Be wise take a Trojan horse it will help you jump the first and biggest hurdle...

If you try and argue the big issues they will tell you that you are only allowed to argue the liability for the council tax order and any other discussion will be shut down and you will be asked the three questions and if you failed to answer them a liability order will be pronounced regardless of what you say .

What you need to do is rebut their case under section 34 (7) of the council tax administration and enforcement act 1992.

You must claim that their costs are not reasonable and that you have a rights under the Nicholson ruling to challenge them and the court must pay due regard to this overriding law . The guidance to the court under the JCS also reflects this, refer to it.

You can then argue the following...

The Simple Nicolson Challenge

This would be argued in the following way…

Obtain the courts acknowledgement that they are bound by the Nicolson ruling, and furthermore that this requires the council to “ furnish a respondent with that [ costs ] information on request” ( quote from the actual Nicolson caselaw )

The ruling shows that a certain amount of detail is required in order that the “ Right types of costs and expenses are taking into account , and provided that due consideration is given to the dangers of double counting, or of artificial inflation of costs” This detail is important because without it a defendant and the court cannot sufficiently scrutinise the budget to ensure that it is lawful.

In general the requirement for sufficient detail is directly related to whether a magistrate could reasonable have enough information to perform a judicial function to the Nicholson standards. Important point.

Without the detail then this must nullify the application because it could be argued that the Magistrates could not have reasonably applied their mind to the problem as required in 1. Regina v Brentford Justices, Ex parte Catlin [1975] QB 4551: “A decision by magistrates whether to issue a summons pursuant to information laid involves the exercise of a judicial function, and is not merely administrative.” and hence the ruling is void because the court cannot show the pre requisites for a judicial decision.

If the court ruled to disbar the costs then insist that the arrears are also similarly disbarred by quoting the law of Ewing versus Highbury Corner magistrates’ court.

If the court agrees with the above to then demand that the whole case is thrown out for every defendant upon the basis that it is a boat listing and the evidence is common to all defendants and that the justice is acting under oath have an obligation to” right to all manner of people” which would include all of the other defendants on the same bulk listing summons.

On the back of this you can argue any other argument you wish but without getting into the ring first you will never be able to Land any punches at all.

Good luck, may your God be with you, be smart and fight fire with fire.

Expand full comment

Good Lordy I wish I could be there! My heartfelt prayers from Canada 🙌🏾

Expand full comment

All the best Martin👍🤝 let's hope things go well and you help open the door and let some light in.

There creatures of the shadows and we need courage and self belief to remove the shackles that bind us.

Our taxes are being used to fund fake wars and a fake pandemic with fake injectables that is harming many of those who have taken it.

With holding taxes may just prolong our lifespans🇬🇧🤞

Expand full comment

#StrengthInNumbers. Best wishes! There are more of you than there are of them!

Expand full comment