Hardcore summons advice needed!

[NiteHawk]

Council Tax Summons

I'm really confused by this and i need to ask the legal people here for some input.

According to the Magistrates Court Act 1980 Part II, Section 51 , a summons needs to be issued by the magistrates. It's my understanding that a summons should bear the crown and have a wet ink signature , although i'm still searching for the legal definition of a summons.

I don't understand how councils get away with issuing their own summons , these are printed themselves , have no Royal crest and a COPY of a magistrates or clerks signature.

Surely this is fraud ???

i found a freedom of information request.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques..._or_court_give

To cut to the chase he asked the question :

"a) that it is lawful for Torbay Council to issue its own summons to
any person to attend a Magistrates Court?"

The answer received was the following :

"The regulations are set out in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and
the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992. This
sets out that where a person has failed to make the required payments,
then the billing authority may issue a summons requiring the debtors'
appearance before the Court to show good reason why a liability order
should not be granted by the Court. The Council Tax Summons is not a
prescribed form and it is in a format agreed by the billing authority and
the local Magistrates Court."

Ok so 2 places to look

Local Government Finance Act 1992
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...pressWarning=1

Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content...ilesize=241766 I've had a good look through both these Statutes and can't find 1 mention of permission being given to a local authority to create it's own Suummons.

The closest we get to this is :

"Application for liability order34. — (1) If an amount which has fallen due under regulation 23(3) or (4) is wholly or partly unpaid, or (in a case where a final notice is required under regulation 33) the amount stated in the final notice is wholly or partly unpaid at the expiry of the period of 7 days beginning with the day on which the notice was issued, the billing authority may, in accordance with paragraph (2), apply to a magistrates’ court for an order against the person by whom it is payable.


(2) The application is to be instituted by making complaint to a justice of the peace, and requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear before the court to show why he has not paid the sum which is outstanding."

How does "requesting the issue of a summons directed to that person to appear" translate to "Print off a summons and use a copy of a magistrates signature and pop it into the post"

I'm confused!

[Amy]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Are you behind with your council tax payments or not?

[NiteHawk]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Are you behind with your council tax payments or not?

Technically not. It was paid in 2 lump sums.

i have a receipt for the second sum which was paid cash and they now claim it was never received.

I'm currently getting the original summons set aside as it wasn't received.

my big question is how the council is allowed to do this with summons, every where i look i uncover more ambiguity but no one can actually point me to where it says that they are allowed to do this.

at the moment it would seem that it is just ignored on a "because they just do basis"

[Amy]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Have you provided your council with a copy of this receipt?

[Judge mental]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Nighthawk


I stumbled across this argument whilst trying to get my head around the Freeman-of-the-land stuff, and although I was initially sceptical it would appear that the arguments do hold water.
When the council issues a summons, the summons is from the council, not the court. It is nothing more than an invitation to attend the councils premises which on that day are a room within the court building.
The law does state that a court summons must have the courts crest, seal and a 'wet ink' signature.
When a liability order is rubber stamped, it is not a lawfull as it also must carry the courts seal, a case number and a 'wet ink signature'.
The Freeman of the land attempts to prove this are thwarted as the judges run away from the courts (There is video footage of this happening when they are challenged)
The connection between the Freeman and the points you raise is that they prove the courts set up for this purpose are a sham. The Freeman effectively do not concede jurisdiction (control) to the court by not standing when the judges enter, the court therefore has no control in the situation. They then ask for evidence of the magistrates oath, at this point the judges run away, why? because it is not a legally convened court.
Although the Freeman have yet to have the opportunity to actually challenge the legality of the summons (as it does not get past the challange to the legality of the court) I did come across instances where councils have withdrawn summonses when challenged.
I will try to retrace my steps and find some links to post, I remember seeing one in particular which showed that the Ministry of Justice is actually nothing more than a registered company (a body established for profit) . . . and it has a county court judgement registered against it!
Interesting stuff, especially as it is not just opinions or banter, these guys are actually taking it into the courts.

Stuart

[Caspar]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Nighthawk,

Be very careful before pursuing any of these lines. I have a massive interest in Common Law and still have an awful lot to learn. You need to really know your stuff before taking this line of argument against anything. Have you any idea how easy it is to slip up in giving the court jurisdiction? One word not picked up on, standing up when you shouldn't etc.... Not for the faint hearted and those who are dabbling.

By all means research Common Law, it's a fascinating subject and can be very powerful, but there's much more to it than meets the eye on a quick glance through the internet. It is a vastly complicated area despite what many of the sites claim. Even the world's best authorities on it will still tell you you need to be prepared to spend the oddnight in the cells if you're going to pursue it.

My advice would be research this as a hobby for now and follow "normal" law for the moment.

[MIKE770]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

court forms ask you do you recognise the authority of the court, so investigate further.(or similair words).

[MIKE770]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Torbay are the pits regarding council tax, they keep getting rapped for one thing or another, I lived next county but was sent over the border to edumacate them, took one look better to join them easier than trying to teach them.

