The Council does not hold individual Liability Orders for each taxpayer listed at a Liability Order hearing. These are bulk proceedings, in which an individual will be named on a list presented to the Court. The hearing is not listed by each individual who is summonsed to attend. You will therefore not find a court hearing listed as 'Tandridge District Council v A N Individual'. The Court will likely record the relevant court session as 'Tandridge District Council Liability Order hearing' or similar.
A list is provided to the court by the Billing Authority, containing the details of those taxpayers and their debt, against whom a Liability Order is requested. A copy of the list of the granted orders is retained by both the Court and the Council. The Court will sign the corresponding bulk order for that list.
A Copy of the signed bulk order, together with your entry on the list can be supplied upon request.
If you have concerns about the records of the Court, you should contact them directly. Such queries should not be directed to the Council.
Claims have been incorrectly made that no Liability Order exists and cannot be enforced, as no paper copy of an order can be provided. More recently, this has based on misinterpretation of the judgement in Leighton v Bristow & Sutor [2023].
When dealing with Mr Leighton’s argument that no Liability Order was granted, HHJ Harrison stated at paragraph 17 of his ruling that ‘…If I ask myself, on the balance of probabilities, whether the Magistrates’ Court on the dates shown made liability Orders against those persons on the court list, then the contemporaneous documentation suggests that this was the case’. At paragraph 18, HHJ Harrison goes on to say the form of the order does not form part of his judgement, but that he is satisfied by the evidence one was awarded, recorded and notified to the defendant; where he stated - ‘whether or not the form of the order is capable of challenge is not, in my judgement, central to the resolution I must resolve in this case. What is relevant is that I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Magistrates Court indicated they were granting liability orders against those shown on the list on the days in question. Furthermore, the council noted the making of the same, and the council then passed on that information to the defendants for enforcement’. HHJ Harrison goes on to set out in paragraph 19, that ‘For the purposes of paragraph 66(8)(b) [of The Tribunals and Courts Enforcement Act 2007], that would amount for grounds for a reasonable belief on the part of an enforcement agent that there was in existence a non-defective instrument’.
This matter in further clarified in the case of Kofa v Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council [2024].
When dealing with the matter of consent to be charged Council Tax and that no one can be forced to pay, J Fordham stated at Paragraph 17 that 'the 1992 Act and 1992 Regulations are themselves legislative prescriptions forming part of the "law", to which "rule of law" we are all subject'. He also clarified that consent is 'expressed through the ballot box, with elected representatives in parliament then decided collectively about the merits of primary legislation' and this is ...'precisely because of the impossibility and inappropriateness of individualised consent to legislation, from "every individual...in person"'.
J Fordham also provided further clarification in his observations at paragraph 29 of his judgement, where he stated 'The 1992 Regulations do not require a "court issued" order' before stating 'I have been shown no provision of the 1992 Act which requires a court-issued order. Regulation 34(6) provides that the magistrates' court will "make the order". Rule 115 specifically excludes liability orders from the general duty to serve orders', and 'I have been shown no provision which requires entry in the court record, to be sent or served on person against whom a liability order is made or enforced...'.
J Fordham also addresses the comments made within the Leighton v Bristow & Sutor [2023] case, stating '...the judgement in Leigton concluded - based on extracts from a "court list" paired with a signature certifying "the number of liability orders made" - that the evidence set our in the documents satisfied the High Court on the balance of probabilities that the liability orders in question had been made'.
As stated above, this evidence can be provided on request. The above cases confirm this this is sufficient to demonstrate a Liability Order has been granted, and that it can be enforced.