Household Charge Mega-Thread [Part 2] *Poll Reset*

Ghandee

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

Essentially you're gambling that the Revenue won't discover your house for 12 years. Given that a house is pretty difficult to hide, I don't like those odds.

Vlad, I respect you as a poster on here, so I'm in no way having 'a go'.

Like I've suggested though, inside twelve years, there will more than likely be a new govt (let's not fool ourselves here)

FF have come out now in opposing a property tax.
SF have opposed it from day one.
Independents all oppose it,
ULA/socialists etc oppose it.

That leaves (in my eyes) FG and labour in support of it.

I don't foresee labour having much sway in any upcoming elections after shafting the workers and working class they supposedly represent (not to mention Shorthall fiasco)

That leaves FG standing alone in supporting this come the next G.E, and I'd take a very wild guess that any party wishing to be voted into govt in the next elections should have a party manifesto to abolish this tax and any charges attached to it.

Essentially, there's a twelve year gamble if (unlikely) FG remain in power.

2014 isn't twelve years away though.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

I didn't make the rules dv.

https://www.householdcharge.ie/Faq.aspx

Nor do you understand them.

The fees and interest accrue and are charged against the property on transfer if you are not detected in the meantime.

If you are detected and find yourself in court then you will be convicted of an offence. At this point telling the judge that you were 'waiting for the charge to be taken at point of sale' will get you nowhere.

DoesNotCompute

donalg1 wrote: »

I paid the €100 in March to avoid the late fees as I assumed we would all be caught eventually however this is looking less likely as the days go by. I do assume though that the property tax when introduced will have an actual accurate database and would also assume that they will then know who has or hasnt paid the HHC and I imagine they may add this to the first years property tax.

All of the above are assumptions and no doubt wrong based on my previous assumption that they would actively pursue non payers of the hhc.

Give it time, Donal. I recall the head of the LGMA coming out and saying that they won't start prosecuting people until they've sent out 3 batches of letters. So far we're only on the second batch of letters iirc.

Hijpo

dvpower wrote: »

Nor do you understand them.

The fees and interest accrue and are charged against the property on transfer if you are not detected in the meantime.

If you are detected and find yourself in court then you will be convicted of an offence. At this point telling the judge that you were 'waiting for the charge to be taken at point of sale' will get you nowhere.

oh no! :eek:

wheres my sons piggy bank!

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

Nor do you understand them.

The fees and interest accrue and are charged against the property on transfer if you are not detected in the meantime.

If you are detected and find yourself in court then you will be convicted of an offence. At this point telling the judge that you were 'waiting for the charge to be taken at point of sale' will get you nowhere.

Ah, that would explain why all the people who publicly claim they haven't paid nor will be paying have been hauled before the courts. (still none, seven months on?)

Also, I can't see in the legislation any evidence to support your claims.

All i see, in black in white ref the penalties for not paying is what I copied and pasted from the hhc website.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

Vlad, I respect you as a poster on here, so I'm in no way having 'a go'.

Like I've suggested though, inside twelve years, there will more than likely be a new govt (let's not fool ourselves here)

FF have come out now in opposing a property tax.
SF have opposed it from day one.
Independents all oppose it,
ULA/socialists etc oppose it.

That leaves (in my eyes) FG and labour in support of it.

I don't foresee labour having much sway in any upcoming elections after shafting the workers and working class they supposedly represent (not to mention Shorthall fiasco)

That leaves FG standing alone in supporting this come the next G.E, and I'd take a very wild guess that any party wishing to be voted into govt in the next elections should have a party manifesto to abolish this tax and any charges attached to it.

Essentially, there's a twelve year gamble if (unlikely) FG remain in power.

2014 isn't twelve years away though.

Come on now Ghandee you cant be so naive as to think the other parties are opposing it because they really dont believe in it. They are saying they dont agree with it in the hope of getting elected. They see that people arent happy with it and say they will abolish it in the hope of getting elected, which as everyone knows wont necessarily happen if they do manage to get elected.

