Superbly laid out, Martin! It is a joy to see your thoughts transformed into understandable, articulated truth! I have posted on Facebook and am sending it out everywhere. Your "legal and lawful" wings grow bigger by the day! We will soon be calling you Michael instead of Martin! ;)
By far the most comprehensive and insightful essay I have read on this whole subject and should be compulsory reading for everybody embarking on this journey together. On the subject of the liability “order” the court explains in its document.” council, tax and other council enforcement in magistrates courts.” from eighth of June 2023., that the” order” is not a piece of paper, but a verbal pronouncement from the judge or magistrate, which is recorded into the court record. Therefore the insistence on a court document which is a” liability order” is unfortunately a bit of a rabbit hole because there is no longer such a thing (despite me actually having one in my name, signed by a judge for whom the Ministry of Justice were unable to find any record of his oath, but that’s another story). By far the easiest Trojan horse to use is that of challenging the councils costs in accordance with Nicholson versus Haringey, this keeps within the scope of the allegations against the defendant, which is more likely to succeed, because in their opening submissions, the council will reference that they are bringing the case in accordance with CTA&E, which mandates that the costs shall be reasonable. Readers should also be armed with the case law of Ewing versus Highbury Corner magistrates, which says that if you cannot prove the costs then you cannot claim the arrears because this will nullify everything against you and because the council are so greedy as to put 1000 people on the same bulk order, then the evidence that you submit is also evidence to the court for every other person on that order, and therefore, when you prove the costs are unlawful for things such as accounts of charging their pension costs within their wages back to defendants, then the whole case will crumble and you will deprive the council of maybe £2 million to which they were never entitled to in the first place. All that needs to happen is for this to challenge to be made on every opportunity and the House of Cards falls down.
Superbly written, so eloquent and educational. I have forwarded it to many...
Perfect timing too, I have a case against the council and they are criminals....no other word for it..
Love how the deep dives and *courageous* persistence have overcome inertia and the proverbial ball seems indeed to be rolling downhill.
HOORAY!!!!
(hasn't Q said something about the law being key . . .)
=;-)
Superbly laid out, Martin! It is a joy to see your thoughts transformed into understandable, articulated truth! I have posted on Facebook and am sending it out everywhere. Your "legal and lawful" wings grow bigger by the day! We will soon be calling you Michael instead of Martin! ;)
By far the most comprehensive and insightful essay I have read on this whole subject and should be compulsory reading for everybody embarking on this journey together. On the subject of the liability “order” the court explains in its document.” council, tax and other council enforcement in magistrates courts.” from eighth of June 2023., that the” order” is not a piece of paper, but a verbal pronouncement from the judge or magistrate, which is recorded into the court record. Therefore the insistence on a court document which is a” liability order” is unfortunately a bit of a rabbit hole because there is no longer such a thing (despite me actually having one in my name, signed by a judge for whom the Ministry of Justice were unable to find any record of his oath, but that’s another story). By far the easiest Trojan horse to use is that of challenging the councils costs in accordance with Nicholson versus Haringey, this keeps within the scope of the allegations against the defendant, which is more likely to succeed, because in their opening submissions, the council will reference that they are bringing the case in accordance with CTA&E, which mandates that the costs shall be reasonable. Readers should also be armed with the case law of Ewing versus Highbury Corner magistrates, which says that if you cannot prove the costs then you cannot claim the arrears because this will nullify everything against you and because the council are so greedy as to put 1000 people on the same bulk order, then the evidence that you submit is also evidence to the court for every other person on that order, and therefore, when you prove the costs are unlawful for things such as accounts of charging their pension costs within their wages back to defendants, then the whole case will crumble and you will deprive the council of maybe £2 million to which they were never entitled to in the first place. All that needs to happen is for this to challenge to be made on every opportunity and the House of Cards falls down.
It's an odd one CT, if I take a car to be repaired I get an itemized bill to state the costs.
If my house is empty I'm still liable for services I'm not receiving.Is CT for services or is it a tax levied on occupiers of dwellings?
I struggle to make any sense of it and the info I have seen contradicts itself even on council websites.
Has anyone got the link to the High Court judgment in Leighton? I cannot find it listed under the KBD cases on the BAILII website?