Over 5,000 Wycombe taxpayers summoned to court

Bucks Free Press: Over 5,000 Wycombe taxpayers summoned to court Over 5,000 Wycombe taxpayers summoned to court

OVER 5,000 Wycombe district residents were summoned to court for falling behind with council tax payments in the first six months of the year - a rise of 30 per cent.

Labour has blamed Tory controlled Wycombe District Council's decision to slash council tax benefits for the 'poorest' earlier this year.

But the council said its policy, which kept a tax freeze in place, had been strongly supported by the public.

5,139 notices were sent in the first half of 2013/14 compared to 3,989 for the same period last year. In April WDC cut the money given to about 4,500 claimants on the old system of council tax benefits by 20 per cent cut - an average of about £300 a year. The alternative would have been a rise of £13 on average for all council taxpayers.

Pensioners and the vulnerable were, however, excluded from the cut. WDC had to save between £85,000 to £112,000 after the Government slashed funding and scrapped the old system.

Councillor Ian Bates, Labour group leader on WDC, said: "WDC decided to make things even worse for the poorest in Wycombe. It decided to pass on Government cuts to council tax benefits so that the poorest people in Wycombe, those already reeling from the 'bedroom tax' and other cuts, now have to pay council tax."

He called the figures showing council tax arrears "deeply worrying" and indicated further that thousands of ordinary people in Wycombe are struggling to pay their bills. He said: "People now they have to choose between eating, heating and a roof over their heads.

More people aren't paying their council tax and are being summoned to court.

And winter isn’t even here yet. "

WDC had to create a new scheme after the Government abolished the old council tax benefits and consulted with residents on what form this would take.

WDC spokesman Sue Robinson said: "The final scheme was supported by the majority of respondents."

A Free Press online poll showed 82 per cent (2,860 votes) were against a £13 per year rise in council tax in order to prevent benefit claimants losing £300 per year.

Mrs Robinson said: "WDC aims to work with all people who are struggling to pay their council tax especially where genuine hardship exists. The best advice for people who fall into this category is to contact WDC as quickly as possible for advice.

"We recognised that there would be hardship cases and in response to this created a Discretionary Fund to help customers as they adjust to reduced levels of support."

Go to www.wycombe.gov.uk/benefits

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:51pm Mon 2 Dec 13

sai-diva says...

So, the savings made by cutting benefits are going to be more than eaten up by the costs of taking people with no money to court. and it will be us the ratepayers that fund it.
Doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it?
So, the savings made by cutting benefits are going to be more than eaten up by the costs of taking people with no money to court. and it will be us the ratepayers that fund it. Doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it? sai-diva

2:11pm Tue 3 Dec 13

tigeran says...

sai-diva wrote:
So, the savings made by cutting benefits are going to be more than eaten up by the costs of taking people with no money to court. and it will be us the ratepayers that fund it.
Doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it?
I actually agree with you about the savings being countered by taking them to court, but what they should do now is make sure they recoup the costs from the individual instead. If that individual is on benefits then you squeeze them further in order for them to realise that benefits are for living on and not going down the pub, buying booze and cigarettes or wide screen tv's. I would put money on it that the vast majority of these people are the hardcore scum on benefits. It's the only way people on benefits will realise people are fed up with their paralytic ways.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: So, the savings made by cutting benefits are going to be more than eaten up by the costs of taking people with no money to court. and it will be us the ratepayers that fund it. Doesn't seem like such a good idea now, does it?[/p][/quote]I actually agree with you about the savings being countered by taking them to court, but what they should do now is make sure they recoup the costs from the individual instead. If that individual is on benefits then you squeeze them further in order for them to realise that benefits are for living on and not going down the pub, buying booze and cigarettes or wide screen tv's. I would put money on it that the vast majority of these people are the hardcore scum on benefits. It's the only way people on benefits will realise people are fed up with their paralytic ways. tigeran

4:13pm Tue 3 Dec 13

sai-diva says...

I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.
I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment. sai-diva

5:29pm Tue 3 Dec 13

MunsterX says...

These problems affect everyone, I have a friend with kids at prep school who has had his car clamped twice for council tax arrears, it all depends what your priorities are. When the tough times come they come and it's how you deal with those times that determines the future for the family.
It's particularly tough for the men out there at the moment, who feel they should be doing more but can't.
These problems affect everyone, I have a friend with kids at prep school who has had his car clamped twice for council tax arrears, it all depends what your priorities are. When the tough times come they come and it's how you deal with those times that determines the future for the family. It's particularly tough for the men out there at the moment, who feel they should be doing more but can't. MunsterX

9:10pm Tue 3 Dec 13

tigeran says...

sai-diva wrote:
I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.
Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.
[quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.[/p][/quote]Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum. tigeran

11:29am Wed 4 Dec 13

legiopatrianostra says...