Saying it and doing it are two completely different things. And if they were opposed to it enough that they abolished it then the shortfall in funding will have to come from somewhere else so I for one would be very interested in hearing where they plan to make the shortfall up.

Ghandee

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

Give it time, Donal. I recall the head of the LGMA coming out and saying that they won't start prosecuting people until they've sent out 3 batches of letters. So far we're only on the second batch of letters iirc.

600,000 prosecutions would bring our court systems to their knees, not to mention how the hell a bankrupt state would finance such a move.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Also, I can't see in the legislation any evidence to support your claims.

You must not have read the legislation or you don't understand it.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

All i see, in black in white ref the penalties for not paying is what I copied and pasted from the hhc website.

Again, the penalties are in black and white in the legislation. You haven't read it.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

You must not have read the legislation or you don't understand it.

Help me out a bit so.

Can you copy and paste the bit you're referring to?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

Help me out a bit so.

Can you copy and paste the bit you're referring to?

You want me to go any point out the offences section of the legislation!

Are you incapable of doing this simple task for yourself?

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

600,000 prosecutions would bring our court systems to their knees, not to mention how the hell a bankrupt state would finance such a move.

It wouldnt need 600,000 it would need a couple of hundred at most then you would have a raft of people rushing to pay, especially if they see people being fined a couple of grand for not paying. Make an example of a few and the rest will fall into line.

DoesNotCompute

Ghandee wrote: »

600,000 prosecutions would bring our court systems to their knees, not to mention how the hell a bankrupt state would finance such a move.

They don't need to prosecute 600,000. Prosecute a few high profile evaders, and the rest will fold like a cheap suit.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

You want me to go any point out the offences section of the legislation!

Are you incapable of doing this simple task for yourself?

Offences

Offences

The Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 provides for a number of offences related to the household charge. The main offences relate to failure to declare a liability to a household charge, failure to pay it and to provide information that is false or misleading. The Act also provides for fines and other sanctions for persons found guilty of offences.

No, I'm quite capable.

That's not very clear in any shape or form.

The 'what happens if I don't pay' one sets the penalties out as clear as crystal though.
I for one will choose the 12 year gamble though.

donalg1 wrote: »

It wouldnt need 600,000 it would need a couple of hundred at most then you would have a raft of people rushing to pay, especially if they see people being fined a couple of grand for not paying. Make an example of a few and the rest will fall into line.

Seven months on, what's keeping them?

Lot of hot air and threats, many have openly admitted to not paying/won't be paying including a few TDs.

Perfect 'ready made' folk to be publicly made an example of , yet nothing.

Why?

Ghandee

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

They don't need to prosecute 600,000. Prosecute a few high profile evaders, and the rest will fold like a cheap suit.

As already stated.

A few td's and members of the dail openly admit to not paying.

Why the reluctance to prosecute these people?

DoesNotCompute

Ghandee wrote: »

Seven months on, what's keeping them?

Lot of hot air and threats, many have openly admitted to not paying/won't be paying including a few TDs.

Perfect 'ready made' folk to be publicly made an example of , yet nothing.

Why?

They want to give everyone as much opportunities as possible to pay, so that when people get dragged into Court for non-payment, the Councils will be able to prove to a judge that they've given people as many chances as possible to pay, so they'll have a better chance of winning their case.

donalg1

Ghandee wrote: »

As already stated.

A few td's and members of the dail openly admit to not paying.

Why the reluctance to prosecute these people?

Its a bit early for the strong arming of bringing someone to court, they will get thier database sorted and then go after them a bit stronger I would imagine.

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

No, I'm quite capable.

That's not very clear in any shape or form.

The 'what happens if I don't pay' one sets the penalties out as clear as crystal though.
I for one will choose the 12 year gamble though.

