the Print Out statements at face value.
It is convenient to now turn to the only reported authority in this area, Williams.
Williams
In Williams, a Taxpayer appealed to the High Court by way of Case Stated, a Magistrates Court decision to impose a CTLO upon him. Amongst other arguments, the Taxpayer argued on his Case Stated appeal that the Magistrates Court had been wrong to find him liable on the basis of the evidence the Magistrates Court received. The Taxpayer argued that '...the Magistrates' Court should not have found him liable for Council Tax because the only material which purported to contain evidence of his liability to pay such Council Tax was a computer record which was inadmissible as evidence at the hearing.' (paragraph 36).
Here a little ambiguity creeped into the Taxpayers submissions. The Taxpayer referred to the 'computer record' being inadmissible - introducing a lack of precision - which lead to a error about quite from the consequence was of a finding that a 'certificate' was not reg.53(5) compliant. What is clear is that the taxpayer argued that the certificate was inadmissible, and so, it is tolerably clear, argued that the Print Out was therefore not admissible. The Judge, at paragraph 39, recorded:
'At the hearing in the Magistrates' Court, the [Billing Authority] relied on a statement produced by a computer. However, the [Taxpayer] contends that the certificate did not comply with sub-paragraph (a) of Regulation 53(5) with the consequence that the evidence itself was not admissible.'
To the extent that 'evidence' here is referring to the Print Out, the Taxpayer's argument relied upon a misreading of reg.53(4) and reg.53(5). Those provisions do not say that, if the certificate is inadmissible, then the Print Out is automatically inadmissible as well (i.e. fails to be rendered admissible by reg.53(4)). The Print Out's admissibility is not dependant on their being an admissible certificate. What the absence of an admissible certificate will go to, is the reliability and 'weight' that can properly be given to the Billing Authority's Print Out, but that is different. An inadmissible certificate does not render the Print Out inadmissible. The concept of reliability will be well known; the concept of 'weight' will be returned to below.
Turning to the admissibility of the certificate. The Billing Authority had issued a complaint, alleging that the people/taxpayers listed in a Schedule accompanying the complaint, were persons properly liable to pay/under a duty to pay, Council Tax in the sums (as listed opposite their names in the Schedule (paragraph 12)). The Schedule was a computer-generated Print Out (paragraph 13). There was also a document, the (alleged) certificate, which contained the following statement (paragraph 40):
'I, [Billing Authority employee], certify that this is an accurate extract of information held within the computer operated by the council at the time of printing this document which details names and addresses of persons summonsed for non-payment of Council Tax. I also certify that at all relevant times the computer system functioned properly and that all information given herein is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.'
Above this statement in the (alleged) certificate, was the following information:
'Program: ct6200a
East Northamptonshire District Coun
Version: 7100
Job Id: 349/5
Date: 06.08.2105
Time: 09:02
Liability Order in respect of Council Tax
Certificate of Computer Validity
System in Use: Linux'
The Taxpayer argued this statement failed to satisfy reg.53(5)((a) (i.e. it did not identify '...the computer by which it was produced'). In other words, it was not a reg.53(5) compliant certificate. The Taxpayer argued (as the Judge recorded, as paragraph 42) that the (alleged) certificate:
'...it did not identify the computer from which the document annexed to it had been produced. He submitted that LINUX was a computer operating system, not a computer, and that none of the other information contained on the face of the certificate identified the computer. Whatever the codes and references in the top line meant, so he argued, they did not identify the computer. He suggested that there was no good reason given as to why the certificate did not identify the manufacturer, the model and serial number of the computer. It was not sufficient for the certificate to describe the computer merely as the one used by the Respondent to produce the document.'
In response, the Billing Authority argued (as the Judge recorded, as paragraph 43):
'...that the certificate did identify the computer as the one operated by the [Billing Authority] at the time of printing the document and that it operated a LINUX system. Reliance was also placed on the information set out above the statement including the program, the version and the job identification reference.'
As to whether the certificate was or was not reg.53(5) compliant, the Judge in Williams held, at paragraphs 46 to 47, that he was:
'...satisfied that this certificate did contain sufficient information to comply with the Regulation 53(5) in that it did adequately identify the computer by which the relevant document had been produced. I accept...that a computer can be identified in a series of different ways. No single or exclusive way of doing so is prescribed in the Regulation. One way would be to refer to its make, model and serial number. Another would be to describe its physical location or to provide some other attribute by which it could readily be identified. The object of the Regulation is to ensure that, if it ever became material to check the veracity or accuracy of the document produced by the computer, the relevant computer could be identified.
