Durham Council put on Notice over lawfulness of Council Tax enforcement

Council makes unsubstantiated claims about lawfulness of Council Tax enforcement and leaves everyone guessing, we fill in the blanks…

Let’s step through the Looking Glass and see what Durham County Council have said in response to the new ruling of Leighton versus Bristow and Sutor…

Right of reply

Remember, it was this channel that blew the lid on the whole Leighton ruling resulting in the whole thing going viral and hundreds of thousands of people being aware that there was a problem for councils trying to enforce Liability Orders which were no longer issued by the Courts is any proscribed form, so presumably Durham County Council might be referring to this channel. So in the interest of balance let’s open the subject up for scrutiny and fair minded discussion. Apparently there have been some “ distorted and inaccurate” and “ incorrectly reported ” things said about this new ruling so the council are going to set the record straight and show us the truth…

Previous practice is insufficient

All that is routinely done is for councils to issue their own “Notice” that a Liability Order has been made, which is insufficient in law as it does not come from the court itself and can only be regarded as hearsay. Then they send the bailiffs in normally acting under a made up but of paper called an “authority to act” which interestingly ( on the ones that we have seen anyway ) rightly tells the bailiffs to abide by the law when acting! ( TC&AE 2007 ), however The Justices’ Clerks’ Society guidance warns the council and clearly states that “ the council are not to be seen to be in charge of the process”.

Here is what the council said…

“I note your comments about a recent judgment in Swansea High Court in the case of Leighton v Bristow & Sutor which has been circulated online and via certain social media platforms. Individual reporting and interpretation of many matters online can lead to details becoming distorted and inaccurate. The judgement in this case has been incorrectly interpreted by some as implying that council tax is unenforceable because a Liability Order does not physically exist.

For clarification, the specific case in question related to the wording of an "Authority to Act" letter presented by enforcement agents when requested by a customer. It was ruled as technically incorrect, implying that the letter granted authority rather than pointing back to the relevant Act as the basis on which enforcement agents are authorised to recover council tax arrears. The judge ruled that councils cannot authorise enforcement agents to enter premises, it is the Act and Regulations that award the power. Despite suggestions otherwise, the High Court judgment does not say that council tax is unenforceable. Council tax arrears are enforceable and a Liability Order in any format, including verbal, from a judge is deemed to exist as a legal instruction from the courts and is recorded as an Order.”

So what are you going to do then, take the judge with you as proof?🧑🏻‍⚖️ 👈🏻

“Power is nothing without control” ( ©️ Pirelli 1995 )

So, when the rubber hits the road wotcha gonna do about it then? 🤷🏻

They seem to be dancing around the issue without actually explicitly saying anything except trying to throw shade on anyone discussing it. So if they are not going to actually say what they are going to do to comply with the new law then why don’t we take the initiative and tell our public servants that they need to actually abide by the law…

Durham Council get put on Notice 🙅🏻‍♂️

“With reference to your stance regarding the recent Leighton case law you seem to be saying that the Council Tax is still enforceable despite the new ruling, without actually describing how you are able to do this, and your reply fails to deal with the practicalities of actually enforcing such a purported debt which was explored and clarified in detail within the new ruling.

For the avoidance of doubt it is admitted that the council have numerous remedies regarding enforcement such as attachment of earnings, bankruptcy and property charges, however we are all aware that the primary method of enforcement is via bailiffs and it is this method that would now seem to be unenforceable and was being discussed not the other methods.

Presumably your claim that council tax debt is enforceable referred to matters other than bailiff enforcement but did not specifically name this in order to give the appearance that all methods were still enforceable which may have been misleading.

Paragraph 26 of schedule 12 of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 mandates that an enforcement officer is required to show their ID and the source of their authority to act. This authority has been clarified in the above Leighton case law as the actual liability order from the court and not an ‘authority to act’ that is issued from the council to the bailiff. We are all aware that a written liability order is no longer supplied and indeed the court advises against it for its own reasons and provision of such a written order in a proscribed form was done away with in 2003. A council printed “notice” of liability order is similarly insufficient in law.

Here lies the problem.

Taking the above facts into consideration it would be appreciated if you could please explain how Durham County Council are going to enforce any council tax debt with bailiffs?

You should also be aware that the court awarded significant damages and costs against the bailiffs for their unlawful actions due to a breach of the law. Unless Durham Council are able to issue an instruction to act to a bailiff company in the knowledge that this can be done in a lawful manner then this may create what is known as an ‘accessory liability‘ whereby the council also become liable for the unlawful actions of their agents. This would obviously breach certain provisions of the Localism Act 2011 which incorporates many of the Nolan principles of public life, particularly acting with integrity.

You will note from the Leighton ruling that the court did not make any award with regards to a breach of the Harassment Act 1997 on the basis that the bailiff had a ‘reasonably held belief’ that their actions were lawful, however now that this judgement is in the public domain and you have been notified on behalf of Durham County Council by this letter then this removes any defence that your actions may be considered to be a ‘reasonably held belief’ and consequently the council and its agents have become liable in a criminal capacity under the Harassment Act 1997 for an indictable offence. This may trigger section 24A of PACE and any person reasonably suspected of committing a crime would be liable to arrest at the scene to prevent a breach of the peace.