It's very clear

Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 wrote:

5.— (1) The owner of a residential property who, on a liability date, is liable to pay a household charge to a relevant local authority, or is entitled to a waiver from payment of a household charge under subsection (4) of section 4 , in respect of the year in which that liability date falls, shall make and provide to the relevant local authority a declaration stating that he or she is so liable or so entitled, as the case may be.

(2) A declaration referred to in subsection (1) shall—

(a) be in such form and contain such information as may be prescribed,

(b) be provided to the relevant local authority on or before such date as may be prescribed, and

(c) in the case of a person who is liable to pay a household charge, be accompanied by payment, effected in accordance with subsection (3), of the household charge in respect of the residential property concerned.

(3) Payment of the household charge in respect of a residential property shall, at the option of the owner of the property concerned, be effected by—

(a)(i) a single payment made on or before such date as may be prescribed, or

(ii) the payment of instalments—

(I) of such amounts, and

(II) to be paid on or before such dates,

as may be prescribed, provided that if any instalment is not paid in full and on time, the full outstanding balance of the household charge becomes immediately due,

and

(b) by such means as may be prescribed.

(4) A person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a class C fine.

(5) A person who, in purported compliance with subsection (1) or (2), provides information to a local authority that is false or misleading in a material respect shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a class C fine.

(6) A person who is convicted of an offence under this section shall, on each day on which the contravention of which that offence consists is continued by the person after his or her having been so convicted, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding €100.

How you could advise someone who is brought to court for non payment to tell the judge that they were 'waiting for the charge to be taken at point of sale' is beyond me. You really should not be giving out legal advise that you don't yourself understand.



Anyone looking to choose the 12 year gamble should be fully aware of the potential losses. Apart from the fines, there may also be costs, which could far exceed the fine.

Local Government (Household Charge) Act 2011 - Section 15 wrote:

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court shall order the person to pay to the relevant local authority the costs and expenses, measured by the court, incurred by the relevant local authority in relation to the investigation, detection and prosecution of the offence, unless the court is satisfied that there are special and substantial reasons for not so doing.

Deank

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

They want to give everyone as much opportunities as possible to pay, so that when people get dragged into Court for non-payment, the Councils will be able to prove to a judge that they've given people as many chances as possible to pay, so they'll have a better chance of winning their case.

How can the LA's prove that they've given people many chances to pay, as the letter I received this morning was not registered, hence I never received it, if a registered letter arrives I'll refuse it, if someone comes knocking on my door they'll be run off my property.
I am not paying for 3 reasons.

1. My esatate has not yet been taken over by our LA
2. I paid an exhorbatant amount in stamp duty 8 years ago, another snake of a tax
3. I f I register now the bast@rds will get us for a percentage of the house value "tax" when they eventually figure out how to implement it properly.

dvpower

Deank wrote: »

How can the LA's prove that they've given people many chances to pay, as the letter I received this morning was not registered, hence I never received it, if a registered letter arrives I'll refuse it, if someone comes knocking on my door they'll be run off my property.

There is no requirement for the LAs to prove this.

Chips Lovell

Deank wrote: »

How can the LA's prove that they've given people many chances to pay, as the letter I received this morning was not registered, hence I never received it, if a registered letter arrives I'll refuse it, if someone comes knocking on my door they'll be run off my property.

The letter your received isn't a bill. It's a reminder. Saying you haven't received reminder letters or chasing people off your property doesn't remove the liability.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

It's very clear


How you could advise someone who is brought to court for non payment to tell the judge that they were 'waiting for the charge to be taken at point of sale' is beyond me. You really should not be giving out legal advise that you don't yourself understand.

I fully understand what the hhc legislation sets out as to 'what happens if you don't pay' section.

Hence why I would give advise to pay if (IF) you're caught.

dvpower wrote: »

Anyone looking to choose the 12 year gamble should be fully aware of the potential losses. Apart from the fines, there may also be costs, which could far exceed the fine.

It also may not exceed it, if this shower would stop dragging their heels, and get the sore on the road (to see the true show of resistance then) we could find out.

