nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

County Council Bin Charge Debt Threat

pegleg peggy

Just received a letter, the second in 2 weeks, from AB Wolfe + Co. on behalf of DunLaoghaire Rathdown Co.Co. threatening us with legal action in 7 days if we don't pay our old bin charges arrears from way back before they turned it all over to private collectors. We refused to pay the old bin charge to the Co.Co. due to their appalling service and the fact that it has never been proved to be a legally imposed charge.

We've had other letters like this over the years and they were nothing but bull**** threats. I'm wondering if this time is any different. Anyone got any info? Or has anyone else received a letter like this recently from these solicitors?

Many thanks in advance!

Find more posts tagged with

tax

bin charges

dlrcoco

ab wolfe

Quick Links

Comments

ABajaninCork

When you complained to the CC, were any of the complaints in writing? That might add a bit of weight to your argument.

Cabaal

How exactly was the charge not legally imposed?

pegleg peggy

ABajaninCork wrote: »

When you complained to the CC, were any of the complaints in writing? That might add a bit of weight to your argument.

It was so long ago I can't remember if I ever put it in writing to the Council, but I did reply to one of the other solicitors letters a few years ago and never heard from them again. I have to dig that out of my files. I based it on advice I found online from Richard Boyd Barrett. I've sent him a message today to ask if he has any updated advice. I'll let everyone know what I find out.

pegleg peggy

Cabaal wrote: »

How exactly was the charge not legally imposed?

Here's the letter I wrote to the last crowd. I didn't cc the Council though.
Cabaal, the issue of legality is addressed in the letter.

I'll have to look up the result of the case mentioned in the letter below. A gem of a letter if I do say so myself

They never replied! Neither did their alter ego who wrote us under a different letterhead.

Bill Holohan & Associates
First Floor, Block C,
Ashtown Gate,
Navan Road,
Dublin 15

Reference: xxxxxxxx
Client Account no: xxxxxxxx

xx/xx/2008

Dear Sir
I acknowledge receipt of your correspondence dated 28th day of November 2008 and note the contents of same.

I wish to inform you these “charges” for rubbish removal have been deemed illegal in three separate Circuit Court cases. It is subject to a pending appeal by Dublin City Council to the Supreme Court (case number 253/06, Dublin City Council-V- George Williams).

Secondly, a Council must determine that household has availed of their service (as determined by District Court cases in 2003/2004).

I also wish to bring your attention to section 11 of the 1997 Non-fatal offences against the person act,

“A person who makes any demand for payment of a debt shall be guilty of an offence if-“
(a) the demands by reason of their frequency are calculated to subject the debtor or a member of the family of the debtor to alarm, distress or humiliation,
(b) the person falsely represents that criminal proceedings lie for non-payment of a debt.
(c) the person falsely represents that he or she is authorised in some official capacity to enforce payment
(d) the person utters a document falsely represented to have an official character.

Please confirm by return that you withdraw the contents of the correspondence.

Yours
(Pegleg Peggy and husband)

PS.Why are you sending out letters under two different letterheads? This doesn’t fool anyone.

Pablo Sanchez

Peggy, have you had any waste removal service for the last number of years? If not, what do you do with your rubbish?

pegleg peggy

I looked up that case and its Greek to me. It looks as though there was no decision after it was referred to the supreme court and the original decision of the circuit court still stands which was that the council (Dublin city in this case) failed to comply with some technicality of the "polluter pays" principle by applying a flat charge.

In 2010 Richard Boyd Barrett said, in relation to DLRCOCO,

“In two separate
cases in a row to do with bin tax arrears, the Council and their legal
representatives, have either failed to turn up or withdrawn the proceedings.
This is a de facto admission by the Council that the legal claim on the money
they are demanding from householders is questionable, if not completely
unsustainable. This makes it all the more disgraceful that they are continuing
to use bullying tactics and making all sorts of threats against householders,
hoping to force money out of people, in the belief that most people will be too
afraid to go to court.

On several occasions
since I was elected in June, I have requested hat the County Manager respond to me on this matter and for all of that time I have been told that he is still
awaiting advice from his legal department. This is just not acceptable. The
simple fact of the matter is that the bin tax that was levied for the first
five years in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown failed to comply with the “polluter
pays” principle as required by law, because it was a flat charge that took
no account of how much waste a householder put out for collection.

Despite the fact, that
the Council knows this, or at the least knows there is a very serious question
mark over the arrears they are demanding from tens of thousands of
householders, they continue to try and scare people with debt collectors and
threats.