In this case, had it been necessary to challenge the substantive content of the document produced by the certificate, there was sufficient information on the face of the certificate to identify the computer by which it had been produced. The computer was the one operated by the [Billing Authority] at the time and used a LINUX system. It would not be of any further assistance to the [Taxpayer] to know the make, model or serial number if the computer itself was identifiable by other means.'
He concluded therefore, at paragraph 48, that:
'...the certificate complied with the Regulations and the document produced by it was admissible as evidence against the [Taxpayer].'[9]
Two further points arose. The Judge noted in Williams, on the facts, that:
(1) the Print Out and certificate had not been the only pieces of evidence before the Magistrates Court at first instance in Williams. Consequently, in respect to the Taxpayer's appeal that the Magistrates Court had been wrong to make the CTLO, there was more to consider than just the admissibility of documentary evidence. There had also been oral evidence from a Billing Authority employee (paragraph 49). In other words, the Magistrates Court, when reaching its decision (the one subject to the appeal), had not been '...confined to the documentary material produced by the [Billing Authority's] computer.' (paragraph 49). The Billing Authority employee's evidence the oral evidence had been that the Taxpayer '...had defaulted on his council tax payments' (paragraph 49). The Judge held that this oral evidence supported the Magistrates Court decision that a CTLO should be made against the Taxpayer[10].
(2) 'the [Taxpayer] never disputed that the amount contained in the Schedule attached to the certificate was in fact due. Nor has he subsequently made any submission to [the High Court] that he would have been in a position to dispute it.' (paragraph 53). This mean that 'There was therefore no prejudice at all which resulted from the [Billing Authority's] reliance on the certificate.' [Bold added] (paragraph 53). A connected point, was that because the Taxpayer never disputed he was liable, this rendered his technical argument about certificate admissibility, 'deeply unattractive' (paragraph 37)[11].
The Case Stated appeal was dismissed (paragraph 93).
Admissibility vs Weight
Merely because a piece of evidence is admissible, is not the end of the matter. There are then the questions of reliability and 'weight'. As to 'weight', this is how persuasive/probative that piece of evidence is, towards one particular outcome/decision, as against the other evidence (or establishing facts mechanisms) before the court. That is, its relatively persuasive/probative force, as against: (1) the other evidence in the case; and (2) any presumption/assumptions of fact which are applied to the area of law, or the starting point onus of proof). What 'weight' is to be given to the piece of type of evidence, is a matter for the decision maker (here, the Magistrates Court) to determine. An admissible piece of evidence might be highly persuasive/probative, or indeed, it might not be persuasive/probative of anything at all.
SIMON HILL © 2023*
BARRISTER
33 BEDFORD ROW
NOTICE: This article is provided free of charge for information purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by any member of Chambers or by Chambers as a whole, or the Copyright holder. No attempt has been made to provide an exhaustive review/account of the law in this area. *Copyright is owned by Barrister Search Limited.
[1] To identify what is a 'chargeable dwelling' (which can be labelled 'domestic hereditaments'), it is necessary to read sections 3 and 4 of Local Government Finance Act 1992 together. Section 3 is entitled 'Meaning of “dwelling” and section 4 is entitled 'Dwellings chargeable to council tax'. Taking these in reverse order:
Section 4 reads:
'(1) Council tax shall be payable in respect of any dwelling which is not an exempt dwelling.
(2) In this Chapter-
“chargeable dwelling” means any dwelling in respect of which council tax is payable...'
Pausing there, the 'Chapter' is Chapter 1 entitled 'Main Provisions', contained in Part I 'Council Tax in England' contained in Local Government Finance Act 1992.
The rest of section 4 then sets out the powers of the Secretary of State to prescribe, by statutory instrument, what will be an 'exempt dwelling'. For completeness, it reads:
'“exempt dwelling” means any dwelling of a class prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a class of dwellings may be prescribed by reference to such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit.
(4) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3) above, a class of dwellings may be prescribed by reference to one or more of the following factors-
(a) the physical characteristics of dwellings;
(b) the fact that dwellings are unoccupied or are occupied for prescribed purposes or are occupied or owned by persons of prescribed descriptions'
Section 3 reads:
'(1) This section has effect for determining what is a dwelling for the purposes of this Part.
