Imprisonment for debt...

MrDarcy

Last week I came to hear of a person I know well, who is facing a spell in custody for non payment of a civil debt. Basically the long and the short of it is that this person ran up a bill with a mobile phone company. He used the phone almost exclusively for work and had an arrangement with his employer that his employer would pay the bill every month. However the empoloyer started having trouble with this arrangement and was unable to pay the full amount every month, the outcome being that even though the bill was being partially paid in order to keep the number connected, that the arrears on the account were building up.

Fast forward a few months and the employer has gone bust, this person is on the dole and the phone bill in his name was up at 700 odd Euro. One year later and he gets a summons to attend court in relation to a debt.

He finds himself in court, unable to deal with the bill to any extent. His argument is that even though the account is in his name, the phone was used for work and the fact that his employer couldn't keep on top of the bill was ultimately not his fault, however the phone company seem to be having none of it.

But you can't help but wonder what was the right thing to do here, from the perspective of the employee who is now facing a prison spell. This guy worked very closely with his boss to try to keep the business open, including working for free for some time, and was often left waiting for wages, etc. The idea was that they could recover things but ultimately that proved not to be the case...

But the fact is that through no malice and though no attempt at wrong has occured here, someone is facing down the prospect of a prison spell.

How would you feel if this was you??? Say your solicitor told you that for trying to be selfless and doing the right thing, you have a business taking you to court that is petitioning the court for a committal order, meaning they want you to be sent to prison because you cannot pay the debt as demanded.

I personally think that this is like something that is out of the twilight zone, that you can end up in prison for something like this. I know this might not sound but a political or economic issue that is appropriate for this forum but I find it hard to see it as anythinge else to be honest. A state that jails people in these kind of circumstances I think is guilty of human rights abuse.

MagicMarker

He's not going to prison for a €700 bill! Who told you this?

MrDarcy

MagicMarker wrote: »

He's not going to prison for a €700 bill! Who told you this?

A close relation of his told me this. This isn't a joke or an exaggeration, he has been served with a summons with a request to the court for a commital order attached to it. It seems that he has to convince the court now that he should not be sent to jail for non payment of this debt. This will require him to enter into an arrangement with the court to pay an amount off this debt weekly/monthly, which he says he cannot and will not do because he is literally living hand to mouth at the moment on benefit.

MrDarcy

I don't want to get into the "look at the government bailing out the fat cats", debate, I just think it is worthy of discussion how a country that is clearly on it's knee's economically, should be tolerating any plaintiff that is asking the state to imprison a citizen if they cannot pay a bill. Historically the state, in terms of the administration of justice, has had a punitive attitude towards bad debtors, because the working assumption was that some people just don't pay their bills because they are too mean or couldn't give a sh*t or whatever.

But this guy is terrified that he is going to prison, only yesterday or the day before there was mention on the news that over 4,000 people were sent to prison last year for non payment of civil debts, so this situation is by no means unique it would seem...

dan_d

If it was me?
Absolutely raging. Boiling mad.Furthermore, I'd be writing to every newspaper, every talk show, and every politician about it.
He owes the money, fine. It certainly doesn't mean that every person who has a debt should be exonerated. But if he ended up in prison, and the fact that he highlighted his case was the reason that even one developer/banker/politician was investigated for questionable dealings and received a punishment of some sort.....it would be a success. A small success, but a success all the same.

silverharp

in these cases being sent to prison means that you are in and out within a hour or two? for obvious reasons the prison doesnt want to have valuable space used up

Einstein

If it was a company phone it shouldn't have been in his name in the first place.
I'd be highly surprised if he'll do time. But the way things are in the courts in this country I wouldn't be surprised.

MrDarcy

Einstein wrote: »

If it was a company phone it shouldn't have been in his name in the first place.
I'd be highly surprised if he'll do time. But the way things are in the courts in this country I wouldn't be surprised.

That's the thing, if it was a company there would be the limited liability cushion to fall back on. It seems it was one of these things where he landed into the job with his personal phone and found himself using it more and more for work so the boss said he'd pay it in full once the bill was available for accounting purposes and this worked fine until the employers business then couldn't pay the bill, at this stage apparently the lad in question was more or less working for free to keep the show on the road but it ended up being the case where a deeper hole was just being dug, however I don't think you could blame anyone for trying, sure isn't that what they say you should do, fight for every sale and work morning noon and night to keep the thing going???