The council actually make a huge profit from "issuing summons'. it costs them £3.00 to issue but they charge £40.00, making a £37.00 markup on each summons, legally they're only allowed to charge reasonable costs, 37 quid is not a reasonable charge for something that is and automated process.

So they've made £185,000 quid above that of the actual cost of 5000. That's even before you've had the benefit of a hearing to state your case.
The council actually make a huge profit from "issuing summons'. it costs them £3.00 to issue but they charge £40.00, making a £37.00 markup on each summons, legally they're only allowed to charge reasonable costs, 37 quid is not a reasonable charge for something that is and automated process. So they've made £185,000 quid above that of the actual cost of 5000. That's even before you've had the benefit of a hearing to state your case. legiopatrianostra

5:09pm Wed 4 Dec 13

Scarletto says...

Congrats to Wycombe Council - for once - for trying to nail these non-payers.
The rest of us have paid and perhaps some of the more than 5,000 are in genuine hardship but there are others who "can pay - won't pay" who deserve firm action. One simple remedy would be for the council to issue lists of these people so they can be displayed in libraries, noticeboards etc round the district. Name and shame them.
I expect many of them smoke and drink and have big tellies, big bellies and newish cars. Probably some are laughing at us who've paid promptly. They have their snouts in the trough for claiming some benefit payments when I suspect some just don't deserve them..
They're an absolute shower........
And as for Labour's Cllr Bates he should hang his head in shame over some of his comments.
We should hope that UKIP gain some seats as they've spoken out against these people and want sharp action to clamp down on the worst cases. It's most unfair on decent nice people who've paid up.
Congrats to Wycombe Council - for once - for trying to nail these non-payers. The rest of us have paid and perhaps some of the more than 5,000 are in genuine hardship but there are others who "can pay - won't pay" who deserve firm action. One simple remedy would be for the council to issue lists of these people so they can be displayed in libraries, noticeboards etc round the district. Name and shame them. I expect many of them smoke and drink and have big tellies, big bellies and newish cars. Probably some are laughing at us who've paid promptly. They have their snouts in the trough for claiming some benefit payments when I suspect some just don't deserve them.. They're an absolute shower........ And as for Labour's Cllr Bates he should hang his head in shame over some of his comments. We should hope that UKIP gain some seats as they've spoken out against these people and want sharp action to clamp down on the worst cases. It's most unfair on decent nice people who've paid up. Scarletto

7:26pm Wed 4 Dec 13

sparky49 says...

tigeran wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.
Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.
Ignore the Rabid right winger.
As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen.
The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe.
[quote][p][bold]tigeran[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.[/p][/quote]Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.[/p][/quote]Ignore the Rabid right winger. As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen. The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe. sparky49

1:06am Thu 5 Dec 13

tigeran says...

sparky49 wrote:
tigeran wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.
Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.
Ignore the Rabid right winger.
As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen.
The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe.
Oh god, the parasite returns! Would be good of you would pay your way! Sponger! You keep talking benefit boy, one day you will learn to respect the people that keep you in your sorid and pathetic life!
[quote][p][bold]sparky49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tigeran[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.[/p][/quote]Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.[/p][/quote]Ignore the Rabid right winger. As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen. The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe.[/p][/quote]Oh god, the parasite returns! Would be good of you would pay your way! Sponger! You keep talking benefit boy, one day you will learn to respect the people that keep you in your sorid and pathetic life! tigeran

5:07pm Thu 5 Dec 13

sparky49 says...

tigeran wrote:
sparky49 wrote:
tigeran wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.
Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.
Ignore the Rabid right winger.
As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen.
The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe.
Oh god, the parasite returns! Would be good of you would pay your way! Sponger! You keep talking benefit boy, one day you will learn to respect the people that keep you in your sorid and pathetic life!
Mate you need an education. Your spelling and grammar is very poor.
I can help if you want, after all I don't have much else to do.
Mind you I do like fishing, it's all ways nice when you get a bite.
[quote][p][bold]tigeran[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sparky49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tigeran[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.[/p][/quote]Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.[/p][/quote]Ignore the Rabid right winger. As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen. The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe.[/p][/quote]Oh god, the parasite returns! Would be good of you would pay your way! Sponger! You keep talking benefit boy, one day you will learn to respect the people that keep you in your sorid and pathetic life![/p][/quote]Mate you need an education. Your spelling and grammar is very poor. I can help if you want, after all I don't have much else to do. Mind you I do like fishing, it's all ways nice when you get a bite. sparky49

9:16pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Undercover Euro Yob says...

legiopatrianostra wrote:
The council actually make a huge profit from "issuing summons'. it costs them £3.00 to issue but they charge £40.00, making a £37.00 markup on each summons, legally they're only allowed to charge reasonable costs, 37 quid is not a reasonable charge for something that is and automated process.

