Dear Sir/Madam Council Tax Reference: 814495562 I am writing to raise a formal dispute regarding the notice of Summary Warrant

which arrived with me today, dated 6th June 2012. It is reasonably time consuming to try to follow the logic behind this warrant and how it came to land on my doorstep, but thanks to someone at Scott and Company and Limbi and Ms. Caldwell at Glasgow Council, I think I have a timeline worked out. 26th February 2012 Council claims this is the date I was sent my Notice for 2012-13. 1st April no payment from me yet. I forgot: I most likely should have realised but I didnt have any money in April anyway. Amount outstanding 108.04 5th May I make a payment via the Glasgow Council website of 215.04 to cover my arrears and the payment for May. Amount outstanding - 0, I thought. 7th May according to Clydesdale Bank, this is the date the payment was finally taken, although they inform me it may have been taken on the 6 th and recorded as business on the 7th. Also the date that my debt was sold on to Scott and Company. Amount outstanding surely, by now it should definitely be 0 8th May - Presumably the date you sent me the First Reminder, giving me 7 days to pay even though I have by now paid. 10th May Date Limbi says the money finally arrived in the Councils coffers. 31st May - I make a further payment into my Council Tax account, not realising my debt has been sold and I shouldnt make any further payments. 8th June I receive a notice of Summary Warrant from Scott and Co, dated 6 th June. Amount outstanding - 941.60 (856 + 10%)

Via the Shelter website I have gained some information about how things ought to work, and its not the same as anything your staff suggested today. I maintain I never got a bill to date relating to this year. As a self-employed person I keep everything that isnt junk mail in a box for my income tax preparations. Not only that, I did NOT receive either a First Reminder or a Final Notice as required and building in a few days to cover postal delays (its still faster than electronic bank transfers, apparently) even if you want to insist you sent me any correspondence at all, you would surely be very hard-pushed to fit it all in before the 7th May. I maintain you must have received the transfer by then, because of course the amount outstanding, now passed to Scott and Co is not correct. If I hadnt made any payment to cover the debt, then the amount outstanding is of course 1071.04, and not 856. You can, incidentally, get from the former to the latter by subtracting the payment you claim you did not receive in time plus the next months instalment, surely not a coincidence.

I cant argue the bald facts: I did not make my initial payment on time. I argue that there is plenty of evidence that I had settled the non-payment to which your alleged First Reminder and Final Notice refer by the time you passed on the remainder owing, effectively washing your hands of someone who evidently is never intending to pay up, only he just did. I would refer you to my history of several years of paying up in any case. This smacks of punishment: well accept the payment but he can just pay the rest to Scott and Co and serve him right. This seems to be Ms Caldwells argument, because she was most unimpressed that I might then want the last payment of 107 refunded, given that by then it applied to nothing at all, accepting (as I do not) that the debt was correctly passed on in the first place. That would mean I would pay 856 to Scott and Co (excluding surcharge) plus the monies already accepted around the 7th of May PLUS the 107 I subsequently paid on 31st May, a healthy amount extra, and one I obviously dont agree to. If you will insist on leaving me to fight Scott and Cos dodgy Summary Warrant, I will naturally need my 107 back as soon as you can possibly arrange it. In this case you really cant have it every way. I believe I had a right to fair and reasonable treatment and your dates just dont add up. Limbi told me my payment wasnt received till the 10th. Accepting THAT as fact, which is laughable, how come they reduced the amount by the same amount before they passed the debt on, on the 7th? Was this clairvoyance? Im most uneasy, because this arrangement in any case cannot benefit the council, given that I have a long and chequered Council Tax history of always paying up in the end. The only beneficiary here seems to be Scott and Co and I cant think of a single good reason why the Council should see that as a priority in the middle of the biggest economic crisis in history possibly: heavens above, theyre so relaxed about money, they can wait a whole month to send me a Summary Warrant. This is a tax I fully intend to pay. Sometimes I forget things, sometimes I have no money left, but I pay up, even to Scott and Co. Thats surely a political question however, and better put directly to councillors and MPs. I maintain that even if you can find some way to change the history given to me today by your staff, the relevant portion of my council tax debt had been settled in full by the date of its passing to Scott and Co, as reflected in your own figures. It doesnt matter that your staff decided in retrospect to pass the remainder on to Scott and Co, because they officially had no right to do so because the relevant nonpayment had ceased to exist as soon as they acknowledged receipt evinced by their reworking of the total and also more tellingly on the Summary Warrant sent to me today by Scott and Co. Given the surely unusual slowness of said Scott and Co to chase up money, and given the strange matter of dates that cant work, I really wonder what is going on. I wonder about the nature of the close relationship of a Council with a firm of Sherriffs Officers. I wonder about them telling me that their Summary Warrant stands even though it demands payment of an amount that cant have existed, according to your staff. The whole thing sounds terribly retrospective on the whole and it stinks to high heaven.

I wonder about Council staff telling me I cant get a refund of money incorrectly paid towards a tax debt that is now wholly the business of Scott and Co. I really wonder about this as a modus operandi. How many people get passed to Scott and Co so swiftly every year? How many times has Ms Caldwell told people theyre not getting their money back to pay to Scott and Co? How many times have you got away with using Sherriffs Officers inappropriately? How many times a year do they vary the amounts on Summary Warrants without applying a new warrant? Is any of this legal? Do most people just give up and pay up? The implications here are enormous and require more than Ms Caldwells instant rejection. Again Ill leave that to my councillors to ponder but I would meantime ask that you reconsider this whole situation most carefully. I dont believe that you can pass on a debt that clearly ceased to exist, payment having been made and received. Its a pretty desperate argument you seem to be making on the whole and I think someone with some sense should realise that and put everything back the way it was. I will pay Scott and Co on this occasion only once every other avenue has been exhausted and meantime I ask you to desist from any further legal threats until there is some resolution to this most interesting dispute. Sincerely Hugh Reid