Non-payment of household charge

Dandelion6

Having trouble sorting out the truth from the propaganda on this. One side is threatening that non-payers will wind up with a four-digit fine (and criminal record?) while the other side seems to be claiming that there won't be any consequences whatsoever. Could anyone set out the realistic prospects of what will happen to someone who doesn't pay the charge (assuming they're caught)?

I'm not looking for a debate on whether it should or should not be paid, just trying to understand the real, likely consequences of non-payment.

Avatargh

It is not in the Act?

ResearchWill

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2011/a3611.pdf

Section 5 makes it an offence for the owner of property to not register or to claim the waiver or to provide false info fine on conviction max €2500 class C. Each day after conviction that the act continues can on conviction incur fine not exceeding €100 per day.

Sections 7 and 8 deal with non payment and automatic increase in the charge and making such fees and payments a charge on the property.

By all means don't pay it if you don't want to but don't cry when a charge is registered against your house and you receive a large fine.

johnfás

Just so you're clear on that.

The charge is €100. There is an interest penalty on paying late (up to 30%) bringing you to €130. It is a criminal offence not to pay. That criminal offence is punishable by a fine of up to €2,500 and up to €100 for each day that you continue to not pay.

Based on the above if you were not to pay, were prosecuted, and continued to refuse to pay for a year your exposure is as follows. €100 + 30 + 2,500 + 36,500 = €39,130. You would also potentially have a criminal conviction. The same would potentially apply in a subsequent year. Continued failure to to pay the fines incurred would potentially result in your imprisonment. It should also be noted that the household charge is a charge in your property. That is, nobody will buy your house until you pay it off.

Tax evasion is a serious business. And yes, it is the law. And yes, the law applies to you whether you consent or not.

Our man in Havana

I can't see the state having the resources to do this to all the non payers.

MagicSean

I doubt they'll prosecute so many. They'll just deduct it at source.

seamus

Our man in Havana wrote: »

I can't see the state having the resources to do this to all the non payers.

No, but the charge remains against the property and must be paid of the property is to be sold or transferred.

What's not mentioned in the calculations above is the late payment interest, at 1% per month, starting from 1st April.

Not a huge amount of interest, but if someone thinks they're in this for the long haul then that interest will tally up a large amount.

It's not really relevant that "no can sell anyway". At some point the property has to be transferred and the charge will be paid. In the event of the property owner's death, the executor of their estate has three months to discharge the total fee against the house.

BrianD

seamus wrote: »

No, but the charge remains against the property and must be paid of the property is to be sold or transferred.

What's not mentioned in the calculations above is the late payment interest, at 1% per month, starting from 1st April.

Not a huge amount of interest, but if someone thinks they're in this for the long haul then that interest will tally up a large amount.

It's not really relevant that "no can sell anyway". At some point the property has to be transferred and the charge will be paid. In the event of the property owner's death, the executor of their estate has three months to discharge the total fee against the house.

This is interesting as I have already heard of contracts of house sales having this provision in it already. Otherwise, the buyer is liable for the outstanding charges as it's against the property.

Most people I know are paying on the last day which should make for some interesting times in council IT departments.

seamus

BrianD wrote: »

Most people I know are paying on the last day which should make for some interesting times in council IT departments.

FF are already calling for an extension because there were some technical issues 3 months ago, which is laughable obviously. But in all likelihood there will be issues on the 31st and the payment deadline will have to be extended to the 3rd or 4th of April. This happens on a not-irregular basis with Revenue's systems on payment deadline dates, and they give an extra 2 days or so to get the money in.

Our man in Havana

MagicSean wrote: »

I doubt they'll prosecute so many. They'll just deduct it at source.

Without securing a judgement?

mousehouse

I have to say I love the Irish the mentality we want everything for free. Where do we think services come from, if we did not have water fromt he taps, lighting on our roads, library's closed then we would be moaning. I for one have paid the €100 and I think it is a pity that higher fines or jailing is not an option and I do not say that lightly.

donegalpaddy

I have to say that I can't believe your comment. The 100 that we pay is not going towards any services. It's going towards bailing out the bond holders. Anyway it's not the 100 this year. It has been stated that it will increase in the next few years and thanks to foolish naive people like you we will be forced into paying this so called tax. You should be proud of yourself. Why not send 1000 to Bertie when your at it.

