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?

[black_cat51]

sorry, i don't know the answer. However, wouldn't it just be simpler to pay the £600 (which after all is a relatively minor sum) rather than pay for legal advice? If it turns out that what they did was wrong and it's set aside (as it seems), then surely they could just take him to court again for the sum?

[UKPerson1]

back_cat51 - I do not live with my son, and most certainly do not have £600. Not sure what to do. If the council acted illegally, surley some action can be taken?

[factor-fiction]

As he still owes the money maybe they can simply start the process again now he's 18 and get a judgement in their favour- unless the argument is that the contract to pay rates wasn't a valid contract because of his age.
We have a few legal experts on here- let's hope one sees this

[Peter Pedant]

when I googled enforcement of a debt against a minor
I got this for jersey:
Minors (people under age 18)
23. A creditor could take court action to recover a debt owed by a minor but if judgement was given, it could not be enforced until the minor reached 18 years. For this reason many shops, and most finance companies will not give credit to people under 18 in Jersey.

.

The site also says - verify the debt is owed....

in your sons case - he was running a business - but he was not lawfully able to enter into contracts ?
because if he couldnt ( enter into contracts ) then he shouldnt be running the business should he ?

anyway it was off a CAB site- so I imagine your (his ) first stop is there

[UKPerson1]

Thank you factor fiction and Peter Pendent for taking time out to answer me.

Factor Fiction: There is no contract. The council said because he was in possession of the premises this counts. I argue this and believe that due to the error from the landlord he should not be charged.

Peter: That's my concern. A judgement was illegally gained by the council. I think this would be professional negligence from a public body. They did not follow the correct procedure. I believe that due to the error this should at the very least be wrote off.

[woofgang]

but but...either he was running a business from the premises and therefore the business rate was payable....or he wasn't and it isn't?
they might have done it the wrong way but that doesn't mean that your son shouldn't have been paying a business rate.

I am not sure about the next bit, but is it the duty of the body taking out the summons to appoint a litigant friend? I would have thought (PP?) that that duty would lie with the court if it was thought appropriate?

[factor-fiction]

But as I said earlier, UKPerson1, surely the council could just take the case to court again and gain a judgement in their favour now he's 18, so I'm not sure there is any action you can take to save the situation

[factor-fiction]

Judgment not judgement, sorry

[UKPerson1]

Hi Woofgang. No, when the council applied to the court, they should have appointed the litigant friend, as they were the one who instigated the judgement.

The civil procedure rules says this:

(2) A person may not, without the permission of the court –
(a) make an application against a child or protected party before proceedings have started; or
(b) take any step in proceedings except –
(i) issuing and serving a claim form; or
(ii) applying for the appointment of a litigation friend under rule 21.6,
until the child or protected party has a litigation friend.

So no, the council would need to appoint a litigant friend.

[woofgang]

maybe the court gave permission?

It seems to me though that you are trying to find a way for the business rate to be set aside. If your son was running a business, why should it be?

[black_cat51]

i'm not sure i really get it. What you have printed doesn't seem to prove or disprove your point. It doesn't really matter what money you do or don't have i suppose, as it will be his debt.

[Peter Pedant]

If the court action is declared a nullity -then they can just start again.

[EDDIE51]

^^ As said , there is no way out your son is over 18 now and owes the money, his problem not yours.
If he was 16 still it would be your debt as he was a minor so the parents are liable.

[UKPerson1]

The dispute is not wether he ran the business, he did.

1. He should never have been able to run the business. There was no contract.
2. The council acted illegally in the operations.

The CAB stated that the council did not act correctly. I honestly believe that because of the negligence to a young person, it should be written off on error of law.

[Mamyalynne]

Sounds like he needs the services of a lawyer then if the CAB agree this was unlawful - hopefully won't cost too much.

[UKPerson1]

I agree with you Mamyalynne. As you can imagine, I am not wealthy and paying a lawyer would be a problem.

I understand what everyone is saying, however, i'm not looking for a moral judgement, i'm trying to find a legal one. Thanks for anyone who has/will reply.

[factor-fiction]

It seems surprising that the age issue was not taken into account in the initial hearing.
Anyway, unless a barrister such as Barmaid sees this I think Mamyalynne is right- a solictor needs to be used to go through all the details

[UKPerson1]

factor-fiction: the council never even told the court his age. They knew his age. I have proof from every letter prior to the judgement that they knew he was 16. The council did not follow the correct procedure. Ignorance is no excuse in law.

There is usually extra protection for minors in court, however, my son didn't get one. He didn't get a fair hearing and I argue that his civil liberties are breached.

[sherrardk]

I'm confused - why shouldn't he have run a business?

[UKPerson1]

sherrard k: In the eyes of the law, he wasn't old enough to sign a lease. He she never have been trading. The states that minors cannot usually sign contracts as they can be voided, which it was.