Basically the debt is his, he accepts that. But he cannot pay it, he accepts that also but the company chasing him doesn't and he fears the judge will not accept it either on the day...

Head The Wall

Can he bring proof that he was receiving payment for the phone bill from his company. This would probably be cheques or it should be mentioned in his payslip. If he was getting cash of the books it'll be his word then.

If he can show a pattern of payments from his company there may be leniency from the judge

Sleepy

Or can he make the offer to pay the bill back at €1 a week for the next few years just to be seen to be making an effort to re-pay?

boodlesdoodles

You can't be committed for a debt unless there is a judgement against you and committal afaik only results when an instalment order defaults. So basically I don't think you've been told the full story. A debtor has to prove their inability to pay in any case like this and this person surely would have loads of documentation regarding being out of work etc and the courts/judge would pick a realistic sum for him to pay each month.and that isn't a quick process. Sounds to me like they've defaulted on the court order. Did they have a solicitor representing them?

MrDarcy

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

You can't be committed for a debt unless there is a judgement against you and committal afaik only results when an instalment order defaults. So basically I don't think you've been told the full story. A debtor has to prove their inability to pay in any case like this and this person surely would have loads of documentation regarding being out of work etc and the courts/judge would pick a realistic sum for him to pay each month.and that isn't a quick process. Sounds to me like they've defaulted on the court order. Did they have a solicitor representing them?

The simple fact is that he was apparently served with a summons which mentioned the fact that the plaintiff is seeking to have the court send him to prison. He can't afford a solicitor, if he could, he is of the view that he could afford to pay off the debt.

boodlesdoodles

MrDarcy wrote: »

The simple fact is that he was apparently served with a summons which mentioned the fact that the plaintiff is seeking to have the court send him to prison. He can't afford a solicitor, if he could, he is of the view that he could afford to pay off the debt.

The summons would have all the options that could result through the court action but its not the first option. There is the process and that process includes a judgement, so have they got a judgement against him?

30lady

boodlesdoodles wrote: »

You can't be committed for a debt unless there is a judgement against you and committal afaik only results when an instalment order defaults. So basically I don't think you've been told the full story. A debtor has to prove their inability to pay in any case like this and this person surely would have loads of documentation regarding being out of work etc and the courts/judge would pick a realistic sum for him to pay each month.and that isn't a quick process. Sounds to me like they've defaulted on the court order. Did they have a solicitor representing them?

If he cant afford a solicitor he can apply for free legal aid ...if he goes to his local Citizens Information Centre or Money Advice and Budgeting Service (MABS) they will point him in the right direction.

Anything over like e692 or something..and you're looking at 3 months in jail..
the justice system in this country is a joke..

Fluffybums

On a slightly lighter note - could he send the bill to Ivor Calley.



This does seem to be grossly unfair. Surely some kind of arrangement can be made, even, as someone else suggested, at one or two euro a week. An honest man going to jail serves no purpose, does not get the debt paid and may ruin the chance of this person getting a job in the future as he will have a prison sentence on his record.

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything over like e692 or something..and you're looking at 3 months in jail..
the justice system in this country is a joke..

Not if your the poor bastard who is owed the €692.

Ok, I am in broad agreement with you that our legal system is a joke, inherited from the UK and tbh, in my opinion, beyond reform. We need to abolish the use of English Common Law and with it the overpaid legal profession who profit from the system's archaic complexity.

Go the continental route: codified legal systems where parliaments make laws, not judges. No precedents or any of that rubbish to examine..just open the book to see if x is legal or not. The only judges in Germany with the power to affect lawmaking are those in the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe. They simply verfify if a proposed law is constitutional or not and once in force, that's the law. Lower down judges just follow the rules. It's much more transparent and you know where you stand with it. Lawyers are then a lot cheaper and there's no solicitor/barrister divide.

