The Scottish Parliament devolved the rates to the Scottish councils to administer as they see fit—knowing full well that councils would use this power to extort money any way they could, regardless of whether it is right or wrong (councillors shouldn't have this devastating power over people's lives).
They immediately used it to extort money from owners of empty non-domestic rates properties for the rest of their lives. Before this (devolved rates to Scottish councils), owners of empty non-domestic rates properties were not taxed if they were trying to sell or rent the property.
This so-called tax has had devastating consequences on the sale of any empty non-domestic-rated property, as nobody wants an ever-ending yearly tax and other costs.
Would you buy a property if you are forced to pay this? If things go wrong, you could have bailiffs at your door if you can't afford this forced extortionate tax.
If you don't pay (or can't pay), councils like Highland (cold-blooded execution to get money) will apply to the sheriff court for warrants against debtors. Bailiffs can thus demand payment yearly until you lose everything—including your home and business property.
Here's how it think it works: Contacted the Sheriff Courts
I can see from your FOI reply that a book of warrants for a number of debtors can be lodged with (any Scottish court) from any Scottish local authority. Therefore there is only one application to the court, which is recorded on the SCTS case management system, and as such details (such as names/addresses) of those listed in the warrant book are not recorded.
As an application to any Scottish court, the sheriff MUST grant a summary warrant authorising recovery of sums due in terms of Paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and Paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002.
There is no requirement for the court to make or retain a copy of the summary warrant book. No copy of the summary warrant book is retained.
As SCTS carry out the administrative process in accordance with legislation only, this is a robotic system and none of the people involved have any chance to appeal the sheriff’s decision, as he must grant a summary warrant authorising recovery of sums because he is bound by the legislation.
Also, what exactly does the phrase “summary warrant authorising recovery of sums due” mean when authorised by the sheriff? Is it like authorising the use of bailiffs at people’s homes or other similar actions?
Sorry to contact you again, but it is my ignorance of this and how it works. This is important as it is destroying people's lives and families, and I appreciate the courts' hands are tied with this.
Can you confirm the following is correct?
Scottish Courts: I can see from your FOI reply that any Scottish local authority can lodge, with any Scottish court, a book of warrants for a number of debtors. So there is therefore only one application to the court, which is recorded on the SCTS case management system and as such details (such as names/addresses) of those listed in the warrant are not recorded.
As any application to any Scottish court, the sheriff MUST grant a summary warrant authorising recovery of sums due in terms of paragraph 2 of Schedule 8 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and paragraph 2 of Schedule 4 to the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002, as there is no requirement for the court to make or retain a copy of the summary warrant book.
As SCTS carry out the administrative process in accordance with legislation only.
This is a robotic system and none of the people involved have any chance to appeal against the sheriff's decision, as he has to grant a summary warrant authorising recovery of sums, as he is bound by the legislation.
Also, what exactly does the "summary warrant authorising recovery of sums due" mean when authorised by the sheriff? Is it like authorising the use of bailiffs at people's homes or any other things like this? Is there any limit to how far the council can go using this.
There are methods to review summary warrants, but you would be best placed to seek legal advice as it is a complicated procedure through the Court of Session.
The most vulnerable are the very young and the elderly.
The very young get help in many ways and the news media is always on about the poverty of children.
But what about the poverty of the elderly, who have to live on an old state pension.
That is now about £54 a week less than people getting a pension today. This is £2,805 more than an older person's pension. Why is this so?
People over 70 have numerous problems with health and fitness: problems with hearing, eyesight, mobility, movement, pain, back problems, and many internal medical problems. So why are they treated so badly by the politicians when it comes to a fair pension?
Elderly individuals face aging-related problems, which increase living costs. If anything, they need more money as they get older, not less. They can't go out and work like the young; they have to pay for everything from the smallest things to getting physical help.
How on earth are they supposed to pay for transport, everyday living expenses, heating, food, clothing, help with cleaning, and what about tradesmen? They can't pay £40 to £100 an hour for them if they have a problem — and they will have one — or replace or fix their heating systems, which are essential for the old.
When this pension system was first set up it was talked about, that it would become a two-tier pension system, but it is now far more than this.The pension system has evolved beyond a "two-tier" structure, becoming a "national disgrace" for those who contributed substantial payments earlier in life. Those under older system are "locked in" to lower rates. So the elderly face disproportionate hardships due to fixed incomes and higher needs.
People are asking for the end of the triple lock, but the UK has one of the least generous pensions in the developed world.
The trouble is it has become a battle between politicians, with economists and others wading in.
The pensions cost about £150bn at present per year, but the controversial increase in employers' national insurance contributions that Rachel Reeves imposed more than pays for it, bringing in over £200bn last year and, in this coming year, £225bn.
Ending the triple lock now may save up to £5.4bn in the next five years; this is nothing compared to the £75bn being taken from the money supposed to pay for pensions each year.
Older people over 70, who through their working lives paid a lot in the tax system to get a pension, faced much harder times like interest rates at 15% and high unemployment, and many never had the chance of higher education.
They have ended up with a diabolical, imposed old second pension that puts them into extreme poverty. The very people who are asking for the triple lock are on wages that dwarf the imposed meagre pensions of the old. It would be better and fairer to keep the triple lock, freeze the new pension at this year’s level, and use the money saved to increase the old pension to bring it back to a fair amount to live on.
----
The central argument is that pension reform should focus on improving the incomes of the oldest and poorest pensioners rather than removing the triple lock for everyone.
Article by Alan Jones
Nearly 1.5 million people where taken to court over unpaid council tax debt last year. Freedom of Information requests by the GMB to 200 local authorities found that 1.4 million people had been summoned to court in 2024-25 that year. This is a low figer as not all councils answered the FOI request.
The GBM union national secretary Rachel Harrison reportedly said: the council tax system is completely broken.
Are businesses a valid way of earning a living today? Or would you achieve more by not working today, with all the free handouts (for doing nothing), which are politically motivated—“I will give you this if you vote for me”?
Small shop owners, especially in rural areas and seasonal tourist areas, have faced horrendous financial distress and bankruptcy for years, but now the rot is spreading to the hospitality and catering businesses.
Are you better off working as a politician, councillor, or for another business? Consider politicians’ and councillors’ wages—most are on salaries that small business owners can only dream about and will never achieve, even working 12 hours a day, 365 days a year. This is because they often earn less than the people they employ.
The mental stress and worry of just keeping a business running, with unrealistic costs like rates, VAT, suppliers’ bills, insurance, loan interest, staff wages, staff National Insurance, pension contributions, income tax, unfair energy costs compared to domestic rates, overpriced insurance, and expensive tradesmen’s bills (not all) and other costs, all make it impossible today to run some businesses profitably.
As an example: unfair extra water costs to businesses from Scottish Water. (Scottish Water is government-owned.) So why are there now companies between Scottish Water and businesses? (Scottish Water → Water and Sewerage Companies → Business). These companies are charging hundreds to thousands of pounds as extra costs, particularly to bigger businesses. Scottish Water should deal directly with businesses, eliminating these extra expenses through middlemen.