(2) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a dwelling is any property which-
(a) by virtue of the definition of hereditament in section 115(1) of the General Rate Act 1967, would have been a hereditament for the purposes of that Act if that Act remained in force; and
(b) is not for the time being shown or required to be shown in a local or a central non-domestic rating list in force at that time; and
(c) is not for the time being exempt from local non-domestic rating for the purposes of Part III of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”); and in applying paragraphs (b) and (c) above no account shall be taken of any rules as to Crown exemption.
(3) A hereditament which-
(a) is a composite hereditament for the purposes of Part III of the 1988 Act; and
(b) would still be such a hereditament if paragraphs (b) to (d) of section 66(1) of that Act (domestic property) were omitted, is also, subject to subsection (6) below, a dwelling for the purposes of this Part.
(4) Subject to subsection (6) below, none of the following property, namely-
(a) a yard, garden, outhouse or other appurtenance belonging to or enjoyed with property used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation; or
(b) a private garage which either has a floor area of not more than 25 square metres or is used wholly or mainly for the accommodation of a private motor vehicle; or
(c) private storage premises used wholly or mainly for the storage of articles of domestic use,
is a dwelling except in so far as it forms part of a larger property which is itself a dwelling by virtue of subsection (2) above.
(4A) Subject to subsection (6) below, domestic property falling within section 66(1A) of the 1988 Act is not a dwelling except in so far as it forms part of a larger property which is itself a dwelling by virtue of subsection (2) above.
(5) The Secretary of State may by order provide that in such cases as may be prescribed by or determined under the order-
(a) anything which would (apart from the order) be one dwelling shall be treated as two or more dwellings; and
(b) anything which would (apart from the order) be two or more dwellings shall be treated as one dwelling.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend any definition of “dwelling” which is for the time being effective for the purposes of this Part.'
The Secretary of State has exercised his/her powers under section 3(5)(a) and (b) above (and under section 113(2)) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, and laid before Parliament the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1992/549.
[2a] As to the demand notices:
(1) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992/613, reg. 17 entitled 'Interpretation and application of Part V' reads
'In this part -
"demand notice" means the notice required to be served by regulation 18(1);'
Part V of Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992/613 is entitled 'Billing' and contains regulations 17 to 31 inclusive.
[2b] For an article on who Local Government Finance Act 1992 imposes liability for council tax upon, see this article by the same author.
[3] Council tax is set in accordance with Chapter III of Local Government Finance Act 1992. Chapter III, entitled 'Setting of Council Tax' and Chapter III contains sections 30 to 38.
[4] Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 5 is entitled 'Different amounts for dwellings in different valuation bands' and reads:
'(1) The amounts of council tax payable in respect of dwellings situated in the same billing authority's area (or the same part of such an area) and listed in different valuation bands shall be in the proportion-
6: 7: 8: 9: 11: 13: 15: 18
where
6 is for dwellings listed in valuation band A, 7 is for dwellings listed in valuation band B, and so on.
| Range of values |
Valuation Band |
| Values not exceeding £40,000 |
A |
| Values exceeding £40,000 but not exceeding £52,000 |
B |
| Values exceeding £52,000 but not exceeding £68,000 |
C |
| Values exceeding £68,000 but not exceeding £88,000 |
D |
| Values exceeding £88,000 but not exceeding £120,000 |
E |
| Values exceeding £120,000 but not exceeding £160,000 |
F |
| Values exceeding £160,000 but not exceeding £320,000 |
G |
| Values exceeding £320,000 |
H |
(4) The Secretary of State may by order, as regards financial years beginning on or after such date as is specified in the order-
(a) substitute another proportion for that which is for the time being effective for the purposes of subsection (1) above;
(b) substitute other valuation bands for those which are for the time being effective for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above.
(4A) The power under subsection (4)(b) above includes power to make provision for a different number of valuation bands from those which are for the time being effective for the purposes of subsection (2) or (3) above.
(5) No order under subsection (4) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.
(6) Any reference in this Part to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band shall be construed as a reference to dwellings to which that valuation band is shown as applicable in the billing authority's valuation list.'