I know the other side of the story, being owed multiple thousands from a beligerent pr!ck who can pay but won't pay. It is not due in court again until DECEMBER! (date applied for months ago). In Ireland, it is surprisingly easy to walk away from your responsibilities tbh. I think the threat of prison for non-payment of civil debts should always be there.

Solair

So the state pays millions a year to collect private debts?!
Why?
This seems utterly ridiculous considering our overcrowded prisons!

Also am I wrong or was this not proven to be in contravention of European human rights law?

oscarBravo

Solair wrote: »

So the state pays millions a year to collect private debts?!
Why?

Who do you think should be responsible for enforcing the payment of private debts?

Solair

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who do you think should be responsible for enforcing the payment of private debts?

The courts but not through use of custodial sentences. Most other modern countries abandoned these kinds of systems in the early 20th century.

There are loads of other options : bailiffs to seize or repossess goods sold on credit, attachment to earnings / etc are all reasonable approaches.

The Irish system is just Victorian and hugely expensive and draconian.

Every person/year in prison costs you and me as tax payers between 75 and 100 grand!
It also potentially makes someone unemployable as they may lose their job and become unrecruitable!
Not only that but you are exposing people who are just broke or financially incompetent to hardened criminals, disgraceful conditions and possibly even introducing them to drugs.

Why should the prison system be clogged up by people who can't pay bills?!?

It's expensive and it's socially counterproductive!

Also when fines go unpaid community service orders should be used!

Our justice system is an international laughing stock in this particular area!

We're jailing more and more people every year and much of it is for ridiculous reasons like this. Meanwhile, our prisons are over crowded and we are releasing prisoners who are seriously dangerous early !

It's utterly stupid and looks more like something you'd expect to find in the US deep south than a modern western European country!

oscarBravo

Solair wrote: »

Why should the prison system be clogged up by people who can't pay bills?!?

I'm concentrating more on people who won't pay bills.

Also when fines go unpaid community service orders should be used!

What do you do with people who refuse to do community service?

Laminations

Solair wrote: »

The courts but not through use of custodial sentences. Most other modern countries abandoned these kinds of systems in the early 20th century.

There are loads of other options : bailiffs to seize or repossess goods sold on credit, attachment to earnings / etc are all reasonable approaches.

The Irish system is just Victorian and hugely expensive and draconian!

Why should the prison system be clogged up by people who can't pay bills?!?

It's expensive and it's socially counterproductive!

Also when fines go unpaid community service orders should be used!

Our justice system is an international laughing stock in this particular area!

I agree completely. You find that people who can't pay bills usually cant pay bills but the ones that cant pay because they wont pay (usually the wealthier ones with the bigger bills) deserve a lesson in humility through the 'shame' of being bankrupted rather than being put in prison and taking up space which could be used to protect society from someone who is genuinely dangerous. Financial fraud should moreso result in a life of poverty for the perpetrator rather than a life behind bars IMO.

Laminations

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm concentrating more on people who won't pay bills. What do you do with people who refuse to do community service?

Take what they have (by bailiffs and court order), until you get compliance or restitution.

EDIT: obviously until the point at which they wont pay becomes the point at which they cant pay - this latter point is the same for all people and is the point at which you only have enough money to survive

murphaph

At present it is all too easy for debtors to transfer property ownership rights to 3rd parties to avoid paying money they owe.

Judges only extremely rarely give possession and sale orders on family homes, even if they are worth "a few bob". So is it fair that a guy living in a 500k house can owe a few grand to another guy living in a 250k house, yet the courts won't force the debtor to sell up and move somewhere smaller? Hardly.

But that's the current system. You have to try really hard not to make any effort to pay your civil debts before any court in Ireland will send you to prison for it. I think people may be confusing civil debts with things like TV licences which carry specific custodial sentences for non payment. Civil debts have to go through all sorts of hoops including the court setting a (usually tiny) repayment plan which you have to fail to keep up with before they'll even think about sending you to prison.

mecanoman

I've often wondered about these cases. Lets say your friend
does go to Jail for 3months, serves he's time.
Back out, is that it debt can no longer be applied to him.

Solair

oscarBravo wrote: »

What do you do with people who refuse to do community service?

If they won't do community service, attachment of earnings / welfare payments to cover cost of unpaid fine.

