Woolcock, R (On the Application Of) v Cardiff Magistrates' Court & Anor (No 1)

Before committing a debtor for council-tax arrears, a magistrates’ court must conduct an adequate means inquiry in the debtor’s presence. It must examine income and expenditure during the relevant liability periods, the debtor’s present ability to pay, whether non-payment resulted from wilful refusal or culpable neglect, and available enforcement or remission options. A debtor’s general admission that she had ignored the problem does not itself establish culpable neglect. A suspended committal must provide a reasonable and proportionate period for payment; periods extending substantially beyond three years are likely to be unlawful. A later committal founded on invalid orders is also unlawful.

The claimant sought judicial review of two orders made by Bridgend Magistrates’ Court on 20 October 2015 concerning unpaid council tax for two properties. The orders required weekly payments and fixed imprisonment in default. After the claimant failed to maintain payments, the court committed her to prison for 81 days on 18 July 2016. She challenged the adequacy of the means inquiry, the findings of culpable neglect, the length of the suspended terms, the later committal, and related Article 8 issues. The central questions were whether the original orders complied with regulation 47 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 and whether the later committal could lawfully stand.

1. The claim succeeded. The orders of 20 October 2015 and the committal to prison of 18 July 2016 were quashed.
2. Regulation 47 required a proper means inquiry in the debtor’s presence. The court had to consider income and expenditure during the periods for which the council tax was unpaid, the debtor’s present financial position, whether non-payment resulted from wilful refusal or culpable neglect, whether the debtor could pay, and what enforcement options were available. The available evidence did not show that the magistrates had obtained adequate information about the claimant’s wages or expenditure during the liability periods. Her statement that she had buried her head in the sand did not, without more, establish culpable neglect.
3. The means inquiry also had to inform the decision whether to commit, or instead to remit part or all of the debt. Knowing that the claimant received approximately £200 per week in benefits and offered £10 per week did not replace the need to determine her disposable income and ability to pay.
4. A suspended committal had to allow a reasonable and proportionate period for repayment. Periods exceeding three years were likely to be excessive and unlawful. The periods required here—approximately 11½ years for one property and 6½ years for the other—were manifestly excessive and disproportionate.
5. The July 2016 committal depended on the earlier invalid orders and lacked an evidential basis for culpable neglect. It was therefore unlawful. The court also observed that, on a later application, the magistrates could consider events since the original order, vary payment terms or postpone committal. Notice of the hearing and whether the debtor should be brought before the court required careful consideration, but those issues were not finally determined.
6. The Article 8 and child-interest arguments were left unresolved because the domestic-law defects were sufficient. The matter was not remitted, although any outstanding application remained for the magistrates’ lawful consideration.

This was a first-instance judicial review. Administrative Court: interim bail was granted by Whipple J on 16 September 2016, and the substantive claim was heard by Lewis J on 9 November 2016. The orders and committal were quashed.