650gs

I for one will not be paying the charge the reason being if you look through the list of exemptions one of them is minsters homes are exempt now if thats not throwing the boot in I give up.
So when the minsters pay so will I

johnfás

donegalpaddy wrote: »

I have to say that I can't believe your comment. The 100 that we pay is not going towards any services. It's going towards bailing out the bond holders. Anyway it's not the 100 this year. It has been stated that it will increase in the next few years and thanks to foolish naive people like you we will be forced into paying this so called tax. You should be proud of yourself. Why not send 1000 to Bertie when your at it.

Quite honestly you're fooling yourself. The government will probably go all soft power on this for a year but once thE database is in place it'll be a property tax and you'll go to jail for not paying. And I hope you do too. You can't pick and choose what taxes you pay. I don't feel I get alot for my income or motor tax either but everyone has to pay it.

johnfás

650gs wrote: »

I for one will not be paying the charge the reason being if you look through the list of exemptions one of them is minsters homes are exempt now if thats not throwing the boot in I give up.
So when the minsters pay so will I

Lol, such nonsense. Dwellings owned by a minister means, in their capacity as a minister. That's local authority housing, residences on hospital grounds and homeless provision. But you knew that before you posted.

mousehouse

Ministers homes are not exempt from the household charge, this is just pure rumour set out by the unions and those against it. The legislation clearly states that property vested in the ministers is exempt this refers to the Department building for example the Minister for Finance has the building in which his offices are based vested in his interest therefore that building is exempt NOT his own personal home for which he is liable. Those TD's who are out telling people not to pay the charge I feel should loose their seats and be expelled. You can not have those who have been given the power to make the law of the country going against it when they wish. Only in Ireland would this happen and for too long with FF this has been the case and needs to stop.

Manach

This tax shows the power of the state to impose whatever extra financial charges they wish to keep in place a system that is non-responsive to their ultimate clients, the people. From a legal PoV, would there be any non-payment route that would end in a jury trial that could be a check on this law if the jury does not convict?

johnfás

Manach wrote: »

This tax shows the power of the state to impose whatever extra financial charges they wish to keep in place a system that is non-responsive to their ultimate clients, the people. From a legal PoV, would there be any non-payment route that would end in a jury trial that could be a check on this law if the jury does not convict?

Failure to pay is a summary offence. The answer is no. Summary offences are not heard before juries. Furthermore, juries have no role in deciding on whether or not a law is permissible. Honestly, you've been told again and again, the government is perfectly entitled to bring in a property tax and yes you are obliged to pay it.

jack67

johnfás wrote: »

Quite honestly you're fooling yourself. The government will probably go all soft power on this for a year but once thE database is in place it'll be a property tax and you'll go to jail for not paying. And I hope you do too. You can't pick and choose what taxes you pay. I don't feel I get alot for my income or motor tax either but everyone has to pay it.[/QUOTE

what a load of cobblers:eek:

jack67

johnfás wrote: »

Failure to pay is a summary offence. The answer is no. Summary offences are not heard before juries. Furthermore, juries have no role in deciding on whether or not a law is permissible. Honestly, you've been told again and again, the government is perfectly entitled to bring in a property tax and yes you are obliged to pay it.

yawn;)

Manach

Historically juries have been a means to block the enforcement of laws which were deemed not to have accorded to natural justice. This now seems to be an option that has been removed.

Dodser

Listening to the radio ad this morning telling me to pay up on www.householdcharge.ie/ or face the fine. I decided to pay. Of course the website is down. Why oh why am I not surprised.
How much have these tossers spent of taxpayers money developing this payment mechanism and how much have they spent on advertising? :-(

johnfás

Manach wrote: »

Historically juries have been a means to block the enforcement of laws which were deemed not to have accorded to natural justice. This now seems to be an option that has been removed.

Again nonsense. Article 38 of the Constitution provides for the trial of minor offences in courts of summary jurisdiction. Well before your time mate.

The role of a jury is to decide issues of fact - not to arbitrate upon the law.

Hunchback

Before reading this thread I had strongly considered non-compliance. The notion of the compilation of a database freaks me out a little bit, I'm not sure why, maybe that's just me being naieve..

But I am even more worried about the possibility of a criminal record as previously mentioned. But even if there was a non-compliance rate of 30%, would it not be unimaginable to have such a large number of people with criminal records?

