Council Were Negligent When Suing My Minor Son. I Need Help From A Legal Professional.

[UKPerson1]

Basically, my son was 16 years old when he owned a business. He ran up a debt of £600 in business rates. Now, when the council tried to enforce this upon him, this was done illegally. First, they did not apply a litigant friend as he was a minor, thus tried to directly sue him for failure to pay.

However my concern is, when they summonsed him to court, they did not follow the civil procedure rules (contrary to MOJ) which state that if a minor is to be summonsed to court, there must be the appointment of a child litigant friend for it to go to court. The council did not appoint one and subsequently got a judgement out upon him. The CAB and my MP agreed this was not correct, and they breached the civil procedure rules as a minor could not be directly sued for debt without a friend in law.

The council state now because he is 18 they can enforce it. However, because the judgement was illegal is there any cause of action?

[UKPerson1]

^^ That is what the CAB said ^^

[UKPerson1]

I agree. I'm in the process of drafting a letter to a legal aid solicitor. I will add that in for sure. Thanks for your help divebuddy.

[EDDIE51]

What we are all trying to tell you is that even if you do get that judgment set aside the council will just start a new case . There can be no dispute that he does owe the money, and now that he is an adult they will enforce the debt.

[factor-fiction]

Yes- that's what I commented on the first page of answers, eddie. I'm not sure the last 60 responses have taken this any further forward. The issues to me are: are debts for business rates incurred by a minor legally enforecable; and if they are, was the correct process followed initially or would the council need to gain another judgment now he's 18

[EDDIE51]

FF ^ yes, I know but the questioner seems more set on getting a solicitor to fight the case than simply arranging to pay up.

[hc4361]

In contract law the only debts incurred by a minor that are enforceable are for necessities.

Is running a business a necessity for a 16 year old?

[cassa333]

I think UKperson1 is so intent on overturning the judgement she is not looking at the bigger picture.

You keep saying he isn't refusing to pay he just cant afford to. Well get him to prove it by making an offer to pay in installments. If he has a judgement against him then if he keeps not paying, the debt could escalate or effect his credit more than if he make reperation.

Parents are a pain in the arse in wanting to sort things out fore their kids but he is now at least old enough to sort this out himself. He was mature enough to start a business and sounds like an euntraponour (sic) so will, I am sure, be able to pick hself up and get back on his feet.

[UKPerson1]

Thankyou for your responses.

My son has sent him a letter outlining attachment of income etc, whilst explaining the situation.

hc4361: I also agree. The CAB quoted cases from Nash v Inman and Peter v Fleming, where debts are only enforceable where the said minor have some neccesity. I have had it confirmed by the National Debt Line that commercial activity is not neccesity.

I have a meeting with a solicitor on Friday (tomorrow), but thanks again for all your replies.

This has caused my son alot of stress, and i'm just looking to get a amicable resolution.

[UKPerson1]

Also: A CCJ wouldn't be awarded by the court. It is a liability order which allows a bailiff to recover goods. However, in the eyes of the law he doesn't 'legally' own any assets, they're all mine and I have receipts and invoices to prove it. All he owns is his laptop which he was awarded by his university!

[black_cat51]

i had a thought about this today. Surely it's the court that made the mistake? they are the ones that made the order. I wouldn't expect the council to be experts in court matters, but i would expect the court to be.

[UKPerson1]

black_cat.

The civil procedure rules state that when any 'legal' person including a council applies to a court, they must apply for the appointment of a litigant friend directly to the defendant. I also had this confirmed by the solicitor today who is analyzing every detail of this. The Court did NOT grant the council permission to succeed without a litigant friend. This was included in the judgement that is now with the solicitor. Moreover, my solicitor also went on to state that they may be in breach of the tort of negligence, as the standard of care to a protected party (minor) was breached by the council acting beyond their powers/

[Mamyalynne]

What has been the Council's Legal Dept response when you/he have raised this point of law?

[ummmm]

And has the solicitor confirmed he'd get legal aid?

[factor-fiction]

I don't understand this, UKPerson- did the court not take into account the fact that he was a minor?

[UKPerson1]

The legal department have not been in contact.

Yes this is a legal aid.

The solicitor also went to say that my son's civil liberties may have been breached, due to the council's failure to conform to legislation applicable for them to apply for an order. He also went on to say how he had found a flaw in the council's response to me. The council informed my son that he was eligible because in english law a minor is someone under the age of 16, and thus can have debt enforced upon them, however my solicitor said is completely wrong from the council, and that the age of majority in english law is 18 subject to the Family Law Reform Act 1969

[UKPerson1]

The Council failed to inform the court. They breached their duty. They knew his age, as proven by the letters sent to and from, before the court judgement.

The council failed to provide a duty a care, that's all their is too it.

[factor-fiction]

Good luck- you seem to be well on the way to getting this resolved and I'm sure your son will be grateful for all your efforts on his behalf

[black_cat51]

why didn't the court spot his age also?

[UKPerson1]

Many thanks factor-fiction. I appreciate your input.

Thank you again to each and everyone of you.