A new landmark high court ruling effectively prevents enforcement agents from seizing goods in connection with council tax and even entering anyone’s property
The domestic dwelling needs to be looked at most certainly .
There is no actual law to say we have to pay council tax , only LGFA 1992 that says they can collect it .
They Bill you for services you are using , even if you don't have some of them .
My friend John Gilbert the founder of the Community Assembly of the British isles has sent the council a letter saying he will pay the bill as soon as the council sends him the breakdown of the services and the cost of each one , so he can choose which he wants or find a cheaper alternative .
It is our right to choose what we buy is it not .
The council have been stumped by this response and still have not replied to John , only sending in enforcement agents , that have been unsuccessful every time .
No debt , as there is no contract , still no response from the council .
We are not expected to go into a shop and forced to buy a product or products just because we are there .
So the council can not force us to buy from them either , just because we are there .
I don't mind paying for my bins , it is a service that I require and are happy with .
More people need to start questioning .
And just to add .
The CT money goes into a central government fund before a percentage gets dished out to the council .
Hi nick. Who do I send FOI to regarding c-tax fund into central government. I’ve heard this before. It is useful to use disagreements against central government as a lawful weapon of course.
Send the FOI request to the CEO of your council. If they don’t have the correct information he/she has to tell you what council manages your local councils pension fund.
I love this article and have shared. Thank you so much. Can i just say one little thing (not a criticism) that it's "mendacious entities have preyed upon", not prayed. And the sentence that begins "In order to make it progressively easier..." is slightly too long to get your head around. There could be a comma after both judges and a full stop after required. But like i said, fantastic job!
Thank you very much for spending the time reading the article in such detail that you can manage to spot the small errors. It’s very gratifying when you write something from the heart that people would even consider it in such detail as to criticise it. ❣️
I'm unsure about this. I've researched this to the best of my ability and as far as I can see, the "authority to enter the premises" stated in the Tribunals (etc.) Act refers to this regulation:
Section 45 (5):
"Section 45.
(5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested"
This can be found at The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 - UK Statutory Instruments 1992 - No. 613.
That suggests to me that the notice from the council - "authorisation of the authority" - is the "authority" referred to in the Tribunals Act. I can find no mention anywhere that the authority has to have come from the court rather than from the council. Am I missing something here?
I realise that the judgement in the Leighton vs Bristow & Sutor case ruled otherwise - and to be fair I haven't read the detail yet - but on the face of what I have read it seems to me like he got away with one, and it could be a difficult one to try to use successfully to fend off the bailiffs.
I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate, I hope it is true as it will help us immensely in our fight, I just don't see it when considering the wording of the Regulations and the Act.
I have a council tax debt of £9.000.But with charges added the total debt amounts to £27,000.. I don't have a breakdown of this bill,does anybody know if this could be correct? Any advice greatfull👍
I’m dealing with EA right now but for a different matter. They are unable to slow me documentary evidence from the court and are again relying on council authority for their warrant. After very little coms from the council an EA turns up at the door with an apparent warrant drawn up by the council? I’m planning on using this case to stand my ground with them. If anyone has any advice or things I could note before they come back I would be appreciative.
This is now moving to the next phase whereby people are now suing bailiff companies and taking action against the bailiffs in an individual capacity and claiming money back from the bailiffs £10,000 Bond which they must lodge with the court in order to do business as an enforcement officer.
If you have asked a bailiff at the scene to show their court issued ID and the order of the court (not the council) and they have failed to do this then they have basically broken the law and if they have broken the law they are not a fit and proper person to be a bailiff or enforcement officer And consequently you can complain to the court that has issued their license using a form called EAC2 to state your case and the procedure is that a judge will hear the evidence and decide whether breaking the law is compatible with being an enforcement officer.
This is a separate action from simply suing the bailiff company under the Leighton law .
In both instances it may be appropriate to claim damages under the harassment act 1997 but only if they have harassed you two or more times because it needs to be shown that the perpetrator engaged in a “course of conduct” which does not include doing something once .
You will know that in the Leighton case the judge did not award any damages for harassment and this was on the basis that he assumed that the bailiff had attended the property in good faith with a reasonable assumption that what he was doing was lawful however now that the law in this respect has been clarified by the late judgement then this actually REMOVES the ability of the bailiff to hide behind the reasonable excuse that what they were doing was lawful and even if they claim that they did not know about the law then ignorance of the law is no excuse.
A legal challenge to the bailiff company can be made under section 66 of schedule 12 of the tribunals courts and enforcement act 2007 .