Custodial sentences are extremely expensive and should really only be used where the person is a threat to society.

I am sick of seeing people getting non-custodial sentences for violent crime e.g. beating someone up and getting a suspended sentence. While, you are seeing people going to jail over such ridiculous things as TV license non-payment etc etc.

Jail is not the universal sanction for absolutely everything. There's a heck of a lot that could be done to make our justice system more effective in terms of the rehabilitate outcome and also much more cost effective.

Would you rather see city streets swept or litter picked out of hedges etc ?

Or, pay €75,000 / year to keep someone in jail who was of no threat to society and was just a bit financially dodgy ?

We need to urgently re-think a whole range of justice issues:

1) Debts - Financial workouts etc
2) Non payment of fines - Community service etc.
3) Non-violent crime - Community service, rehab + possibly electronic tagging?
4) Petty crime - Community service, restorative justice measures, tagging?
5) Road traffic offenses - driving lessons/requalification, bans, speed limiting, alcohol monitoring devices etc.
6) (very important) - Drug addicts' offenses - compulsory detox and monitoring etc etc to avoid jail.

Laminations

Solair wrote: »

1) Debts - Financial workouts etc
2) Non payment of fines - Community service etc.
3) Non-violent crime - Community service, rehab + possibly electronic tagging?
4) Petty crime - Community service, restorative justice measures, tagging?
5) Road traffic offenses - driving lessons/requalification, bans, speed limiting, alcohol monitoring devices etc.
6) (very important) - Drug addicts' offenses - compulsory detox and monitoring etc etc to avoid jail.

Agree with all that bar the last one. If the drug addicts offence was violent or threatening to others then prison should be a place of compulsory detox and monitoring. Violent thuggery shouldn't be excused because of addiction. People plead diminished responsibility enough as it is on these grounds. People take drugs knowing the risks, the risks of addiction and of the drugs altering and driving behaviour. If I was ever to agree to the legalising of drugs that would be one of my stipulations - remove it as a mitigating factor in criminal cases, it should be like that now, same with alcohol.

Actually I probably dont agree with you re road traffic offences. These offences (especially the more serious ones) greatly endanger lives and prison in many cases is necessary.

hinault

If the person in question offers to make a repayment on a piecemeal basis, the judge will set aside the commital order.

I would be shocked if the judge indulged any commital order against a person in those circumstances.

murphaph

mecanoman wrote: »

I've often wondered about these cases. Lets say your friend
does go to Jail for 3months, serves he's time.
Back out, is that it debt can no longer be applied to him.

No because you would not be sent to prison for "having a debt" you would be sent to prison for breaching a court ordered repayment plan etc. The debt would still stand.

dan_d

To be honest - and I'm no legal expert - our current system sounds exactly like it's inherited from the British Victorian system, whereby peasants had to obey laws and those in power, or the upper ten thousand (the aristocracy), had a completely different set of rules, that involved being able to buy your way out of almost everything through their own fortune, or simply their family name, regardless of their crime.

Am I wrong?

funnyname

silverharp wrote: »

in these cases being sent to prison means that you are in and out within a hour or two? for obvious reasons the prison doesnt want to have valuable space used up

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1109/1224258394211.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0806/prison.html

Although that might now change

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0529/1224271392927.html

Elessar

funnyname wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/1109/1224258394211.html

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0806/prison.html

Although that might now change

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0529/1224271392927.html

Those are crime related fines people are being imprisoned for. The OP is talking about civil debts (i.e. unrelated to legal fines).

Wasn't there a case last year where a woman was nearly sent to prison for non-payment of a civil debt, but a judge struck it out saying prison is not the proper punishment? Effectively setting a precedent that means no-one can be imprisoned for non payment of a civil debt?

oppenheimer1

Deleted User wrote: »

Anything over like e692 or something..and you're looking at 3 months in jail..
the justice system in this country is a joke..

Well then the wise thing would be to pay off €8. I think anyone could afford that if it meant avoiding jail.

Incidentally there are plans to remove custodial sentences as punishment for non payment of debt. But then how many people would like to see developers in prison or avoid it if the new law came into being.