Yet like the schools
bully, who crumbles when his bluff is called, the Council back down, when
residents represented by our legal team decide to battle it out in court.

We will be demanding
tonight that the Council withdraw its threats and demands for arrears dating to
the period 2000-2004 until the legal validity of these charges is finally
decided.
- See more at: http://www.swp.ie/node/2029#sthash.keJ1jTxm.dpuf

Unless I find anything to the contrary or updated info it looks like I'm good to go with another challenge letter.

pegleg peggy

Pablo Sanchez wrote: »

Peggy, have you had any waste removal service for the last number of years? If not, what do you do with your rubbish?

I leave it at DLRCOCO's front door

Actually, we switched to Panda who have done pay-by-weight from the beginning so its all in compliance with the law, and their service has been excellent in all ways at all times, unlike the Council's was back then. I'll happily pay for good service. Given that DLR's service was awful and we got no discount for missed collections (and there were plenty) we just said screw it, we won't pay them at all, and bailed as soon as Panda appeared on the scene.

Added later: Neighbours approached the council for discounts and rebates and were flat out told no. As far as paying for the times we did use the service, due to the above that was clearly not an option. It was all or nothing, and that's one reason we decided not to pay. And as explained elsewhere on this thread, the charge was unfair (and deemed to be so by the courts) because it was a flat charge and not charged by weight or number of lifts.

ct5amr2ig1nfhp

So you have used the DLRCOCO waste collection service at some point? You did "avail" of the service.
Why does the CoCo have to prove it if you admit you've used the service?

Did you ask for a discount for missed collections?

Have you calculated how much you should pay based on the number of actual collections you received - excluding the missed collections? (based on ~50 collections/year I presume)

You also state the section 11 of the 1997 Non-fatal offences and you list (a) to (d). To which of the listed offences are you making reference ? You do not state it in the your letter? Or are you referencing all four offences?

pegleg peggy wrote: »

I leave it at DLRCOCO's front door

Actually, we switched to Panda who have done pay-by-weight from the beginning so its all in compliance with the law, and their service has been excellent in all ways at all times, unlike the Council's was back then. I'll happily pay for good service. Given that DLR's service was awful and we got no discount for missed collections (and there were plenty) we just said screw it, we won't pay them at all, and bailed as soon as Panda appeared on the scene.

whippet

pegleg peggy wrote: »

I leave it at DLRCOCO's front door

Actually, we switched to Panda who have done pay-by-weight from the beginning so its all in compliance with the law, and their service has been excellent in all ways at all times, unlike the Council's was back then. I'll happily pay for good service. Given that DLR's service was awful and we got no discount for missed collections (and there were plenty) we just said screw it, we won't pay them at all, and bailed as soon as Panda appeared on the scene.

you've just thrown out your argument right there ... you did use the service and now you want SDCC to 'prove' that you used their service before paying.

Nonsense.

Mountjoy Mugger

You haven't got a pegleg to stand on.

Cabaal

So you've used the service, openly admit you have used it and now just want to avoid all charges because you experienced some bad service.

At the very least they are entitled to be paid for the services they did provide, you've admitted they made atleast some collections but you decided to not pay them anything.

Very bad form,

foggy_lad

The way I read the op is that the council used to charge for and collect refuse but they were found to have no legal basis for charging due to not providing a means for customers to pay by weight.

This looks like the council has trolled through its records for amounts they say are owed from about 5years ago to try one last time to get payment before the statute of limitations comes into play.

pegleg peggy

I will happily reply to all your questions when you take me to court on behalf of DLRCC, ProjectMoose

pegleg peggy

foggy_lad wrote: »

This looks like the council has trolled through its records for amounts they say are owed from about 5years ago to try one last time to get payment before the statute of limitations comes into play.

Good point! Didn't even think of that.
And thanks for deciphering that opinion, I was too tired to concentrate last night.

lala88

Was it not clear from the first post its just another case of someone trying to get out of playing for something?

pegleg peggy

[first line deleted by me due to moderator objection]

If I was "trying to get out of paying for something" I would have stayed with the council and continued to argue and refuse to pay until I was forced to, instead of moving to and paying for a reliable and lawfully charging bin service at the first opportunity.

This is the one and only charge or tax I have ever disputed. I am a law abiding and actively contributing member of society, politically, socially and financially. My refusal is a point of principle. The courts have deemed this charge ILLEGAL in two cases (at least) and the Council have backed out of two cases (at least) where those they tried to intimidate with faux legal threats accepted their challenge. They wussed out because they didn't have ANY leg to stand on.