The proceeding comment is not legal advice and you should always take your own independent legal advice for your own circumstances
As posted above, I'm struggling with this. I did my own research and the "authority" the bailiffs needs to show refers to, in my opinion, Section 45 (5) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, which reads, "The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested....".
"Authorisation of the authority" says to me that it is a notice (authorisation) from the council (authority). I can find no mention anywhere that the authorisation needs to be court-issued. How do we clarify this one way or the other, aside from quoting the court case? My point is that I'm not overly confident that this is the gift from the gods that it initially appears to be.
This is obviously not legal advised because nobody knows precisely your circumstances and considering the extreme sums that you are mentioning it would be a good idea actually to get some legal advice regarding your circumstances.
However speaking in broad terms it has been shown in the Layton judgement that the authority to act that is given by the council to the bailiff Company is sufficient to a point until they are challenged to prove that authority therefore in order to start the ball rolling you need to demand proof and also the court issued identification of the purported enforcement officer themselves which shows the court issued it so that you can submit an EAC2. form to claim your money from them because they have breached schedule 12 section 26 of the tribunal Court enforcement act 2007. Once you have demanded it they must show court issued authority and not just something that they’ve made up themselves or got from the council and that is the point of the Leighton judgement. As well as this principle being used for liability orders it may be able to be applied for attachment of earnings and property charges. You should head over to peacekeepers’s Telegram site to see if there is anybody on there that can share any light on it
you are 100% correct about the word 'protest' yet there are still many in the 'freedom movement' who organise these meetings to Plead With The Master....me thinks there is much skullduggery at work;
the only real 'criminal enquiry' we have is Courts Of The People, By The People and For The People;
Our Inalienable (English) Common Law right has been Usurped into ADMIRALTY/COMMERCE where One man can sit in judgement of another as if he is the Captain of a Sea Vessel....
we the people NEED to convene actual Law Courts and denounce the Incorporated Courts for the Fraud they are; we cannot allow this to continue or we will NEVER find true Justice; ANY in and of the LEGAL realm do not work for us...they work for the BAR.
The domestic dwelling needs to be looked at most certainly .
There is no actual law to say we have to pay council tax , only LGFA 1992 that says they can collect it .
They Bill you for services you are using , even if you don't have some of them .
My friend John Gilbert the founder of the Community Assembly of the British isles has sent the council a letter saying he will pay the bill as soon as the council sends him the breakdown of the services and the cost of each one , so he can choose which he wants or find a cheaper alternative .
It is our right to choose what we buy is it not .
The council have been stumped by this response and still have not replied to John , only sending in enforcement agents , that have been unsuccessful every time .
No debt , as there is no contract , still no response from the council .
We are not expected to go into a shop and forced to buy a product or products just because we are there .
So the council can not force us to buy from them either , just because we are there .
I don't mind paying for my bins , it is a service that I require and are happy with .
More people need to start questioning .
And just to add .
The CT money goes into a central government fund before a percentage gets dished out to the council .
Do an FOI .
Hi nick. Who do I send FOI to regarding c-tax fund into central government. I’ve heard this before. It is useful to use disagreements against central government as a lawful weapon of course.
Ta ian
Send the FOI request to the CEO of your council. If they don’t have the correct information he/she has to tell you what council manages your local councils pension fund.
I love this article and have shared. Thank you so much. Can i just say one little thing (not a criticism) that it's "mendacious entities have preyed upon", not prayed. And the sentence that begins "In order to make it progressively easier..." is slightly too long to get your head around. There could be a comma after both judges and a full stop after required. But like i said, fantastic job!
Thank you very much for spending the time reading the article in such detail that you can manage to spot the small errors. It’s very gratifying when you write something from the heart that people would even consider it in such detail as to criticise it. ❣️
There is a lot more in the pipeline….
Joanne has not criticised you, she has offered to help improve your fantastic article.Simply grammar and spelling suggestions.
Thank you for this brilliant info. conveyed in a creative way ❤️
As a widow, living alone on a pension, I find the £153 per month C.C.C. take from me is extortionate,,is there any help I can receive to help ...
Bless these precious souls
indeedy it is theft
I'm unsure about this. I've researched this to the best of my ability and as far as I can see, the "authority to enter the premises" stated in the Tribunals (etc.) Act refers to this regulation:
Section 45 (5):
"Section 45.
(5) The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested"
This can be found at The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 - UK Statutory Instruments 1992 - No. 613.
That suggests to me that the notice from the council - "authorisation of the authority" - is the "authority" referred to in the Tribunals Act. I can find no mention anywhere that the authority has to have come from the court rather than from the council. Am I missing something here?