[Judge mental]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

I do concur with the comments made by Casper, below are some links to video footage taken inside court rooms and it is very clear this guy has well above average knowledge and confidence to pull it off.

I am not suggesting anyone tries to challenge the jurisdiction of the court, particularly as this may be seen by a p*ssed off Judge as a refusal to pay council tax which in some circumstances may lead to a custodial sentence, however I see no reason why the legality of a summons or liability order may not be challenged.

Links which point the way to challenging a summons or liability order.
http://www.landofthefree.co.uk/site/...of-council-tax

I do not agree with the headline of this article as in the letters shown the council do not admit council tax is unlawful, it does not also set any precedent, it is nonetheless interesting
http://www.tpuc.org/content/wirral-c...cil-tax-unlawf

Now a quick quiz -
Q - What happens when defendant refuses to give Jurisdiction to a magistrate court, meaning the court holds no power or authority, the Judge and defendant are equal.
A - They run away

Q What happens when a defendant requires a magistrate to prove a court for council tax liability orders is lawfully convened.
A - They run away

Q What happens when common Law and Statue clash head on
A Common Law wins . . . easily

Below is footage taken inside the magistrates court, if nothing else the resulting mayhem is amusing.. . . enjoy!
part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caQcx0H17fo
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwIAY...eature=related

Another one, part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9GU...eature=related
Part 2 moves outside the court (not really exciting)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nB_hO1S7UjA

and another . . . how quick does this magistrate get out of there?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KC9GUvTGkWg

Stuart

[Caspar]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Glad you agree.

The links you have given are the well known ones. You go and listen to some of the world's experts talking about the topic and you realise how vast it is.

Technically you should be able to collect an annual dividend from UK PLC if you have become a freeman - I'm yet to meet anyone who has been paid it.

It is a fascinating subject and certainly raises some fascinating points of law, but goes so far back it is difficult to know where to start. Most accept the Magna Carta 1215 as the start, signed by the then King, John Lackland. However, there is evidence to suggest that he and his barons signed under duress and even that the original was unsigned.

That's why I say you need to be very careful. There's the obvious, basic stuff - legal fiction being the most common and the word understanding meaning do you stand under my authority? But it goes way way further and don't be fooled by these videos. I'm not saying they all lack substance, I'm saying don't do it yourself unless you know what you're doing.

[NiteHawk]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

thanks for the replies.

I'm very well aquainted with the whole freeman topic but i wanted to stear clear of that subject on this post as anyone who knows
the whole common law / statute law (i know statutes are not law ) will understand the whole can of worms that comes with it.


My question is how are the councils allowed to get away with a blatant act that contravenes the Administration of justice act.


What i find interesting and saddening at the same time is that this post has brought in many reples regarding common law and freemen but not one reply from anyone of a legal standing

saying something like :

Councils are given the right to produce their own summons under the blah blah act
or
the magistrates give the authority to the councils using powers given to them under the blah blah act

The video's given in the above links do make an interesting view for anyone that hasn't seen them.

but i need to point out that each one failed as as soon as the freemen left the court the magistrates return and rubber stamped the liability orders!!!!

and guess what.....these liability orders are then printed off by the council , using a COPY of the magistrates signature!!!!!

so to recap......

1) Council make there own summons , complete with fake signatures?
2) they PUT on their costs to the amount liable , in which court in this country can you claim costs BEFORE a court session??
3) Councils produce their own liability orders , complete with fake signatures?


Just to try to explain what i'm looking for i've done a quick google and found this , it's american but shows what i'm trying to find

"One example of an administrative summons is found in the tax law of the United States. The Internal Revenue Code authorizes the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to issue a summons for a taxpayer—or any person having custody of books of account relating to a business of a taxpayer—to appear before the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate (generally, this means the IRS employee who issued the summons) at the time and place named in the summons.[2] The person summoned may be required to produce books, papers, records, or other data, and to give testimony under oath before an IRS employee.[3]"

So in the USA the IRS is given powers to issue their own summons under the Internal Revenue Code. Where in uk law are Councils given authority to Issue their own Summons?

[Judge mental]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Nitehawk

I share your frustration in not being able to find anything giving a council the authority to issue a magistrates summons.
Put simply it would appear there is no authority, it is just a cosy, convenient agreement between the courts and the councils, as far as I can see the legality of this practise has not actually been challenged and determined.

As you have previously stated, Section 34 of the Council Tax (administration and enforcement) regulations 1992 gives a council the ability to apply to a magistrates under a complaint to issue a summons.
However Councils do not make an actual complaint to, nor it is considered by the magistrate.
I even looked back at the old Community charge regs just in case there was something in there that councils conveniently carried over, but nothing.

There is such a thing called an Administrative Liability Order, but it is expressly included in relevant legislation e.g. under Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, but nothing allowing such orders in relation to council tax.