[5a] For instance, Local Government Finance Act 1992, section 13A gives the Billing Authority a power to decide to reduce the amount of council tax due. Section 13A is entitled 'Reductions by billing authority' and reads:
'(1) The amount of council tax which a person is liable to pay in respect of any chargeable dwelling and any day (as determined in accordance with sections 10 to 13)-
(a) in the case of a dwelling situated in the area of a billing authority in England, is to be reduced to the extent, if any, required by the authority's council tax reduction scheme (see subsection (2));
(b) in the case of a dwelling situated in the area of a billing authority in Wales, is to be reduced to the extent, if any, required by any council tax reduction scheme made under regulations under subsection (4) that applies to that dwelling;
(c) in any case, may be reduced to such extent (or, if the amount has been reduced under paragraph (a) or (b), such further extent) as the billing authority for the area in which the dwelling is situated thinks fit.
(2) Each billing authority in England must make a scheme specifying the reductions which are to apply to amounts of council tax payable, in respect of dwellings situated in its area, by-
(a) persons whom the authority considers to be in financial need, or
(b) persons in classes consisting of persons whom the authority considers to be, in general, in financial need.
(3) Schedule 1A (which contains provisions about schemes under subsection (2)) has effect.
(4) The Welsh Ministers may by regulations-
(a) require a person or body specified in the regulations to make a scheme specifying the reductions which are to apply to amounts of council tax payable, in respect of dwellings to which the scheme applies, by persons to whom the scheme applies,
(b) impose requirements on that person or body regarding the matters which must be included in that scheme, and
(c) make other provision for and in connection with such schemes.
(5) Schedule 1B (which contains further provisions about regulations under subsection (4) and about schemes under those regulations) has effect.
(6) The power under subsection (1)(c) includes power to reduce an amount to nil.
(7) The power under subsection (1)(c) may be exercised in relation to particular cases or by determining a class of case in which liability is to be reduced to an extent provided by the determination.
(8) No regulations under subsection (4) are to be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the National Assembly for Wales.
(9) In this Part “council tax reduction scheme” means a scheme under subsection (2) or regulations under subsection (4).'
So an application can be made by the taxpayer, to the Billing Authority, for a reduction to the amount of council tax otherwise due.
See further:
(1) SC v East Riding of Yorkshire Council [2014] RA 279;
(2) Morgan v Warwick DC [2015] RVR 224; [2015] CLY 1681; and
(3) Fenwick v Northumberland County Council VT00001008 (25.3.21)
[5b] As to multiple persons liable, see:
(1) section 6 - explained in this article by the same author;
(2) section 8 - entitled 'Liability of spouses', which reads:
'(1) Where-
(a) a person who is liable to pay council tax in respect of any chargeable dwelling of which he is a resident and any day is married to, or is the civil partner of, another person; and
(b) that other person is also a resident of the dwelling on that day but would not, apart from this section, be so liable,
those persons shall each be jointly and severally liable to pay the council tax in respect of the dwelling and that day.
(2) Subsection (1) above shall not apply as respects any day on which the other person there mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of paragraph 2 (the severely mentally impaired) or 4 (students etc.) of Schedule 1 to this Act.
(2A) Subsection (1) also does not apply in relation to a chargeable dwelling in Wales as respects any day on which the other person mentioned falls to be disregarded for the purposes of discount by virtue of falling within, and meeting the conditions prescribed in, Class G (care leavers) as prescribed in regulation 5(7) of the Council Tax (Additional Provisions for Discount Disregards) Regulations 1992 (S.I. 1992/552).
(3) For the purposes of this section, two persons are to be treated as married to, or civil partners of, each other if they are living together as if they were a married couple or civil partners.'
(3) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992/613:
(a) reg. 17 entitled 'Interpretation and application of Part V' reads:
'In this Part-
...
“joint taxpayers” means two or more persons who are, or in the opinion of the billing authority will be, jointly and severally liable to pay to the authority an amount in respect of council tax in respect of a particular dwelling and a day (whether such liability arises by virtue of section 6(3) or (4)(b), 7(4) or (5), 8(4) or (5) or 9(1) of the Act);
“joint taxpayers' notice” means a notice served in accordance with regulation 28;'
(b) reg. 27 is entitled 'Joint taxpayers', and reads:
'(1) This regulation applies in the case of joint taxpayers; but its application to joint taxpayers on whom a joint taxpayers' notice is served is subject to regulation 28A.