So they've made £185,000 quid above that of the actual cost of 5000. That's even before you've had the benefit of a hearing to state your case.
I've noticed that before - some years ago I was out of work and applied for Council Tax Benefit and was taken to court for not paying Council Tax and an ignorant-sounding Council Official said he was prevented by the Data Protection Act from discovering if an individual was applying for Council Tax Benefit before suing them for non-payment of Council Tax!

I argued about this and was not sued successfully by the Council, as were a number of other people who came to court. However there were hundreds of names on the printout and only four people including myself came to argue about it - then a £60 'administration charge' was made by the council for printing a print-out and producing it in court.

Suing the desperate is a nice little earner for the council that has wasted all that money on 'consultations' for the Booker Stadium amongst other things. Some of the people who are being eased into non-existent jobs by the 'tough love' of George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith are now going under really speaking. I can imagine where it will end for these people. They are going to have bailiffs in and empty houses to live in - their children will talk of the 2000's the way my parents and grandparents talked of the 1930's but I wonder what impact will it have on our society as a whole over time.
[quote][p][bold]legiopatrianostra[/bold] wrote: The council actually make a huge profit from "issuing summons'. it costs them £3.00 to issue but they charge £40.00, making a £37.00 markup on each summons, legally they're only allowed to charge reasonable costs, 37 quid is not a reasonable charge for something that is and automated process. So they've made £185,000 quid above that of the actual cost of 5000. That's even before you've had the benefit of a hearing to state your case.[/p][/quote]I've noticed that before - some years ago I was out of work and applied for Council Tax Benefit and was taken to court for not paying Council Tax and an ignorant-sounding Council Official said he was prevented by the Data Protection Act from discovering if an individual was applying for Council Tax Benefit before suing them for non-payment of Council Tax! I argued about this and was not sued successfully by the Council, as were a number of other people who came to court. However there were hundreds of names on the printout and only four people including myself came to argue about it - then a £60 'administration charge' was made by the council for printing a print-out and producing it in court. Suing the desperate is a nice little earner for the council that has wasted all that money on 'consultations' for the Booker Stadium amongst other things. Some of the people who are being eased into non-existent jobs by the 'tough love' of George Osborne and Iain Duncan Smith are now going under really speaking. I can imagine where it will end for these people. They are going to have bailiffs in and empty houses to live in - their children will talk of the 2000's the way my parents and grandparents talked of the 1930's but I wonder what impact will it have on our society as a whole over time. Undercover Euro Yob

9:17pm Thu 5 Dec 13

Undercover Euro Yob says...

tigeran wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.
Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.
LOL!
[quote][p][bold]tigeran[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.[/p][/quote]Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.[/p][/quote]LOL! Undercover Euro Yob

2:13pm Sat 7 Dec 13

sai-diva says...

tigeran wrote:
sparky49 wrote:
tigeran wrote:
sai-diva wrote:
I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.
Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.
Ignore the Rabid right winger.
As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen.
The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe.
Oh god, the parasite returns! Would be good of you would pay your way! Sponger! You keep talking benefit boy, one day you will learn to respect the people that keep you in your sorid and pathetic life!
Tigger, why do you always resort to sweeping generalisations and insults?
[quote][p][bold]tigeran[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sparky49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]tigeran[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sai-diva[/bold] wrote: I nearly fainted when you agreed, but was not surprised with your sweeping generalisations about people on benefit. I would remind you that nearly 2/3rds of people on benefits are in employment.[/p][/quote]Not talking about them, just the sewage that don't work. They will be the majority of the non payers. They get through life by committing crime and sponging. The minority make up the majority of criminals, that's why they choose to be on benefits. Scum.[/p][/quote]Ignore the Rabid right winger. As usual he's got most things wrong. Pubs are empty and closing at the rate of 26 a week and every TV sold nowadays is widescreen. The Council could be up to 1.5 million pound out of pocket for the sake of an extra 26p per week per council tax payer, not so clever now. Along with this if they can't pay the tax then they won't be able to pay the fine or pay back what they owe.[/p][/quote]Oh god, the parasite returns! Would be good of you would pay your way! Sponger! You keep talking benefit boy, one day you will learn to respect the people that keep you in your sorid and pathetic life![/p][/quote]Tigger, why do you always resort to sweeping generalisations and insults? sai-diva

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree