What happens if one neglects, or declines, to pay one&#39;s council tax? This link suggests that there are possibly no criminal implications, either summary or indictable, which is a little counter intuitive and somewhat hard to believe. As a form of tax, one would expect that declining to pay it would be some form of criminal offence. But the case seems to only rule on one narrow particular aspect of the question, that is of disclosing one's address of residence, rather than addressing the broader matter of payment or non payment of council tax itself. A popular fad among self styled common law sovereign citizens is to claim that there is no need to pay tax which seems highly dubious. But then one of them has cited among all of his rambling an actual news report on an actual court ruling. I suppose that it is slightly different from some (many? All?) Other forms of tax in that it is levied/collected by local authorities, rather than the slightly more reputedly ruthless HMRC. Do taxes not collected by HMRC have different statutory statuses as well? Another common trope to be addressed in a correspondingly separate question that is often spread with this one is that there is no need to pay one's domestic utility bills. But in any case, what eventually... &quot;Happens&quot; if one fails to pay one's council tax? Reference: https://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/litigation-and-enforcement/400-litigation-news/40025-court-of-appeal-rejects-legal-duty-for-council-tax-purposes-to-disclose-fact-of-residence
what eventually... &quot;Happens&quot; if one fails to pay one's council tax? Short Answer: Ultimately... You can be sent to prison for up to 3 months if the court decides you don’t have a good reason to not pay your Council Tax and you refuse to do so. Long Answer: But before then... If you miss Council Tax payments Your council will send you a reminder notice giving you 7 days to pay if you miss a payment. If you don’t pay within 7 days, you’ll have to pay the whole year’s Council Tax instead. You’ll be sent a second reminder notice if you miss another Council Tax payment. You’ll only get a maximum of 2 reminder notices in a financial year - this runs from April 1 to March 31 of the next year. Your council will send you a final notice saying you must pay the whole year’s Council Tax if you miss a payment for the third time. If you don’t pay your whole year’s Council Tax within 7 days, the council may take legal action to get the Council Tax you owe. Legal demands for payment Your council can ask a magistrate for a ‘liability order’ if you owe them unpaid Council Tax. This is a legal demand for payment. The council’s legal costs, eg for hiring a lawyer, may be added to the money you owe. You’re allowed to go to the court and give your reasons for not paying if you want. If you receive a liability order you should speak to your council or your local Citizens Advice bureau about your options. If you still don’t pay Your council can get your employer to pay your unpaid Council Tax directly from your wages. Your council can also apply to take money from the following benefits: Employment and Support Allowance Income Support Jobseeker’s Allowance Pension Credit Universal Credit If this means you don’t have enough money to pay other bills, you can ask your council if you can make smaller payments. Your council doesn’t have to agree but will usually try to make an arrangement with you. Bailiffs Your council can send bailiffs (‘enforcement agents’) to seize your property if there’s no other way to recover your debt. They’ll tell you how much you owe before the bailiff visits you. The bailiffs’ costs can be added to the total amount you owe the council. Court Your council can take you to court if you don’t pay the money you owe and the bailiffs can’t recover enough property to cover it. The court will consider whether you: can afford to pay the bill have a valid reason to not pay You can be sent to prison for up to 3 months if the court decides you don’t have a good reason to not pay your Council Tax and you refuse to do so. If the court decides you have something to pay back you may be able to make an arrangement to pay your debt over time. Source, gov.uk's guidance Pay Council Tax arrears
Actually, neither the council nor a private owner are responsible for illegal actions by unauthorised people on their property. This is obvious: if an intruder enters your property and, while there, shoots someone you cannot be held responsible. However ... Since you have made them aware that there are intruders on their property acting illegally and causing a nuisance to the neighbours and they have done nothing they are quite likely negligent, even recklessly negligent. Rather than sue them, consult a lawyer and get them to write a letter that if they do not take action by X date you are going to sue them.
No. Reason: Taxes are not a contract for specific services, so even if the government did nothing for you in return for your taxes, you do not have recourse to a rebate for "breech of contract." The only recourse is political. Theoretically if the government failed to provide a service that was required by law or Constitution, there could be legal action to force the government to do that action but you still don't get your tax money back. It might be an interesting act of civil disobedience, but no not legal. That is the answer. But to address some of the other premises of your question (Note: these are irrelevant because see above answer): The U.S. government runs at a deficit anyway, meaning the amount spent each year is more than the amount of revenue collected. For example, in May, 2018 the CBO estimated that for FY2018: BUDGET PROJECTIONS FOR FY 2018 (As of May 24, 2018 ) OUTLAYS $4.1 Trillion REVENUES $3.3 Trillion DEFICIT $793 Billion DEBT HELD BY THE PUBLIC (End of Fiscal Year) $15.7 Trillion So even if in the partial shutdown, gov saved 20%, every cent of your taxes would still go to the expenditures; the deficit would just be a little less. The U.S. government is saving quite a bit of money by not paying some subset of its employees, etc. .... believe that many of those employees will not receive back-pay. Probably not true. In the past modern shutdowns, employees received the back pay, whether they worked as emergency employees or were home. A bill as already been proposed in Congress to ensure that all will be paid when this ends. Some contractors might not get paid because they get paid by their employers, not directly by the gov. So in some cases no work, no pay. There are bills proposed to get them paid also. Note- I do not at all mean to downplay the effect on people's finances and morale. Missing a paycheck today even if the money will/might come eventually is a real hardship.