A big THANK YOU to those who have been helpful!

To the sourpusses whose knickers are in a big fat twist because you got punked into paying an illegal charge and you begrudge anyone else the right to dispute it, I have two words for you: QUESTION AUTHORITY.

Of course, if anyone can post a link or indisputable proof of any court decision which proved this to be a legal and payable charge, I will have our solicitor look into it and will pay up if he advises us to do so. As I said, I am a law abiding citizen. It's the Council who acted illegally, as they have de facto admitted by running away from the very cases THEY brought.

dudara

pegleg peggy wrote: »

Oh ho, I see the sheep are out in force now!

Please do not make comments like that.

dudara

pegleg peggy

Okay, apologies, moderator!

Oisin11178

Just got a similar letter on behalf of fingal county council last week. I intend to ignore it. I have not had any dealings with them in at least 2 years. I found their service atrocious. Always late and customer service was abysmal. Moved to oxegen and never looked back.

whippet

pegleg peggy wrote: »

. The courts have deemed this charge ILLEGAL in two cases (at least) .

have you any link to the court decision on these cases? I can't seem to find one.

Where did you get the information that the Courts actually deemed the charge Illegal?

Mountjoy Mugger

Probably referring to this.

whippet

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

Probably referring to this.

no that is the 'freemen' crap that has been peddled about for the last while by the likes of Ben Gilroy ... everyone knows (or should know) at this stage that it is total hogwash !!

pegleg peggy

Mountjoy Mugger wrote: »

Probably referring to this.

http://youtu.be/m30mG3JKzA8

whippet

pegleg peggy wrote: »

http://youtu.be/m30mG3JKzA8

@pegleg peggy ... have you a link to the outcomes of these cases?

Cabaal

whippet wrote: »

no that is the 'freemen' crap that has been peddled about for the last while by the likes of Ben Gilroy ... everyone knows (or should know) at this stage that it is total hogwash !!

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/lawyers-advise-against-use-of-groups-claiming-secret-formula-to-circumvent-law-1.1396641

pegleg peggy

whippet wrote: »

have you any link to the court decision on these cases? I can't seem to find one.

Where did you get the information that the Courts actually deemed the charge Illegal?

Hi Whippet, I have the links bookmarked on my laptop which is in for repairs today but there should be a link to a Supreme Court opinion up thread. I'm out and about today so no time to look stuff up.

"Illegal" is the wrong word - my bad - what I should have said is that when councils have brought such cases to court it was found that the basis on which they were making their claim was invalid... Something to do with "polluter pays"- and it has been ruled against twice because the councils did not charge by weight. Apparently the councils haven't come up with any other rationale for their ill-thought-out charge that will hold water in court.

It strikes me that if a consumer had taken them to court on this basis when the charge was first imposed the council would have been forced back to the drawing board to do it right!

pegleg peggy

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/lawyers-advise-against-use-of-groups-claiming-secret-formula-to-circumvent-law-1.1396641

Yikes, Libertarian/ Tea Party crap. Wouldn't touch it with a barge pole! As the saying goes, I may be crazy but I'm not stupid!

GTG, see you all this evening, or tomorrow after I have a chat with my TD about all this.

whippet

pegleg peggy wrote: »

there should be a link to a Supreme Court opinion up thread. I'm out and about today so no time to look stuff up.

"Illegal" is the wrong word - my bad - what I should have said is that when councils have brought such cases to court it was found that the basis on which they were making their claim was invalid...

the only link I see in the thread is to Boyd-Barrett's website, which is where you got the text for your letter :

pegleg peggy wrote: »

I wish to inform you these “charges” for rubbish removal have been deemed illegal in three separate Circuit Court cases. It is subject to a pending appeal by Dublin City Council to the Supreme Court (case number 253/06, Dublin City Council-V- George Williams).

.. you have now said that the charges were not 'illegal' but are using that as a reason for not paying. The only reference you have brought to my attention is to a concern that the charge 'may be invalid' .... but nothing to convince me that the charge is actually 'invalid' or 'illegal'

I wouldn't hold Richard Boyd-Barrett as an expert in anything in the legal arena .. his Degree in English Literature wouldn't be much use in something like this.

I can't find anything more online after 2006 concerning the case you have mentioned in the supreme court.

Be careful of being lead by people who are interpreting the law they way that will allow them to generate a following.

pegleg peggy

whippet wrote: »

the only link I see in the thread is to Boyd-Barrett's website

I'll find it for you later.

whippet

pegleg peggy wrote: »

I'll find it for you later.

Any joy with those links?