Tweet
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
btw. I Will Not Lose This Case. Someone will go to prison.
btw. I Will Not Lose This Case. Someone will go to prison.
Loading...
-
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
Hi All,
here's an update.
I finally had a hearing with regards to my case just over a week ago, to sum up events:
The Council was put to strict proof to show they had obtained 10 Liability Orders against me of which only 4 were listed in a Statutory Demand.
In June 2012 after 5 months of visiting, writing to and phoning Barkingside Magistrates Court, I was given a letter confirming that no records exist in the Court register to show that any of the 10 Liability Orders were obtained. I recorded the Court team leader on my iPhone explaining in detail and categorically confirming no official court records exist.
In September 2012 the Council's solicitor produced a letter from the Magistrates' Court legal advisor claiming 2 of the 4 records relating to the LO's were found.
in October 2012 the Council's solicitor exhibited 2 purported extracts of register in a witness statement
in October the next day I visited the Magistrates Court and again recorded the conversation between the team leader, court manager and myself where the team leader confirmed that no court records exist and that the 'extracts' were typed from records held by the council not the court!
The following day I submitted a request for further information under part 18 of CPR rules.
2 weeks later in November 2012 I receive a response from the Council's Solicitor who was forced to disclose all communications with the magistrates court, this revealed the letter in September claiming to have found records was in fact a letter based on a template letter sent by the solicitor - almost word for word. The template letter was a letter sent by Luton Magistrates Court to the solicitor regarding another case not related to mine.
The correspondence disclosed by the solicitor show he:
1. confirms that he was told it would not be possible to produce certified extracts.
2. wrote an informal email asking for the Court to produce certified extracts to help 'sure up' his case and make it 'water tight', he also offers to type up the extracts in word to make it easier for the court and also offers to pay for their time. The Council and their barrister were copied in on these emails so were fully aware of the solicitors actions.
In January my case to set aside the stat demand was heard by a senior district judge in Romford County where:
the council's barrister made an astonishing plea to the judge, she claimed the production of the 'certified extracts' could be an instance of maladministration by Barkingside Magistrates Court, the solicitor was not to blame and if it was possible to disregard the evidence and proceed as if it was never exhibited in court...
It was acknowledged by the Court that the council had failed to prove to the required standard that it held any orders against me
The court had the letter from the magistrates court confirming no court register exists and was offered the audio recordings that confirmed the certified extracts were based on documents held by the council not the official court register
Other anomalies were pointed out to the judge in relation to the extracts, e.g. they were on wrong form (it read memorandum of conviction, in other words it was recorded as a criminal offence meaning I had a criminal record as a result) AND the purported extracts were a a word for word copy of the purported LO's held by the Council which did not have my name, address, details of debt or court name address or seal.
The Court was presented with council tax bills that showed zero owed for the years related to the purported LO's.
Outcome?
The judge decided that the basis that the council failed to provide evidence to the required standard that on the balance of probability 'oral' liability orders were made and so refused my application to set aside and gave permission to the council to file for my bankruptcy.
It has since emerged that the council's solicitors are the same ones that were involved in the tragic case of Peter Williams, see http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/07...eter-williams/
I'm in the process of lodging an appeal to the high court...
Best
A54Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
Thast's shocking . I dont know what to sy how can he come to such a descision. Does the jude play golf with the council officers? Or perhaps he belongs to the Luton Hundred club (if its still running ).Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
it totally stunned me at the time. Since looking things up it appears an oral order must nevertheless be recorded in a court register even if it is not to exist on paper.
I think a key point for others in a similar situation is that the council in my case could not produce any admissible evidence to prove they obtained any liability order, never mind 10.
Also, in my case the debt was created by the retrospective withdrawal of benefits, I'm pretty sure the council tax admin and enforcement rules do not apply to the recovery of overpaid benefits.
I worked it out that under part V of the enforcement regs, a minimum of 7 notices and demands must be served prior to applying for a liability order.
In my case over 70 demands and notices were not served and the council could not provide ANY evidence in relation to these, no copies of demands or summonses, no proof of postage, nothing in their own files - Zero
I just can't see how any sensible person never mind a senior district judge could rule in the face of opposing evidence (like the magistrates' court letter confirming no records exist) that the orders were valid oral orders.
Will be interesting to see what the high court thinks...Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
I don't know if any of this, taken from CIPFA's "Guide to the Council Tax" is any use.