(2) In a case to which this regulation applies-
(a) regulation 18 (the requirement for demand notices) has effect as if in paragraph (1) for the words “every liable person” there were substituted the words “at least one of the joint taxpayers”;
(b) regulation 20 (demand notices; payments required) has effect as if-
(i) the assumption referred to in sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph (3) is made as regards such of the joint taxpayers as on the day of issue of the demand notice satisfy the conditions referred to in that sub-paragraph;
(ii) the assumption referred to in sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph (3) is made as regards such of the joint taxpayers in respect of whom on the day of issue of the demand notice a determination has effect as mentioned in that sub-paragraph;
(c) regulation 21 (council tax: payments) has effect as if-
(i) in paragraphs (1) and (4), for the words “the liable person” there were substituted the words “one or more of the joint taxpayers”;
(ii) in paragraph (3), for the words after “that Part” there were substituted the following-
“subject-
(a) in the case of payments in accordance with a Part II scheme, to provision included in the scheme pursuant to paragraph 8(6) of Part II of that Schedule; and
(b) in the case of joint taxpayers, to regulations 28 and 28A.”;
(iii) in paragraph (5), for the words “a liable person” there were substituted the words “one or more of the joint taxpayers”; and
(iv) in paragraph (5), there were inserted at the end the words “: but, subject to regulation 28A(1), a billing authority may not enter into an agreement after the issue of the demand notice concerned with a joint taxpayer on whom that notice was not served”;
(d) regulation 23 (failure to pay instalments) has effect as if references to the liable person and to an amount becoming payable by the liable person were references to such of the joint taxpayers as have been served with a demand notice and to an amount becoming payable by them, respectively;
(e) regulation 29 (collection of penalties) has effect as if-
(i) for paragraph (1), there were substituted the following-
“(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), where a penalty is payable to a billing authority under any of sub-paragraphs (1) to (3) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Act [ or under any of regulations 11 to 13 of the Detection of Fraud Regulations] 2 by a person who is one of joint taxpayers, it may be collected by the service by the authority on the person of a notice requiring payment of the penalty on the expiry of such period (being not ss than 14 days) after the issue of the notice as is specified in it.”; and
(ii) paragraph (4) were omitted; and
(f) paragraph 9 (cessation of instalments) of Schedule 1 does not apply unless-
(i) every person on whom the demand notice was served has ceased to be a joint taxpayer;
(ii) none of those persons is, as regards any part of the period to which the demand notice relates, solely liable to pay an amount in respect of council tax as regards the dwelling concerned; and
(iii) no other person who, as regards any part of that period, was jointly and severally liable with any of those persons as regards the dwelling concerned, is a liable person (whether his liability is sole or joint and several) as regards the dwelling concerned'
(c) reg. 28 is entitled 'Joint taxpayers' notice', and reads:
'(1) An amount shall not be payable by a person who is one of joint taxpayers and on whom a demand notice has not been served unless a notice (“joint taxpayers' notice”) is served on him in accordance with the following provisions of this regulation.
(2) A joint taxpayers' notice may not be served on a person after the expiry of the period of six years beginning with the first day of the financial year to which the notice relates.
(3) Where-
(a) a joint taxpayers' notice is served during the relevant year; and
(b) the person on whom (as one of the joint taxpayers) a demand notice for that year was served (or, if more than one person was so served, each of them) is not on the day of issue of the notice one of the joint taxpayers; and
(c) the unpaid balance of the estimated amount has not become due as mentioned in paragraph (3) or (4) of regulation 23, the notice shall require the payment of the adjusted amount.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3)-
“the adjusted amount” means an amount equal to the lesser of
(a) the billing authority's estimate of the chargeable amount made as respects the period to which the joint taxpayers' notice relates; and regulation 20(3) shall have effect for these purposes as it has effect in a case to which regulation 27 applies and as if references in regulation 27(2)(b) to the demand notice were references to the joint taxpayers' notice; and
(b) the relevant sum; and
“the relevant sum” means an amount equal to the difference between-
(a) the amount estimated or last estimated as regards the dwelling concerned-
(i) for the purposes of an agreement under regulation 21(5); or
(ii) under regulation 20(2) for the purposes of the demand notice or any subsequent notice given under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1; and
(b) the aggregate of the amounts paid to the authority under any such agreement or notice before the issue of the joint taxpayers' notice.
(5) Subject to regulation 28A(1), the amount required to be paid under paragraph (3) shall be payable by instalments of such amounts, and at such intervals and on such days in each interval, as are specified in the notice;
provided that the number of instalments shall not be less than the number of instalments payable under the agreement, the demand notice or any subsequent notice given under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, as the case may be, as regards the period beginning on the day on which the joint taxpayers' notice is served and ending on the last day of the relevant year.