Deank

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The letter your received isn't a bill. It's a reminder. Saying you haven't received reminder letters or chasing people off your property doesn't remove the liability.

Well it isn't a bill and certainly isn't a reminder, somewhere in between I think.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/138925/224819.jpg

Cantona's Collars

@ the posters asking about the letter I got,it was addressed to both myself & the wife but had her maiden name on it so not sure where the LA are getting the info as I'm married a couple of years.We reside in Enniscorthy,no secret there as any search of my posts would quickly reveal that fact.

As with the other poster my letter seems to be identical to his & this letter seems to be generated from a template & is simply printed on headed paper.

I "may be liable" to pay the charge according to the wording,so they are simply throwing stones to see who they'll hit.

the groutch

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1017/1224325338834.html

HOUSEHOLD CHARGE warning letters seeking payment of €127 including a penalty for late payment have been sent to homeowners who have already paid the charge, the Local Government Management Agency has confirmed.
The first batch of warning letters to owner-occupiers, believed not to have paid the charge, was issued last week. Up to then only landlords or second home owners had been sent letters reminding them of their household charge liabilities.
However, even homeowners who paid the charge before the payment deadline of March 31st are receiving the new letters.
A spokeswoman for the agency said the letters were being issued to people who had paid because of “imperfections” in the data set being used to identify non-payers.
The second home owners who had not paid the charge were identified using the non principal private residence register (NPPR) database and the register of private rented accommodation held by the Private Residential Tenancies Board.
The new letters, sent to single-home owners, use information from a number of sources including the Revenue Commissioners, ESB Networks and the Department of Social Protection.
“The data is in a number of different formats and it was a huge amount of work to try and match it. There has never been data matching like this done before, so there will be imperfections,” the spokeswoman said.
The errors were less likely to occur with the NPPR or tenancy databases as these were more recently established, she said.
Letters may be sent to people who have already paid if their address contains the word “Street” on one database but just “St” on another. Or, if in a rural area, a townland is used in one form of an address and a local village or town in another.
It was not possible to say how many people who have paid have received letters seeking €127, which covers the €100 household charge and penalties and interest. However, she said it was necessary for recipients to ring the number on the letter even if they have paid.
“If they don’t contact the number they are going to get a second letter. They need to phone and quote either their household charge account reference number or their PPS number so it can be verified that they have paid.”
Once their payment has been verified they will receive no further warning letters, she said.

more money being wasted trying to collect the charge.

dvpower

zerks wrote: »

I "may be liable" to pay the charge according to the wording,so they are simply throwing stones to see who they'll hit.

... seems like they hit a target.

Cantona's Collars

dvpower wrote: »

... seems like they hit a target.

They'll hit a lot of them in Enniscorthy,the only ones that seem to have paid here are the elderly who were frightened into doing it.

Ghandee

dvpower wrote: »

There is no requirement for the LAs to prove this.

What if it was a speeding ticket you never received?

If I told a judge you never received the automated speeding y ticket from a camera?

dvpower

Ghandee wrote: »

What if it was a speeding ticket you never received?

What have speeding tickets got to do with the HHC?

Read the legislation and stop asking stupid questions.

DoesNotCompute

Deank wrote: »

I am not paying for 3 reasons.

1. My esatate has not yet been taken over by our LA
2. I paid an exhorbatant amount in stamp duty 8 years ago, another snake of a tax
3. I f I register now the bast@rds will get us for a percentage of the house value "tax" when they eventually figure out how to implement it properly.

1. LAs have come up with a list of estates that qualify for a waiver on the basis that they are not ready to be taken into charge. If your estate is on the list, you'll be exempt.

2. And this *should* be taken into account when they roll out the property tax next year. We don't know this for sure though. Come Budget Day we'll find out.

3. And rightly so. This is a charge that you, as a homeowner, are now legally obliged to pay (or at least register for, if you are deemed exempt/waivered). No amount of burying your head in the sand will remove your liability.