Human Rights Act 1998
So far, the main area of local taxation in which the applicability of human rights legislation has been tested is in the procedures leading up to committal for non-payment of community charge. The cases are equally applicable to council tax, and these are dealt with in detail in the section on committal.
However, principles of Human Rights can be raised wherever there is a 'public body' and a 'victim', and anyone being summonsed for non-payments of council tax can raise human rights in the magistrates' court.
Local authorities must be careful not to infringe an individual's human rights. Potential areas for problems are:
- notice of hearing;
- being careful not to appear to stop the taxpayer appearing before the court, if they want only to make a payment arrangement;
- not having available a translator for people whose first language is not English; and
- not separating the roles of court taking officer and the person who gives evidence of process.
It appears that the court has the power to look behind secondary legislation. As all local taxation recovery procedures are set out in secondary legislation, perhaps the court is no longer compelled to grant a liability order if the evidential requirements are satisfied, but the person does not appear.
None of these have yet been tested in local taxation liability order hearings, but we all wait with a mixture of interest and some trepidation for the first to come through.
For regulations relating to evidence see Regulation 53.
Defences against the issue of a liability order are relatively few compared to the twenty plus for general rates. The most basic, but, perhaps, the most difficult to prove is that the tax has been paid. In Tower Hamlets LBC v Fallows and Fallows [1990], Mr Fallows claimed that payment had been made in person at the cashiers department, but no receipt was produced. No one recollected the payment and there was not receipt. The justices were not satisfied with the authority's proof. On balance of probability the court found that it had been paid.
The burden of proof lies with the authority to show that the charge has not been paid. This is very difficult for an authority. It is much easier to prove that something has happened. Non-receipt of a payment could be because it got lost in the post, or it was allocated incorrectly, or even misappropriated. It is essential for authorities to ensure that their systems and processes allow cash to be allocated correctly and as quickly as possible. To avoid a similar situation to the Fallows case, cash payers should always be given an official receipt.
Regulation 36A
Under Regulation 36A which was inserted by S.I. 927/2004 and came into force on 22 April 2004, a billing authority may apply to the magistrates to quash a liability order, and/or substitute another for a lesser amount.
The issue of the magistrates’ power to quash a liability order has been raised several times recently, firstly in the case of Liverpool CC v Pleroma Distribution Ltd EWHC 2467 (Admin) [2002], in which a liability order was granted by magistrates while they were not aware that a letter seeking an adjournment had been received.
On discovering the existence of the letter, the magistrates decided to withdraw the liability order even though they had no specific power to do so. Liverpool appealed.
It was held that the magistrates have the power under common law to reopen a case where they have made a decision in ignorance of facts that would have affected their judgment, had they known about them.
R (Tull) v Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court and Lambeth LBC (QBD) [2004]
In 1972, Mrs Tull inherited a house, in which she had lived as a child but not since, from her father. The house is divided into four flats, each of which is separately let. The case concerned Flat 1, where three liability orders were made against Mrs Tull by the magistrates on 18 July 1996, 19 February 1998 and 6 August 1998. Summonses to each hearing were posted to Flat 1, on the basis it was Mrs Tull's 'last known place of abode'. However, she did not receive them. On becoming aware of the liability orders, Mrs Tull applied to the magistrates to have them revoked, but they refused.
Mitting J decided that 'usual or last known place of abode' required the authority to establish which address to use. He said:
I accept that interpretation requires the council to take reasonable steps to find out what the place of abode of the person to be served was, so as to furnish it with the requisite knowledge. Knowledge is more than belief, let alone mistaken belief. Knowledge implies some factual substratum at a minimum.
The judge went on to say:
What should have happened, in my view, and what should happen in future cases where liability orders are obtained which should not have been because summonses were not properly served, is as follows. The claimant should notify both the justices and the council that the summonses were not properly served ... The council should then inform itself as to whether or not the claimant's assertion that the summonses were not properly served was true or not. A degree of cooperation would clearly be required between the claimant and the council. If in a simple case such as this the council accepts that the person upon whom the summonses were served, and in respect of whom liability orders were made, was not properly served and is not liable, then the council should so indicate in correspondence to that person. Where that person is not content to accept the assurance of the council that the liability orders will not be enforced, and wishes to have them set aside, then the council should join in a request to the magistrates to set aside the orders. If that practice is adopted in the future then the considerable costs of this litigation would be avoided. Further, if the magistrates refused, in the teeth of a joint request, to set aside liability orders, it would be straightforward for a judge sitting in this court to reach the conclusion that they had refused unreasonably.
Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
What the buggery is an "oral liability order"?Originally posted by A54 View Post
Does it even exist or is it, as I suspect, an invention by that alleged judge to exonerate the solicitor(s)?Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
Or had he recently been released from the local madhouse?Originally posted by seduraed View PostComment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
Unfortunately, I believe I can understand the "logic" behind that misjudgement but, then, I'm rather cynical.Originally posted by A54 View Post
The "judge" seems to have considered the solicitors' attempts to find the evidence and, subsequently, almost to manufacture the evidence, and also the likely effect on their careers if it should be established that no liability orders had ever existed, before deciding "on the balance of probability" that the solicitors had not sought to mislead anyone and that hence the liability orders were real even if they were completely ethereal and imaginary, and that they had all been correctly served by some means no human mind could determine.
That may depend on the value the High Court puts on the evidence and, in particular, in the remarkable lack of any documentary evidence to support the council's case.Will be interesting to see what the high court thinks...
It may also depend on whether or not the High Court believes in fairies.Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
"It may also depend on whether or not the High Court believes in fairies."
think it does, CC:drama::drama::drama:Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
Thanks Outlawlgo
I've already tried the magistrates' court, cut a long story short...
visited magistrates court in feb 12, was told no records exist of liability orders alleged by council - confirmed by legal advisor in email
visited magistrates court again in march 12 after council insisted LO were genuine - applied to set aside LO's
March 12, was told by magistrates only the council can apply to have LO's quashed
end of May 12, council's solicitor tells me on email that LO case will be listed for hearing because of my application!
1st June 12 get letter from magistrates stating case will be heard on 8th june!
1st June I hand delivered a letter to court manager and judge asking how/why they listed the hearing when they don't have any official records of alleged orders? ALSO tape recorded court team leader who said no records of LO's exist and copies were 'requested from the authorities', she also confirmed in writing that no records of 10 Lo's exist.
8th June hearing to set aside, clerk refused to verify alleged lo's and disregarded my letters to judge, my barrister was not allowed to make representations, I wasn't allowed to talk or give evidence, clerk was 'hostile', magistrates gave council's barrister 45 minutes to talk, then took 20 minutes to say that they won't set aside LO's.
I'm treating their Order as null and void, court should/could not list hearing if they had no evidence that the orders existed in the first place...Comment
-
Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
Do you know - I had absolutely no idea that television cameras were allowed in the High Court these days.Originally posted by CleverClogs View PostComment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
An oral order is anytime a judge speaks an order that is not issued on paper e.g. a judge orders you to behave in court.Originally posted by CleverClogs View Post
My research tells me that even oral orders need to be recorded in the court register (except for the example given above). The judge completely got it wrong and possibly not only shot himself in the foot but also inadvertently set a deadly precedent:
The LA (or anybody) does not need to provide proof that it obtained judgement against a defendant, its own word is good enough?
The other important point was that what the LA exhibited as an LO 'failed to prove an LO was obtained to required standard in court'. In other words it was NOT a liability order. This is where my case has got caught on a point of law that's subject to great debate.
I need to post up a copy of the purported orders exhibited by redbridge council, i'm sure its pretty similar in format to purported orders already shown in leagalbeagles, in other words NO LA can prove it has a liability order against anyone unless it is recorded in the magistrates' court register!
In my case there's strong evidence to show an order was never obtained but my investigations reveal that no liability order was ever recorded in a court register against anyone in my area before Jan '12. That's tens of thousands of LO's in redbridge that may actually not be valid and for certain do not satisfy the legal requirements as evidence to enforce it never mind make anybody bankrupt.
I feel this is the reason why I've been getting special treatment from the courts and why the LA's solicitor has got away (so far!) with the falsifying of court register, deliberately misleading the court by submitting documents he and the LA knew were false etc.
BTW I forget to add that last November I managed to enlist the help of a brilliant lawyer who's specialist field is social injustice. The appeal goes in this week.Comment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
I'll try and post copies of the evidence soon as I get time.Originally posted by CleverClogs View PostComment
-
Re: Thanks and Please Help!
Sorry A54 - we are being silly but CC does know what he's doing and we all have your interests at heartOriginally posted by A54 View PostComment
Comment