(6) A joint taxpayers' notice which is issued after the end of the relevant year, or after the unpaid balance of the estimated amount has become due as mentioned in paragraph (3) or (4) of regulation 23, shall (as the billing authority determines) require payment of the amount concerned-
(a) on the expiry of such period (being not less than 14 days) after the issue of the notice as is specified in it; or
(b) by instalments of such amounts as are specified in the notice, payable at such intervals and on such day in each interval as is so specified.'
[5c] For brevity, the label 'Taxpayer' is used for the person alleged to owe the council tax (rather than use the phrase 'alleged Taxpayer' each time).
[6a] In Regentford Ltd v Thanet DC [2004] EWHC 246 (Admin) [2004] 2 WLUK 477, Lightman J gave a description of the council tax system, under the heading 'Statutory Scheme', from paragraphs 4 to 13 (Note: (1) the 'Act' is the Local Government Finance Act 1992; and (2) the Regulations are the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992)):
'4. Chapter I is headed “Main Provisions”. Section 1 of the Act provides that each billing authority (and the Council is such a billing authority) shall each financial year levy and collect council tax payable in respect of dwellings (defined in section 4 as domestic hereditaments) situated within its area. Section 2 provides that liability to pay council tax shall be determined on a daily basis. Section 4 provides that council tax is payable in respect of any dwelling which is not exempt. Section 5 provides that different amounts of council tax are payable in respect of dwellings in different valuation bands. Section 6 provides in a descending order of priority a list of persons liable to pay council tax in respect of a dwelling. At the top of the list is the resident freehold owner, followed by the resident leasehold owner holding a term of 6 months or more, followed by certain specified other residents, followed at the bottom of the list by non-resident freehold or leasehold owners. Section 8 and the Council Tax (Liability for Owners) Regulations 1992 together provide that the owner of property in multiple occupation may have primary liability for council tax, displacing the order in section 6. Section 16 provides for an appeal to a valuation tribunal by any person aggrieved by a decision that he is liable to pay council tax in respect of a dwelling (e.g. as owner of a property in multiple occupation).
5. Chapter 3 is headed “Setting of Council Tax”. Section 30 provides for the setting each financial year of the amounts of council tax for each different category of dwelling. The amount set for each category does not set the amount for each person liable, for any person liable may be entitled to varying degrees of exemption and discount. Section 33 provides how the billing authority shall calculate the amount of its council tax. Section 36 provides for the calculation of council tax for the different valuation bands.
6. Schedule 2 provides for the collection of council tax. It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations which may make provision: (a) that the authority must serve a notice or notices on the person liable to pay council tax stating the chargeable or estimated amount and what payment he is required to make; and (b) that no payment on account of the chargeable amount need be made unless a notice requires it (see paragraph 4(a) and (b)).
7. Schedule 4 provides for enforcement. Paragraph 1 provides that the Secretary of State may make regulations for the recovery of any sum which has become payable to the billing authority and unpaid. Paragraph 3 provides that the regulations may provide that the authority may apply to a magistrates court for a liability order against the person by whom the sum is payable, and the court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the person concerned and has not been paid. Paragraph 4 provides that the regulations may include provision prescribing steps to be taken before an application may be made and that no application may be made after a prescribed period has expired.
8. The Regulations were made pursuant to the provisions of the Act to which I have referred. Part V of the Regulations is headed “Billing”. It commences with an interpretation regulation, namely regulation 17. Regulation 17(3) defines “chargeable amount” as meaning the amount the liable person is or will be liable to pay.
9. Regulation 18 requires a billing authority each financial year to serve a demand notice on every liable person in accordance with regulations 19 to 21. Regulation 19 provides that the demand notice is to be served on or as soon as practicable after the date the billing authority first sets an amount of council tax for the relevant year for the category of dwellings which include the chargeable dwelling to which the notice relates. Regulation 20(1) reads as follows:
“(1) If the demand notice is issued before or during the relevant year, the notice shall require the making of payments on account of [the billing authority's estimate of the chargeable amount.]”
10. Regulations 20(1)–(4), 21(7) and 22 make provision for demands for payment on account of council tax before and during the relevant year on the basis of estimates of the chargeable amount. Regulation 22 provides that no payment on account of the chargeable amount need be made unless a notice is served under Part V demanding it. Regulation 24 provides for adjustment where the chargeable amount proves to be greater or lesser than the estimate. Regulation 20(5) provides that, if the demand is issued after the end of the relevant year, it shall require payment of the chargeable amount.