A special case is not paying the income tax that the company is supposed to be paying on behalf of its employees. If an employee makes £4,000 a month, and the employer is supposed to pay £1,000 tax and doesn't, that's not the employer's money, that's the employee's money. Not paying the employee's money is a much more serious matter than not paying your own taxes. A google search found this article http://www.gaebler.com/Not-Paying-Payroll-Taxes.htm which says that a person not paying taxes for employees is personally liable, that this liability does not go away with bankruptcy, and that jail is possible. So their advice is: Whatever other debt you have, paying taxes for your employees' payroll is the absolutely highest priority (higher priority than paying wages, paying the rent, paying company taxes and so on).
What is the name of the crime and/or tort I have committed? You are guilty of the crime of fraud, the crime of theft of the money and the item (I can't point you to the precise statute). You have breached your contract of sale. You are probably liable for fraud civilly (i.e. you could be sued for fraud). But, if one was really creative, I imagine that one could find more grounds for civil and/or criminal liability, although they would probably be unnecessary since the victims have plenty of remedies to secure all possible relief already. Who gets to keep the object? Under the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, in the United States, the general rule is delivery of possession by the seller (which didn't really happen here to one distinct person), but for unique goods, title passes when the unique good is identified to a contract with a buyer, so first in time to contract, first in right to the car, would probably prevail. But, I don't know what the rule would be in England and Wales. Is it handled differently if the &quot;valuable physical object&quot; is real estate? Land is harder to defraud someone with, because a reasonable person knows that in England and Wales real estate title is (usually, but not always) represented by a certificate of ownership maintained by a public official in the Land Registry, and is easily checked (about 15% of land in England and Wales show in the link is not registered so the possibility for deception is somewhat greater in that context). Also, generally, you don't pay for real property until you simultaneously receive payment in good funds, while brief extensions of credit for a non-perfectly contemporaneous sale transaction are more common in cases involving tangible personal property.
There is no intention to commit theft, so there is no criminal act on the part of the customer. Even if there was a criminal act, the ability of the restaurant to detain the cusomer (citizen's arrest) is very limited in most jurisdictions. The restaurant can ask the customer for his name and address, but there is no legal obligation on the customer to provide this. Refusal to do so, however, might be evidence of intention to avoid paying and at that point the restaurant might call the police. The customer can leave, and the restaurant can pursue the debt through the civil courts if they have means to do so - they may have CCTV of the customer and his car registration which can be traced. Petrol stations, where people often fill up and then realise they can't pay, usually have established "promise to pay" procedures where they take the customer's details and the customer has 48 hours to pay before police or civil enforcement action is taken.
Regarding to your instructions concerning the funds in the account, it's hard to prove a negative. As far as I know there is no legislation that requires a credit balance to be retained. However, there may be some regulations or internal policies regarding the closure of home loans, which may preclude closure without some documentation or other process. But just because you can't cite legislation that requires you to do things, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. You don't ask the new bank to support their claims which contradict the old banks, because it works in your favour. With regard to the last instruction regarding your funds, the bank can and will provide you with a list of fees and charges applied to your account - it's called a statement. With regard to your explicit other option - is what the bank's doing essentially theft? - you can call it theft, but it's not. At worst it's conversion, the remedy for which is the recovery of the converted property, or damages equal to the value of the property. If you have attempted to resolve your complaint through the bank's internal dispute resolution processes (usually some kind of complaint process), you can also contact the Financial Services Ombudsman, who may assist with these situations. Finally, as for your further instructions, they are all void and unenforceable. 1. You cannot impose terms on the conduct of another party without their agreement. This is called a counteroffer or variance to their established terms which you will have agreed to at the time that you established the original loan. 3. You can never be compensated just for your time.
Small claims court was created for such matters. There is the possibility of a fee waiver, and if you prevail, you could get some of your costs covered (though there are other hoops to jump through if you need enforcement). A formal letter (written by you) stating that you intend to seek a legal judgment against him/her in the amount owed might be sufficient motivation for the person to pay what is owed.