Finally, the second reason I sort of saw non-compliance as a good thing was that I considered it as a potential catalyst for unification and people power.... but as I mentioned before, this thread has freaked me out enough to maybe swing me the other way :eek:

Manach

johnfás wrote: »

Again nonsense. Article 38 of the Constitution provides for the trial of minor offences in courts of summary jurisdiction. Well before your time mate.
The role of a jury is to decide issues of fact - not to arbitrate upon the law.

Not quite mate,- in that evolution of the jury was in parallel with the democratic traditions of civil society and used a means to check the overreaching power of the state: see "The Trial" by Sadakat Kadri.

Our man in Havana

Hogan to raise an army to collect in person.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/council-staff-to-knock-on-doors-for-100-house-charge-3060116.html

johnfás

Manach wrote: »

johnfás wrote: »

Again nonsense. Article 38 of the Constitution provides for the trial of minor offences in courts of summary jurisdiction. Well before your time mate.
The role of a jury is to decide issues of fact - not to arbitrate upon the law.

Not quite mate,- in that evolution of the jury was in parallel with the democratic traditions of civil society and used a means to check the overreaching power of the state: see "The Trial" by Sadakat Kadri.

The Household Charge isn't based on an academic discussion of the social contract. It's based on the reality of the monopoly power of the State within the confines of the Constitution as delegated by the people. Consequently the Government is perfectly entitled to levy this tax and whoever is charged with collecting it is perfectly entitled to prosecute tax evaders who do not pay up.

Predalien

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Hogan to raise an army to collect in person.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/council-staff-to-knock-on-doors-for-100-house-charge-3060116.html

I'd love to know how, local authories are down about 20% in numbers over the last few years and very few will be willing to subject themselves to the inevitable doorstep abuse they will encounter. More nonsense from Hogan.

Predalien

johnfás wrote: »

The role of a jury is to decide issues of fact - not to arbitrate upon the law.

Not really relevant to the household charge but juries regularly arbitrate on the law when they see a situation where the likely punishment outweighs the seriousness of an offence, even where a defendant is technically guilty of a crime. It's not meant to happen but it does.

Predalien

Predalien wrote: »

Not really relevant to the household charge but juries regularly arbitrate on the law when they see a situation where the likely punishment outweighs the seriousness of an offence, even where a defendant is technically guilty of a crime. It's not meant to happen but it does.

That's not arbitrating on a matter of law though. That's making a poor decision based on the facts. One of my favourite quotes from any judge is that "juries have the right to be wrong".

sundula

I paid the charge online yesterday, hadnt put much thought into till yesterday. I have read and heard many arguments for and against but the fact is this tax is here, it is staying and it will increase.

Where will the money go? Local Authority ? maybe, bond holders ? maybe. Its all the one big black hole.

Am I happy about it? No, because I know it will only increase and I also do a fair bit of sub-contractor work for a county council and I know how useless they are. I would sooner see someone sort them out and see how much more efficent they could be run. But thats a seperate issue.

They are building a database ? Some what , the idiots should have done it decades ago. I see nothing wrong with the government knowing who owns a house, how they get water and how they get rid of sewage. Maybe they could also link it to refuse collection and tv license and then they could catch all the people who dont pay either and dump there rubbish on country roads.

I imagine alot more people will pay this tax in the next 6 days and as the numbers increase the more the non payers will panic and pay up. Cant see anyone going to jail but I can see plenty getting fines.

Predalien

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not arbitrating on a matter of law though. That's making a poor decision based on the facts. One of my favourite quotes from any judge is that "juries have the right to be wrong".

Well it sort of is, they compromise the technical requirements of the law to reach a conclusion which they consider just. I'm not talking about situations where they don't convict because of a poor decision. It happens that even though it is clear the crime has been committed, the punishment is too serious for the level of the offence so the jury acquit.

Victor

donegalpaddy wrote: »

I have to say that I can't believe your comment. The 100 that we pay is not going towards any services. It's going towards bailing out the bond holders.

Actually no. Ireland isn't taking in enough taxes to pay for current services, nevermind pay existing debts or bank debts.

See here: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0323/1224313766388.html

McCrack

It is worth pointing out that a Cert of Discharge will issue for people that have paid the tax and this will become part of pre contract enquiries. If the tax is owing or in arrears that will cause an issue when selling.

Our man in Havana

Hardly going to be an issue for most people.

Bullseye1

mousehouse wrote: »

I have to say I love the Irish the mentality we want everything for free. Where do we think services come from, if we did not have water fromt he taps, lighting on our roads, library's closed then we would be moaning. I for one have paid the €100 and I think it is a pity that higher fines or jailing is not an option and I do not say that lightly.

