Immingham woman jailed over £3k council tax debt

Trusted article source icon
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Profile image for Grimsby Telegraph

Grimsby Telegraph

A WOMAN from Immingham has been jailed for 84 days after failing to pay almost £3,000 in council tax payments.

Julie Butler, 45, of Pamela Close, was sentenced at Grimsby Magistrates' Court after failing to pay between 2004 and 2010, which accrued to a debt totalling £2,916.19.

  1. CourtLg

During this time, Miss Butler had failed to pay a Magistrates' Order made in March and November 2011, and a total of 18 recovery letters were sent, together with 12 bailiff visits.

At the time of Miss Butler's first arrest in March last year, she had debts totally £4,383,33 and was found guilty of culpable neglect. She was ordered to pay £20 per week and was assisted with a remittance of £1,362.14.

Freeview aerials/ Freesat installs

Skyline

View details

Print voucher

Any freeview or freesat install for only £49 to one room, additional rooms £20 extra per room

Terms: Only covers standard install.

Contact: 01472800127

Valid until: Tuesday, December 31 2013

Miss Butler failed to adhere to the Magistrates' Order and was requested to attend court in that October, which she failed to attend. A warrant of arrest was served and Miss Butler appeared in court in November.

At this hearing, the Magistrates' Order was varied and Miss Butler was ordered to pay £10 per week with a one-off payment of £50.

The case was adjourned for review until January 20, with Miss Butler being made aware that if payments were not up-to-date at this hearing a suspended sentence would be imposed.

Miss Butler failed to attend court at this date and it was heard that regular payments had not been made. Given this information the magistrates granted a warrant of arrest.

Miss Butler attended a hearing on August 24, 2012, where the court heard of the number of chances she had been given. They had no option but to activate the suspended sentence.

The court noted that over the 18 months in which the orders had been given, £180 had been paid although £1,190 should have been received.

Tweet this article
Report
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tell us about your area

Got some interesting news? Write about it and let your whole community know.

  Write an article