The tax authority will pay compensation for negligent foreclosure of a vehicle
The Tax Authority will pay ILS 8,000 to a businessman and his wife for performing an erroneous and negligent foreclosure action. A chain of errors led to the debtor's wife's vehicle being towed, even though she is not the debtor in addition.
How much is income tax mental anguish worth? The Tax Authority will pay ILS 8,0000 to a businessman and his wife for performing a wrongful and negligent foreclosure action. Tel Aviv Magistrate's Court Judge Orna Levy last week (25.7.10) accepted the claim of the couple Yaakov and Miriam Shoten, regarding their entitlement to compensation for the inconvenience involved in handling the release of their vehicle from an illegal foreclosure, and for the emotional distress, worry and grief The foreclosure.
The affair began when a couple purchased land, but due to a technical malfunction paid property tax for it for all years except 1999. On December 7, 2005, Wednesday of the week, a notice was posted on the plaintiffs' house "Warning before burglary and foreclosure - notice of forced action ", For a debt of ILS 11,037. The notice also states that if the debt is not paid within 48 hours, the force of burglary will be used in accordance with the ordinance.
The plaintiffs were on a long weekend vacation in the north of the country until the afternoon of Sunday, December 11th. When they returned home on Sunday, the plaintiffs saw the notice and intended to clarify the matter the next day.
The next day at 06:30 in the morning, a collection team arrived at the plaintiffs' house in order to make a foreclosure on a vehicle that was parked in the parking lot of the house and was registered at the licensing office in the plaintiff's name only. A fool asked to pay the debt by check but the collection team demanded that the debt be paid in cash only. Since the plaintiffs did not have the required amount in cash the foreclosure was carried out and the vehicle was towed away.
Immediately afterwards, Shoten turned to the real estate tax offices and after meeting with Yitzhak Hayun - head of the authority - he paid ILS 8574 that day, after being given relief in the fines, linkage and interest components. Immediately afterwards and on the same day, the foreclosure was also canceled and the vehicle was released, against payment of storage, burglary, foreclosure and transfer expenses in the amount of ILS 1302.
The Shoten couple, through Adv. Shlomi Turgeman from Afik Turgeman's firm, claimed that the assessment was made without any real debt to the plaintiff. There was no need to issue a property tax assessment for 1999. According to them, the assessment was made without all the relevant documents being before the assessee and that all the documents were presented to the defendant by the plaintiff through his accountant.
48 hours stay for warning, but in practice payment is required within 12 hours only
According to the ruling, the director of real estate taxation did not prove that he sent a demand for payment of the debt before performing collection actions in accordance with the ordinance and regulations. The plaintiffs did not know of any debt because they did not receive any demand or notice, as stated. And the defendant contented himself with gluing on the door of his house when he was not at all in his house.According to the warning a 48 hour stay was given to pay the debt but in practice no practical possibility was given to pay the debt and the plaintiff was given only 12 hours from seeing the warning.
The Shoten couple argued that the defendant should have acted fairly and reasonably and not rushed to send the collection team. They also claimed that the details of the warning did not include the details of the person with whom the issue of the debt can be clarified and also, the foreclosure actions were carried out without proper procedures: the car was broken into before the plaintiffs were given a chance to repay the debt and although the car keys were given, the collection team . In addition, it was not possible to pay the debt by credit card or check and if that was not enough, then the vehicle seized was only the plaintiff's vehicle, which is not the debtor but only the plaintiff, and therefore her vehicle was not allowed to be forfeited.
The court ruled that the defendant did not meet the threshold conditions regarding the sending of a written demand and therefore the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the foreclosure procedure carried out in violation of the law, and the refund of ILS 1302 for the vehicle release, bearing linkage differences and interest from the date of payment.
The court also ruled that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the inconvenience involved in handling the release of the vehicle from foreclosure and for the mental anguish, worry and grief that were involved in the foreclosure procedure, and ruled in their favor compensation in the amount of ILS 8,000 including interest.