Nwankwo, R (on the application of) v Hendon Magistrates' Court

Before a person may be committed to prison for council tax arrears, the statutory enforcement stages must be followed. Liability must first be established by a liability order. The billing authority must then pursue distress and demonstrate that no, or insufficient, goods were available to satisfy the liability. The magistrates must inquire into the debtor’s means and whether the failure to pay resulted from wilful refusal or culpable neglect. Proper service and a fair hearing are required throughout. A committal order made without those safeguards, particularly where liability and the relevant papers are disputed, has no proper basis and should be quashed.

The claimant sought judicial review of an order made by Hendon Magistrates’ Court on 20 November 2002. The order committed her to prison for 14 days unless she paid £892.04 said to represent council tax arrears.

She contended that she had not received the relevant papers, that her liability was disputed, and that the magistrates had refused her requests for an adjournment, an inquiry into liability and means, and an opportunity to make payment by instalments. The central issues were whether the statutory requirements for committal had been met and whether she had received a fair hearing.

1. The committal order was quashed. The claimant had not been given a proper or fair hearing before the serious order was made. On the evidence, her account of the hearing was unanswered.
2. The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 (SI 1992/613), made under the Local Government Finances Act 1992, prescribed successive safeguards before imprisonment could be ordered. Under paragraph 8 of Schedule IV, the billing authority first had to apply for a liability order. Once liability had been ascertained and the sum remained unpaid, it had to seek distress under regulation 45 before applying for committal under regulation 47.
3. Proper service was required at each stage. The court referred to R v the Newcastle upon Tyne Justices ex parte Devine [1998] 162 JPR 602 for the established requirement that notices should at least be served by recorded delivery.
4. Regulation 47 required the debtor’s presence, an inquiry into means, and an inquiry into whether the failure to pay was caused by wilful refusal or culpable neglect. A warrant could issue only if the court formed that opinion. No proper inquiry into means had occurred, and there was no evidence that distress had been attempted or that insufficient goods were available.
5. The claimant’s unresolved dispute about the amount owed and her failure to receive the papers gave the magistrates further reasons to listen and adjourn before making the order. The order therefore lacked any proper statutory or procedural foundation. Costs of £1,724.81 were ordered, subject to liberty for the court to apply within 14 days.

• Hendon Magistrates’ Court: On 20 November 2002, ordered imprisonment for 14 days unless £892.04 was paid by 14 December 2002.
• High Court (Administrative Court): The committal order was quashed. Costs of £1,724.81 were ordered, subject to the stated liberty to apply.