What are you on about? What do we get for free in this country? What do our taxes go towards? Absolute rubbish. The reason we are spending more than we are making is nothing to do with how much tax we are charged. It is down to Orr spend, waste, extravagant pensions for senior civil servants etc.

So your happy to give more money to government and local government to waste. Have you not been paying attention to the waste? 100's of millions wasted. But sure go ahead a fool and his money is easily parted.

Avatargh

650gs wrote: »

I for one will not be paying the charge the reason being if you look through the list of exemptions one of them is minsters homes are exempt now if thats not throwing the boot in I give up.
So when the minsters pay so will I

Oh my jesus.

I can accept that we don't live in a wonderful place when it comes political corruption etc but when you read things like this do you stop to think for one second that maybe, just maybe, its not true?

Maybe just a pause to reflect on whether something so potentially awful and corrupt is actually the case? Sure, we have politicians on the take. Sure, we have our issues with our developers but do you really think that legislation specifically exempted the private homes of Ministers from the household charge?

And, at least if you read it online or whichever responsible and wonderful source you found this rubbish at and think it may be possibly true, don't you think you might just question something which, if true, would be about as abusive as one can get, is actually the case? No. Of course not. Just believe the hype. No Minister's homes! No consent! Its all going to Johnny Ronan!

It's not true. It is rubbish.

It is rubbish put about by people who don't understand the difference between the office of a Minister and the person who happens to be the Minister.

The charge applies to Ministers' homes.

So, I assume you'll be paying now then will you?

You said you would.

McCrack

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Hardly going to be an issue for most people.

I agree at the moment yes, but in 5-10 years time if/when people start selling their home it will be an issue. The arrears stay on the property, a purchaser won't buy until they are cleared or some concession made in the price

Avatargh

McCrack wrote: »

I agree at the moment yes, but in 5-10 years time if/when people start selling their home it will be an issue. The arrears stay on the property, a purchaser won't buy until they are cleared or some concession made in the price

Enlighten me on this!

I appreciate that it becomes a charge, but a charge doesn't really give any particularly significant rights of itself does it? Like, it doesn't confer (say) an automatic right on the State to sell the property to satisfy it? One could, I suppose, see a well-charging Order being sought coupled with an Order for sale, but is that likely where the charge (so far) won't really end up being huge in amount?

I was thinking about this in that in three years time (assuming property continues to plummet), would I *really* be put off purchasing a bargain on the basis that arrears were charged on it?

I may be overlooking something here, but, in practical terms what is likely to happen?

Avatargh

Manach wrote: »

This tax shows the power of the state to impose whatever extra financial charges they wish to keep in place a system that is non-responsive to their ultimate clients, the people. From a legal PoV, would there be any non-payment route that would end in a jury trial that could be a check on this law if the jury does not convict?

No.

Unless you assault someone coming to collect the charge, get tried on indictment, and defend yourself on the basis of "justice".

I think you misunderstand what juries do.

Manach wrote: »

Historically juries have been a means to block the enforcement of laws which were deemed not to have accorded to natural justice. This now seems to be an option that has been removed.

Right. Ok. Natural Justice.

When I look at my Natural Justice book, I don't see anything in it about household charges? What section should I be looking in?

What *are* you talking about?

Manach

Avatargh wrote: »

When I look at my Natural Justice book, I don't see anything in it about household charges? What section should I be looking in?

What *are* you talking about?

Post#25 is where I referred to my source material - might I inquire what is your "Natural Justice" book?

johnfás

Avatargh wrote: »

Enlighten me on this!

I appreciate that it becomes a charge, but a charge doesn't really give any particularly significant rights of itself does it? Like, it doesn't confer (say) an automatic right on the State to sell the property to satisfy it? One could, I suppose, see a well-charging Order being sought coupled with an Order for sale, but is that likely where the charge (so far) won't really end up being huge in amount?

I was thinking about this in that in three years time (assuming property continues to plummet), would I *really* be put off purchasing a bargain on the basis that arrears were charged on it?

I may be overlooking something here, but, in practical terms what is likely to happen?

In practical terms I suspect they will be softly softly on this matter for 18 months while the database of ownership is built. It's mad that we don't already have this as the Land Reg has been around since the 1890s but that's what a century of mismanagement does. Once that is built the household charge will be abolished and will be replaced with a household tax ranging from about 400-1400 per year. That will be heavily enforced and at the same time they'll pursue peoploe forthe arrears of the household charge.

