Newsbot Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Residents in Ramsey who fail to pay their town rates could soon be named and shamed. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/5305404.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bastard Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I think they should name and shame residents of Ramsey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Isn't that quite a nasty breach of the DPA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ade Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Not sure, it says they're seeking legal advice about it, but if it's a matter for public record then personally I'd say why not. If there's an inability to pay the rates, then I'd agree that those people should be protected, but people who choose not to pay just force next years rate up for the rest of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Can't they just prosecute people who don't pay? That way they'll get their (vindictive) naming and shaming, and maybe actually get the cash out of them too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 The Treasury collects the rates for Ramsey (and many of the parishes). The issue of non - payment could also, equally, been seen as an issue of non - collection. I wonder whether Ramsey is seeking to make the news with this in order to highlight the fact that the Treasury has chosen not to enforce collection of the rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Residents in Ramsey who fail to pay their town rates could soon be named and shamed. Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/5305404.stm I pointed this out to my local Authority who have always had a notice up threatening the same. It is a breach of the data protection act pure and simple. I'm surprised that Ramsey have not taken legal advice before coming out with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I'm surprised that Ramsey have not taken legal advice before coming out with this. In the article it says: Ramsey Town Commissioners have decided to seek legal advice on naming the rates defaulters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 I'm surprised that Ramsey have not taken legal advice before coming out with this. In the article it says: Ramsey Town Commissioners have decided to seek legal advice on naming the rates defaulters. ... before they make the announcement might seem more appropriate (to save looking stupid after the event when their lawyers tell them that it IS a breach of DPA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 As I said above: I wonder whether this is about forcing the issue of the non - collection of the rates by Treasury onto the local news agenda. If Ramsey collected it's own rates then presumably it would be for Ramsey to enforce payment through the courts. As it stands, it's presumably for the Treasury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 As I said above: I wonder whether this is about forcing the issue of the non - collection of the rates by Treasury onto the local news agenda. If Ramsey collected it's own rates then presumably it would be for Ramsey to enforce payment through the courts. As it stands, it's presumably for the Treasury. I think its the authorities themselves. They must have persistent non payers (or as you say be responsible for persistent non payers) and it must frustrate them. But resorting to these tactics is scraping the barrel. It could well be Treasury pressure, but other authorities have made the threat over the years. I've yet to see a notice go up though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 They must have persistent non payers (or as you say be responsible for persistent non payers) I didn't say that. Treasury is responsible for collecting the rates for Ramsey. And for many (probably most) of the local authorities. In the article it says: Rates for the town of Ramsey are collected by the Treasury on behalf of the Commissioners. It's partly because that information is included in the article that I'm guessing that the article is based on a press release from the Ramsey Kremlin in which they are seeking to draw attention to the issue of non - collection of the rates by Treasury. I might be wrong of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 They must have persistent non payers (or as you say be responsible for persistent non payers) I didn't say that. Treasury is responsible for collecting the rates for Ramsey. And for many (probably most) of the local authorities. In the article it says: Rates for the town of Ramsey are collected by the Treasury on behalf of the Commissioners. It's partly because that information is included in the article that I'm guessing that the article is based on a press release from the Ramsey Kremlin in which they are seeking to draw attention to the issue of non - collection of the rates by Treasury. I might be wrong of course. Well they should check their facts before releasing press releases. It sounds so tough, but then you find they are taking legal advice. Will they pubish a similar press release when the legal advice has been given? My rough guess is NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Well they should check their facts before releasing press releases. It sounds so tough, but then you find they are taking legal advice. Will they pubish a similar press release when the legal advice has been given? My rough guess is NO. Won't hurt them to issue a press release saying that they aren't allowed to publish the names according to legal advice. If that turns out to be the case. At least the rates payers in Ramsey will know that they have tried to address the issue of non payment. And it will give them another opportunity to raise the issue of non collection and enforcement of the rates by Treasury. Maybe if we had more open government then Ramsey could publish the details of any correspondence with the Treasury over this issue. It would be interesting to understand more about why Treasury doesn't seek to enforce payment via the courts. Though it probably isn't a simple matter. I'm certainly not suggesting that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Well they should check their facts before releasing press releases. It sounds so tough, but then you find they are taking legal advice. Will they pubish a similar press release when the legal advice has been given? My rough guess is NO. Won't hurt them to issue a press release saying that they aren't allowed to publish the names according to legal advice. If that turns out to be the case. At least the rates payers in Ramsey will know that they have tried to address the issue of non payment. And it will give them another opportunity to raise the issue of non collection and enforcement of the rates by Treasury. Maybe if we had more open government then Ramsey could publish the details of any correspondence with the Treasury over this issue. It would be interesting to understand more about why Treasury doesn't seek to enforce payment via the courts. Though it probably isn't a simple matter. I'm certainly not suggesting that it is. I'm not arguing with you. Non payers should be brought to book and shamed into paying what everyone else pays. But there is no legal basis for this at all. So it just ends up being aimless posturing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.