“ (8) Sub-paragraph (5) (b) does not apply where the enforcement agent acted in the reasonable belief (a)that he was not breaching a provision of this Schedule, or (b) (as the case may be) that the instrument was not defective.”

At the very least it would be prudent to suspend all enforcement by bailiffs until Durham County Council are able to ensure that this is being done lawfully. You should also consider the temptation that your ‘authority to act’ given to bailiffs creates to circumvent lawful process which could reasonably lead to a similar position to the Leighton case.

Consequently turning a blind eye to the potentially unlawful actions of your agents is similarly not an option that can be considered to be acceptable and the only proper thing to do is to engage with your instructed bailiffs to appraise them of the situation to ensure all parties act lawfully and do not create any cause for action by constituents.

Breaches of the Fraud Act 2006

Offering and falsely representing a forged document and also failing to disclose information with intent to obtain a money transfer that has not been sanctioned by law are offences under;

“Section 7, Making or supplying articles for use in frauds

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he makes, adapts, supplies or offers to supply any article—

(a) knowing that it is designed or adapted for use in the course of or in connection with fraud, or

(b) intending it to be used to commit, or assist in the commission of, fraud.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months the general limit in a magistrates’ court or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or to both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine (or to both).

Section 2, Fraud by false representation 

1. A person is in breach of this section if he (a)dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b)intends, by making the representation (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

2. A representation is false if (a)it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

Section 3, Fraud by failing to disclose information

“A person is in breach of this section if he (a)dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and (b) intends, by failing to disclose the information (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.”

For the avoidance of further doubt and to ensure compliance with the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 schedule 12 , you are hereby noticed that Durham Council are mandated to provide all necessary written authority to all council tax debtors IN ADVANCE of any contact or visit. Failure to perform this important lawful action will render the bailiffs and the council liable for redress under paragraph 66 of the above act.

Section 12 of the above act in accordance with Section 66 (1) which applies where an enforcement agent;

 “(a) breaches a provision of this Schedule, or (b) acts under an enforcement power under a writ, warrant, liability order or other instrument that is defective”.

Consequently, 

“(3)…the debtor may bring proceedings under this paragraph.

 5) In the proceedings the court may (b) order the enforcement agent or a related party* to pay damages in respect of loss suffered by the debtor as a result of the breach or of anything done under the defective instrument.

*6) A related party is either of the following (if different from the enforcement agent) 

(b) the creditor.”

As you may have noticed, and in particular this letter is evidence of the fact that the general public have awakened to the realisation that many actions of our government which includes local councils in particular, have not been in our best interests and have been corrupted by unaccountable globalist interests and that there is significant resistance to the abuse of power that has been allowed to develop which was highlighted during the recent so-called pandemic. Public bodies should be our servants acting in our interests and not our masters serving globalist or corrupted agendas such as recently demonstrated by the Post Office scandal.

All senior public figures should learn the lessons by examining the actions and omissions of Paula Vennells.

You are advised to seek your own urgent professional legal advice in this matter to prevent any unlawful action or bringing your council into disrepute or bankruptcy.

For an on behalf of the constituents of Durham Council.”

Durham Council were given 48 hours opportunity to reply but have chosen not to comment yet. In the meantime they have acknowledged the notice but failed to comment on it.

So what this notice means is that Durham County Council or its agents NOW MUST send a copy to all defendants of the original “Liability Order” or other such firsthand certified proof from the court ( not their own made up paperwork ) in the name of the said defendant that gives them the power under TC&EA 2007 schedule 12 Paragraph 26 BEFORE THEY EVEN TURN UP.

So there you go, they have been told, let’s see if they can do the right thing…

Remember failure to adhere to the law cost Bristow and Sutor £4000 plus costs even when they successfully argued they were not liable under the Harassment Act 1997 because they had a reasonable belief their actions were lawful. This notice seeks to remove such a reasonably held belief by explaining the law to them and consequently they are may be unable to rely on this lawful excuse for their actions and consequently they may be held to be in breach for harassment if their actions demonstrate a ‘course of conduct’ which means that they have allegedly harassed somebody two or more times. So always keep a detailed record and evidence of any interaction in case you need to prove it later on.

Feel free to copy this letter and adapt it to tell your own council that they need to abide by the law

And let us all know in the comments below what they say…

Disclaimer notice

This article is provided free of charge for information, education or entertainment purposes only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. The names of people and places may be changed to safeguard the privacy of those involved . No responsibility for the accuracy and/or correctness of the information and commentary set out in the article, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed or accepted by the author, the forum or the platform.

Always take your own legal advice from a certified professional that is particular to your own circumstances which may differ.

Some content has been obtained from the Martin Geddes Substack “ the future of communications “ which is gratefully acknowledged.

All rights reserved and credit to Pirelli for the image used for education and journalistic commentary purposes.

©️98th Monkey Media 🙈🙉🙊