A liability order, in the form shown in Schedule 2 of the 1992 regs will be rubber stamped by a magistrate, but there is no requirement on a council or court to issue the order on a person.
A council will use form B which allows for an unlimited number of persons to be named on a single liability order, approved by a single signature and seal (stamp)
A council then prints a notice that a liability order has been obtained (not the liability order itself).
I believe that if any one name on the liability order for multiple names showed the magistrate they have a genuine reason not to be there, it would refuse the order (regardless of how many names there are on it).
This is the likely reason why anyone who attends court is actually dealt with by to a council representative, then if there is a reason which the magistrate might refuse the order, the name can be removed therefore not threatening the approval for all the other names.

As liability order proceedings are initiated by a complaint to a magistrate it could be argued that the order cannot possibly lawfully exist.

As it happens I got a summons for paying my December instalment late, I have written to both the council and the court challenging its legal status . . . not holding my breath on a response though.

Stuart

[NiteHawk]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

Nitehawk

I share your frustration in not being able to find anything giving a council the authority to issue a magistrates summons.
Put simply it would appear there is no authority, it is just a cosy, convenient agreement between the courts and the councils, as far as I can see the legality of this practise has not actually been challenged and determined.

As you have previously stated, Section 34 of the Council Tax (administration and enforcement) regulations 1992 gives a council the ability to apply to a magistrates under a complaint to issue a summons.
However Councils do not make an actual complaint to, nor it is considered by the magistrate.
I even looked back at the old Community charge regs just in case there was something in there that councils conveniently carried over, but nothing.

There is such a thing called an Administrative Liability Order, but it is expressly included in relevant legislation e.g. under Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, but nothing allowing such orders in relation to council tax.

A liability order, in the form shown in Schedule 2 of the 1992 regs will be rubber stamped by a magistrate, but there is no requirement on a council or court to issue the order on a person.
A council will use form B which allows for an unlimited number of persons to be named on a single liability order, approved by a single signature and seal (stamp)
A council then prints a notice that a liability order has been obtained (not the liability order itself).
I believe that if any one name on the liability order for multiple names showed the magistrate they have a genuine reason not to be there, it would refuse the order (regardless of how many names there are on it).
This is the likely reason why anyone who attends court is actually dealt with by to a council representative, then if there is a reason which the magistrate might refuse the order, the name can be removed therefore not threatening the approval for all the other names.

As liability order proceedings are initiated by a complaint to a magistrate it could be argued that the order cannot possibly lawfully exist.

As it happens I got a summons for paying my December instalment late, I have written to both the council and the court challenging its legal status . . . not holding my breath on a response though.

Stuart

Try asking the court for details of when the application for a summons was made and quote the relevant law....

If you want to get really cocky i'd ask them why they think that they can put on the costs BEFORE an order is made....

[Judge mental]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

I tackled the cost issue from a slightly different angle as a councils right to recover 'reasonable costs' incurred up to the amount being paid is provided for within sections 34 (5), (7) and (8)
34
(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—
(a)the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and.
(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,.
the authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.
(6) The court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the defendant and has not been paid.
(7) An order made pursuant to paragraph (6) shall be made in respect of an amount equal to the aggregate of—
(a)the sum payable, and.
(b)a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the applicant in obtaining the order..
(8) Where the sum payable is paid after a liability order has been applied for under paragraph (2) but before it is made, the court shall nonetheless (if so requested by the billing authority) make the order in respect of a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in making the application.

I stated that sections 34(5) and 34(8) did not apply as the council had not initiated the application in accordance with 34(2) by making a complaint to the Justice of the peace.

If the council proceed with a liability order for their costs, I will look into the costs involved in appealing to the high court under section 111 of the magistrates court act 1980

Stuart

[outlawlgo]

Re: Hardcore summons advice needed!

......I share your frustration in not being able to find anything giving a council the authority to issue a magistrates summons.
Put simply it would appear there is no authority, it is just a cosy, convenient agreement between the courts and the councils, as far as I can see the legality of this practise has not actually been challenged and determined.

As you have previously stated, Section 34 of the Council Tax (administration and enforcement) regulations 1992 gives a council the ability to apply to a magistrates under a complaint to issue a summons.
However Councils do not make an actual complaint to, nor it is considered by the magistrate.
I even looked back at the old Community charge regs just in case there was something in there that councils conveniently carried over, but nothing.....

This is an old thread I know, but just in case anyone is interested in the legality (or illegality) of the Council Tax summons and court procedures, the following may be of interest:

Regina v. Brentford Justices. Ex parte Catlin

The most relevant to this thread I think are the closing comments of Lord Widgery C.J

"....It must however be remembered that before a summons or warrant is issued the information must be laid before a magistrate and he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not. If a magistrate authorises the issue of a summons without having applied his mind to the information then he is guilty of dereliction of duty and if in any particular justices' clerk's office a practice goes on of summonses being issued without information being laid before the magistrate at all, then a very serious instance of maladministration arises which should have the attention of the authorities without delay...."

Another related to this case:

"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."

There is a F.O.I request incidentally, getting into this territory on the whatdotheyknow site.

EDIT:

The fact that there are typically several hundred cases at a single court hearing may have some relevance to Lord Widgery's comments; what is the possibility that the magistrate would go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons ought to be issued or not when these numbers are involved? Or, if in fact the information is laid before him at all?