11. Regulation 21 makes provision for payment by instalments and Regulation 23 lays down a regime applicable specifically and only to cases of default in payments of instalments.
12. Regulation 31 provides for final adjustments of the amounts stated in demands.
13. Regulation 32 provides that Regulations 33–53 shall apply for the recovery of a sum which has become payable to a billing authority under Part V of the Regulations. Regulation 33 requires as a preliminary to obtaining a liability order (save in case of default in payment of instalments in respect of which a separate regime is laid down in Regulation 23) that a final notice should be served and that a final notice may be served in respect of an amount “after it has become due”. Regulation 34(3) provides that no application may be made for a liability order in respect of a sum after the period of six years beginning with the day on which it became due under Part V of the Regulations. Regulation 34(6) provides that the court shall make the liability order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.'
[6b] Where a demand notice is followed by a reminder notice, the Taxpayer will have 7 days to comply with the reminder notice requirements. Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/613), reg.23 provides:
'(1) Subject to paragraph (2), where-
(a) a demand notice has been served by a billing authority on a liable person,
(b) instalments in respect of the council tax to which the notice relates are payable in accordance with Part I of Schedule 1 or, as the case may be, a Part II scheme, or a determination under regulation 21(7) and
(c) any such instalment is not paid in accordance with that Schedule or, as the case may be, the relevant scheme or determination, the billing authority shall serve a notice (“reminder notice”) on the liable person stating-[
(i) the amount which is the aggregate of the instalments which are due under the demand notice or any subsequent notice given under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and which are unpaid and the instalments that will become due within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the reminder notice is issued;
(ii) that the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above is required to be paid by him within the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph;
(iii) the effect of paragraph (3) below and the amount that will become payable by him in the circumstances mentioned in that paragraph; and
(iv) where the notice is the second such notice as regards the relevant year, the effect of paragraph (4) below.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall require the service of a reminder notice-
(a) where all the instalments have fallen due; or
(b) in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (3) and (4).'
Reg.23(3) states:
'If, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which a reminder notice is issued, the liable person fails to pay any instalments which are or will become due before the expiry of that period, the unpaid balance of the estimated amount (or, as the case may be, the chargeable amount) shall become payable by him at the expiry of a further period of 7 days beginning with the day of the failure.'
Accordingly, unless within 7 days of the reminder notice, the instalments already due are paid/brought up to date, in another 7 days, the whole (unpaid) balance becomes payable.
For completeness, where the instalments already due are paid/brought up to date, and there is a missed instalment, and the process repeats, and then there is another missed instalment, there is not 'another 7 days' after the 7 day deadline for bringing the instalments already due are paid/brought up to date (again). The (unpaid) balance becomes payable the next day. Reg.23(4) of the 1992/613 Regs provides:
'If, after making a payment in accordance with a reminder notice which is the second such notice as regards the relevant year, the liable person fails to pay any subsequent instalment as regards that year on or before the day on which it falls due, the unpaid balance of the estimated amount (or, as the case may be, the chargeable amount) shall become payable by him on the day following the day of the failure.'
[7] In Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/613), reg.33 is entitled 'Liability orders: preliminary steps' and reads:
'(1) Subject to paragraph (3), before a billing authority applies for a liability order it shall serve on the person against whom the application is to be made a notice (“final notice”), which is to state every amount in respect of which the authority is to make the application.
(2) A final notice may be served in respect of an amount at any time after it has become due.
(3) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall require the service of a final notice in the circumstances mentioned in paragraph (3) of regulation 23 (including that paragraph as applied as mentioned in regulation 28A(2)).'
For completeness, reg.23 of the 1992/613 Regs is entitled 'Failure to pay instalments' and provides:
'(1) Subject to paragraph (2), where-
(a) a demand notice has been served by a billing authority on a liable person,
(b) instalments in respect of the council tax to which the notice relates are payable in accordance with Part I of Schedule 1 or, as the case may be, a Part II scheme, or a determination under regulation 21(7) and
(c) any such instalment is not paid in accordance with that Schedule or, as the case may be, the relevant scheme or determination, the billing authority shall serve a notice (“reminder notice”) on the liable person stating-
(i) the amount which is the aggregate of the instalments which are due under the demand notice or any subsequent notice given under paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 and which are unpaid and the instalments that will become due within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the reminder notice is issued;
(ii) that the amount mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above is required to be paid by him within the period mentioned in that sub-paragraph;
(iii) the effect of paragraph (3) below and the amount that will become payable by him in the circumstances mentioned in that paragraph; and
(iv) where the notice is the second such notice as regards the relevant year, the effect of paragraph (4) below.