I realise that the judgement in the Leighton vs Bristow & Sutor case ruled otherwise - and to be fair I haven't read the detail yet - but on the face of what I have read it seems to me like he got away with one, and it could be a difficult one to try to use successfully to fend off the bailiffs.
I'm not trying to play Devil's Advocate, I hope it is true as it will help us immensely in our fight, I just don't see it when considering the wording of the Regulations and the Act.
I have a council tax debt of £9.000.But with charges added the total debt amounts to £27,000.. I don't have a breakdown of this bill,does anybody know if this could be correct? Any advice greatfull👍
I’m dealing with EA right now but for a different matter. They are unable to slow me documentary evidence from the court and are again relying on council authority for their warrant. After very little coms from the council an EA turns up at the door with an apparent warrant drawn up by the council? I’m planning on using this case to stand my ground with them. If anyone has any advice or things I could note before they come back I would be appreciative.
This is now moving to the next phase whereby people are now suing bailiff companies and taking action against the bailiffs in an individual capacity and claiming money back from the bailiffs £10,000 Bond which they must lodge with the court in order to do business as an enforcement officer.
If you have asked a bailiff at the scene to show their court issued ID and the order of the court (not the council) and they have failed to do this then they have basically broken the law and if they have broken the law they are not a fit and proper person to be a bailiff or enforcement officer And consequently you can complain to the court that has issued their license using a form called EAC2 to state your case and the procedure is that a judge will hear the evidence and decide whether breaking the law is compatible with being an enforcement officer.
This is a separate action from simply suing the bailiff company under the Leighton law .
In both instances it may be appropriate to claim damages under the harassment act 1997 but only if they have harassed you two or more times because it needs to be shown that the perpetrator engaged in a “course of conduct” which does not include doing something once .
You will know that in the Leighton case the judge did not award any damages for harassment and this was on the basis that he assumed that the bailiff had attended the property in good faith with a reasonable assumption that what he was doing was lawful however now that the law in this respect has been clarified by the late judgement then this actually REMOVES the ability of the bailiff to hide behind the reasonable excuse that what they were doing was lawful and even if they claim that they did not know about the law then ignorance of the law is no excuse.
A legal challenge to the bailiff company can be made under section 66 of schedule 12 of the tribunals courts and enforcement act 2007 .
The proceeding comment is not legal advice and you should always take your own independent legal advice for your own circumstances
As posted above, I'm struggling with this. I did my own research and the "authority" the bailiffs needs to show refers to, in my opinion, Section 45 (5) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992, which reads, "The person levying distress on behalf of an authority shall carry with him the written authorisation of the authority, which he shall show to the debtor if so requested....".
"Authorisation of the authority" says to me that it is a notice (authorisation) from the council (authority). I can find no mention anywhere that the authorisation needs to be court-issued. How do we clarify this one way or the other, aside from quoting the court case? My point is that I'm not overly confident that this is the gift from the gods that it initially appears to be.
This is obviously not legal advised because nobody knows precisely your circumstances and considering the extreme sums that you are mentioning it would be a good idea actually to get some legal advice regarding your circumstances.
However speaking in broad terms it has been shown in the Layton judgement that the authority to act that is given by the council to the bailiff Company is sufficient to a point until they are challenged to prove that authority therefore in order to start the ball rolling you need to demand proof and also the court issued identification of the purported enforcement officer themselves which shows the court issued it so that you can submit an EAC2. form to claim your money from them because they have breached schedule 12 section 26 of the tribunal Court enforcement act 2007. Once you have demanded it they must show court issued authority and not just something that they’ve made up themselves or got from the council and that is the point of the Leighton judgement. As well as this principle being used for liability orders it may be able to be applied for attachment of earnings and property charges. You should head over to peacekeepers’s Telegram site to see if there is anybody on there that can share any light on it
you are 100% correct about the word 'protest' yet there are still many in the 'freedom movement' who organise these meetings to Plead With The Master....me thinks there is much skullduggery at work;
the only real 'criminal enquiry' we have is Courts Of The People, By The People and For The People;
Our Inalienable (English) Common Law right has been Usurped into ADMIRALTY/COMMERCE where One man can sit in judgement of another as if he is the Captain of a Sea Vessel....
we the people NEED to convene actual Law Courts and denounce the Incorporated Courts for the Fraud they are; we cannot allow this to continue or we will NEVER find true Justice; ANY in and of the LEGAL realm do not work for us...they work for the BAR.