That's my political analysis. The legal analysis is that this is the law. If you're not paying your committing a criminal offence and you're a tax evader. These are simply the facts.

Avatargh

johnfás wrote: »

In practical terms I suspect they will be softly softly on this matter for 18 months while the database of ownership is built. It's mad that we don't already have this as the Land Reg has been around since the 1890s but that's what a century of mismanagement does. Once that is built the household charge will be abolished and will be replaced with a household tax ranging from about 400-1400 per year. That will be heavily enforced and at the same time they'll pursue peoploe forthe arrears of the household charge.

That's my political analysis. The legal analysis is that this is the law. If you're not paying your committing a criminal offence and you're a tax evader. These are simply the facts.

Fair enough, but not what I'm asking about!

I was asking about the practical consequence of the charge on property? I thought that was pretty clear. I'm not talking about the consequence on the default personally, but following on the discussion about the effect on the land itself.

I.e. that by reason of tax-evader A, property is hit with a charge to the amount owed. I was more thinking about the legal position of how that charge affects non tax-evader B, who comes to buy the charged property.

Avatargh

Manach wrote: »

Post#25 is where I referred to my source material - might I inquire what is your "Natural Justice" book?

Ok, I see what you said and cited.

"the jury was in parallel with the democratic traditions of civil society and used a means to check the overreaching power of the state" see "The Trial" by Sadakat Kadri. "

That's about the worst possible mis-description you could offer of the role of the jury in the Irish legal system. You seem to be perceiving it as some arbiter of what the law should be in any given case which is just...well, its just wrong.

As to my Natural Justice book....emmm....how to put this....?

johnfás

Avatargh wrote: »

Agreed completely, but not what I'm asking about!

I was more talking about what is the practical consequence of the charge on property? I.e. that by reason of tax-evader A, property is hit with a charge to the amount owed. I was more thinking about the legal position of how that charge affects non tax-evader B, who comes to buy the charged property.

If there is a charge on a property there isn't "good marketable title" and the banks won't lend you any money to buy it. The charge has to be cleared before or at closing in order for you to buy. Obviously as you say though if there's 500 quid owing in the context of a 300,000 purchase the purchaser may themselves choose to discharge the burden. I wouldn't.

MBateson

I imagine it means the solicitor involved will be obliged to deduct the charge from the proceeds of the sale and pay them over to the government before giving it to the seller/estate.

Avatargh

johnfás wrote: »

If there is a charge on a property there isn't "good marketable title" and the banks won't lend you any money to buy it. The charge has to be cleared before or at closing in order for you to buy. Obviously as you say though if there's 500 quid owing in the context of a 300,000 purchase the purchaser may themselves choose to discharge the burden. I wouldn't.

Stupid me. I'd completely forgot about the lending perspective.

But even then (and leaving aside dogmatic rules) what is there for a bank to fear from the charge? I can appreciate a bank would simply say "no lending, if there is a charge" no matter how disproportionate the charge value is to the loan, but I'm more thinking about what the charge adds from an enforcement perspective. Maybe it adds nothing! Maybe the whole point is to create that kind of "civic self enforcement" which one might have in mind when thinking about being unable to sell.

secretambition

At what point, if ever, would failure to pay affect a persons credit rating? That would be my second biggest concern after conviction if I were liabile to pay this charge. Inability to obtain credit could in the future be far more painful than parting with €100/€130.

Avatargh

MBateson wrote: »

I imagine it means the solicitor involved will be obliged to deduct the charge from the proceeds of the sale and pay them over to the government before giving it to the seller/estate.

I don't think that is correct. I can't see such an obligation at all.

tayto lover

johnfás wrote: »

If there is a charge on a property there isn't "good marketable title" and the banks won't lend you any money to buy it. The charge has to be cleared before or at closing in order for you to buy. Obviously as you say though if there's 500 quid owing in the context of a 300,000 purchase the purchaser may themselves choose to discharge the burden. I wouldn't.

Aw go on. Pay mine will you. You must be getting a good bit of money for all the scaremongering.

MBateson

Avatargh wrote: »

MBateson wrote: »

I imagine it means the solicitor involved will be obliged to deduct the charge from the proceeds of the sale and pay them over to the government before giving it to the seller/estate.

I don't think that is correct. I can't see such an obligation at all.

I mean in the same way that he has to ensure a mortgage charge is satisfied, my terminology may not be correct, apologies.