Non Domestic Rates (Business Rates)

[MobileB 10]

Today I found out something about the Law - that I didn't know - that went all against the principals of innocent until proven guilty.

 

Last year I was involved in a company that went into liquidation (long story but basically a director (not me!!) of the company was illegally withdrawing funds that caused a cash flow problem).

 

I was a guarantor on the rents of the offices. Under the terms of the lease, the landlords had to write to me within three months of the release of the lease by the liquidators and the lease would revert to my name. I never received anything from the landlords or was pursued for outstanding rent so I naturally presumed that they had managed to relet the building.

 

A few weeks ago I got a notice from Barnsley Council stating that they want me to pay the business rates of the property as I was the leaseholder. Basically I contested this and today it went to court.

 

Apparently, the landlords had written to Barnsley Council and told them that they had written to me on 13th October last year saying the lease would revert to me. I never received this letter. They say the letter went by recorded delivery but they are unable to provide prove of delivery or even a signature to say it had been delivered. They could not even provide a number from the Post Office for which the recorded delivery had been sent.

 

However, because Barnsley Council believe that the letter had been sent, the Law states that I am AUTOMATICALLY liable for the rates of the building. I have to prove that I did not receive this letter and therefore not liable.

 

In other words, if a Council approaches any member of the public and states they are liable for business rates, the member of the public has to prove that they are not liable and it is not for the council to prove that they are.

 

I asked this in court as to how on earth this could be fair. I was told by the Clerk of the Court and by the Magistrate that they had every sympathy for me but the law was that I was effectively guilty until I could prove my innocence in that I had to prove that I did not receive the letter and therefore prove and I am not the leaseholder. That is what the statute says and that i s the Law and their hands are tied. How on earth do you prove that you have not received a letter?

 

Please if anyone can tell me how to get out of this or at least prevent others from falling into the same trap or even look to change things so that the innocent remain innocent until proven otherwise.

 

It seems incredible that this is the Law and our MPs have passed through this Law whereby a simple principle of innocent until proven guilty does not apply. What are the Human Rights implications? Comments please.

[mikey 10]

Never come across your specific example but there are other legislations where you are guilty until you can prove otherwise.

 

The one that springs to mind is Health and Safety. These guys have more power than the police.

 

HOW TO PROVE A LETTER HAS NOT BE RECIEVED?

Prove that it hasn't been sent! if the council can prove they sent it and have receipts etc then this would be very difficult.

[MobileB 10]

Originally posted by mikey

HOW TO PROVE A LETTER HAS NOT BE RECIEVED?

Prove that it hasn't been sent! if the council can prove they sent it and have receipts etc then this would be very difficult.

 

Thing is though Mikey in my instance, the letter referred to was not from the Council but from the Landlords. They said they had sent it by recorded delivery but could not provide a signature, a proof of delivery or a even a recorded delivery number. Yet because they wrote to the council and told them that they had posted the letter on 13th October last year, the Council believes them. And then I have to prove that I did not receive it.

[jan2002 10]

I would have thought that because the company went into liquidation any liability for rates ceased on the date the company ceased trading. After this date the company were no longer occupying the premises and the rates liability would have reverted back to the owner of the premises. The onus is usually on you to notify the council involved that you no longer occupy the premises. Seems to me the owner of the property is having you over !!! (they would be responsable for the period involved if you weren`t ) have you now told the council that you are no longer occupying the premises ? if not you are still technically responsable for the rates. pm me if you want further info