(2) Nothing in paragraph (1) shall require the service of a reminder notice-
(a) where all the instalments have fallen due; or
(b) in the circumstances mentioned in paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) If, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which a reminder notice is issued, the liable person fails to pay any instalments which are or will become due before the expiry of that period, the unpaid balance of the estimated amount (or, as the case may be, the chargeable amount) shall become payable by him at the expiry of a further period of 7 days beginning with the day of the failure.
(4) If, after making a payment in accordance with a reminder notice which is the second such notice as regards the relevant year, the liable person fails to pay any subsequent instalment as regards that year on or before the day on which it falls due, the unpaid balance of the estimated amount (or, as the case may be, the chargeable amount) shall become payable by him on the day following the day of the failure.'
[8a] In Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/613), reg.34 is entitled 'Application for liability order' and reg.34(3) reads:
'Section 127(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 does not apply to such an application; but 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 under Part V.
[8b] for an article, by the same author, on the split jurisdictional roles of: (1) Magistrates Court; and (2) Valuation Tribunal for England, click here.
[9] It is submitted that:
(1) this sentence should be read with emphasis placed on the word 'and' in the middle; and
(2) the 'it' in the second half of the sentence is seemingly a reference to the relevant Billing Authoritiy computer.
'...the certificate complied with the Regulations and the document produced by it was admissible as evidence against the [Taxpayer].' [bold added]
If each half of the sentence (the dividing line being the word 'and') is a separate statement, then no issue aroses. It would be wrong, in the author's opinion, to read 'and', in its context, as 'and so'. That would be wrong in law. It would introduce the Taxpayer's inaccurate reading of the interplay between reg.53(4) and reg.53(5) and admissibility. As stated elsewhere, in the author's opinion, each of reg.53(4) and reg.53(5) separately deal with the admissibility of a certain (different) type of document (by description). The fact that a document does not come within the qualifying description in reg.53(5), does not render a (different) document that would be admissible under reg.53(4), somehow inadmissible.
[10] In Williams v East Northamptonshire DC [2016] EWHC 470 (Admin); [2016] R.A. 191, Mr Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge):
(1) recorded that it was in the Case Stated - at paragraph 10(i), that it was confirmed that there had been this oral evidence; and
(2) noted, at paragraph 51, an unsuccessful ancillary argument that the Taxpayer ran:
'The [Taxpayer] also contends that the evidence recorded at paragraph 10(i) of the Case Stated is insufficient because it does not identify the amount of the Council Tax which had been the subject of default or the period to which it related. In my view that is a poor point. The payments to which the evidence must have related were obviously the Council Tax payments the total of which was set out in the summons. There was no suggestion from the [Taxpayer] before the Magistrates' Court that the defaulting payments were less than the total amount stated as being due on the summons.'
[11] In Williams v East Northamptonshire DC [2016] EWHC 470 (Admin); [2016] R.A. 191 ('Williams'), Mr Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge (the 'Judge'), added to this, at paragraph 37:
'The [Taxpayer] did not adduce any evidence of his own to suggest that he was not liable to pay Council Tax in the sum claimed. Nor has he given the slightest hint to this Court that he has a substantive defence to the tax claimed. Be that as it may, he submits that it was for the [Billing Authority] to prove its case in support of the liability order and he neither admitted nor denied a liability in respect of the Council Tax. On that basis, so he contends, it makes no difference whether he would have disputed the content of a valid certificate had one been produced.'
With the greatest respect to the Judge in Williams, any criticism here of the Taxpayer could be said to be misplaced. Had:
(1) the Taxpayer been correct that an inadmissible certificate meant the Print Out was inadmissible;
(2) there been no oral evidence (or other evidence, aside from the Print Out) before the Magistrates Court, when Magistrates Court made its impugned decision,
the Taxpayer could legitimately have relied upon the absence of evidence upon which a CTLO could be made.
What the Taxpayer in Williams got wrong/ignored however, was:
(1) the certificate was admissible,
(2) in any event, even if the certificate was inadmissible, the Print Out would still have been admissible (acknowleding that the Print Out's likely weight would have been different (without the certificate to confirm the computer's proper operation (etc)), but that is separate); and
(3) there was oral evidence, separate from the documentary evidence, upon which the Magistrates Court found their decision,
so the criticism was, in the end, of marginal relevance to the actual decision made.