Council tax

[Oscartdogg]

Hello
can anyone help me out
I am being chased by the council tax bill I do not owe and I have been looking online for advice and I keep seeing people refer to "R. v. Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin,"

now in this Lord Chief Justice Widgery stated "It is perfectly proper for a signature to be affixed by way of rubber stamp, whether applied by the justice or by a clerk or an employee of the magistrates’ clerk with the authority, general or specific, of the justice, and that conclusion, but for one matter, would be sufficient in my view to dispose of this application, because assuming that an information was indeed laid before the justice whose signature in facsimile form subsequently appeared on the summons then all the applicant’s attack on the subsequent proceedings would fall to the ground straight away and it would not be necessary to consider the other points raised in this application. However in this case it may be that, as the applicant I think wished this court to infer from the document before it, the justice before whom the information was originally laid was not the one whose signature appeared on the summons in facsimile form, and indeed I think the applicant would go further and say that this court should infer in all the circumstances of this case and proceeded on the basis that no information was ever placed before any justice prior to the issue of the summons; the summons was a mere creature of a clerk in the magistrates’ court office. It is not necessary to embark on an examination of that aspect of the matter; indeed this court would be quite unable to do so in view of the material before it, but counsel for the justices conceded certainly that if the summons had come into existence in the manner which I last referred to, namely as a purely administrative operation without any information being laid, then the summons would be bad"

I have a summons and the documents that authorised the issue of the summons but both signature are different meaning that the person who authorised the summons signature doesn't match the signature on the summons

I also have evidence that the council invented a job with regular hours and income in order to overcharge me council tax so breach of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

so can someone please help by pointing me to a website where I can view the full case details above

also is it possible to make a counterclaim against the council for maladministration at the time of the hearing

[lgfa92]

I also have evidence that the council invented a job with regular hours and income in order to overcharge me council tax so breach of The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992

Hours and income are a council tax reduction issues (except in a few odd cases) so needs to be dealt with under the relevant regulations involving that - you need to appeal via that route and on to the tribunal. In the meantime the council's decision is regarded to be correct and the magistrates' court have no powers to intervene in the council's decision.

I have a summons and the documents that authorised the issue of the summons but both signature are different meaning that the person who authorised the summons signature doesn't match the signature on the summons

It's certainly not an issue I've ever come across in all the years I've been dealing with council tax disputes and tribunals etc. but I've just had a look at the case report. Essentially the court found that as long as the initial judicial decision was made on the approval of the complaint then the same party does not have to issue the summons - effectively the summons is not the legal decision, it is just a notice advising you of a court hearing.

The case summary states (para 2 being the relevant one):

Held – The application would be refused for the following reasons—

(i) It was sufficient for the purposes of r 81 of the 1968 rules if, after a magistrate had duly considered an information, his signature was affixed to the summons by way of a rubber stamp by a clerk or employee of the justices' clerk who had been given general authority by the magistrate to apply his signature by that means. It followed that if the magistrate whose facisimile signature appeared on the applicant's summons was the magistrate who had considered the information the summons was not defective merely because he had not applied his signature personally or given specific instructions for his clerk to apply it (see p 205 j to p 206 a c and d and p 207 e, post); R v Fox (1958) 120 Can Crim Cas 289 applied

(ii) In any event, even if the summons were defective (ie either because the signature appearing in facsimile form on the summons was not that of the magistrate before whom the information had been laid, or because no information had been laid before a magistrate prior to the issue of the summons), the defect was not fatal to the proceedings against the applicant. For the justices to have jurisdiction it was only necessary to show that an information had been laid within six months of the alleged offence since it was the consideration of the information, and not the issue of the summons, that was a judicial act affecting jurisdiction. It was clear that on 4 October (ie within the six month period) sufficient details of the information had been placed before the justices to give them jurisdiction (see p 206 g to p 207 c and e, post); Dixon v Wells (1890) 25 QBD 249 distinguished.

[Oscartdogg]

Hello
thanks for the response but

the summons issued was for an amount never owed
Part 20 of the council tax (administration and enforcement) Regulations 1992 states
"(3) The assumptions are—

(a)that the person will be liable to pay the council tax to which the notice relates on every day after the issue of the notice"

As I never owed the amount before summons issued or after it was issued because the council invented a job with regular hours and income they have not abided by the legislation as I am not and never have owed the amount claimed by council

As for the signature when asked under freedom of information request on the what do they know website people have asked

"what common law or Act of Parliament allows for summons be issued with a rubber stamped signature ?"

the response is the case mentioned above so if that common law is the one that allows them to rubber stamp summons then the signature must match

The Ministry of Justice use this common law to allow the rubber stamping of summons then where the same common then goes on to state both signature must match this too must be used

You can't pick and choose from each law and only use the parts that supports your case?

For example paragraph 1 and 2 used because supports claim but paragraph 3 and 4 ignored because it doesn't support your claim as that would be unfair

there are also other common laws that further support my claim

I am in court on 18th July 2019

[lgfa92]

You are going off on a tangent and misdirecting the thrust of your argument.

The council make the initial decision over liability and the charge (including any council tax reduction) . This decision is legally correct until such time as the demand notice is amended by the council, paid or varied by a valuation tribunal. The council's decision meets the requirements for the purposes of reg20 and other aspects of Part V.

The magistrates cannot interfere in the decision of the council over the demand notice, they have no power to do (see Wiltshire v Piggins) as they are not the competent authority (the valuation tribunal is, as per s16 of the lgfa1992)

The correct way to challenge the council tax decision is via challenging the Council Tax Reduction and appealing to the Valuation Tribunal if then required. None of this however affects the liability order application in the meantime.

The courts have confirmed that the summons isn't the key judicial function, the complaint is. As long as the complaint was authorised then the actual summons can be issued by any party with the jurisdiction to do so (whether by actual signature or stamp or facsimile).

The magistrates may agree to adjourn the application but they have no power not to grant the order on the arguments given against the demand notice.

You need to dispute the council tax reduction decision as that is the error, not the demand notice.

[Oscartdogg]

The signature at the bottom of the summons is the name of the person who authorised the summons to be issued?

I have 2 different signatures authorising the issue of the summons
Signature 1 is on the summons
Signature 2 is on the is on the document supplied by the council which authorised the signature

So who authorised the summons?
Signature 1? Or Signature 2?

Next the amount claimed on all the documentation is wrong not because I am in the wrong council tax band but because the council invented a job that did not exist

The council have lied about me having a job which I never had

And when question about it they don't care and have refused to correct the amount I have phone calls that support this

I have a council employee clearly stating that I will get a summons every year regardless of whether or not I pay the council tax bill as I am paid monthly and my payday is the 23rd of each month and bill due on 7th letters sent out by council for missing payments 25th of each month and payment takes approximately 3 days to appear on account and council refusing to change payment due date


Also the key part to the Brentford case is
Where Lord Chief Justice Widgery states "However in this case it may be that, as the applicant I think wished this court to infer from the document before it, the justice before whom the information was originally laid was not the one whose signature appeared on the summons in facsimile form, and indeed I think the applicant would go further and say that this court should infer in all the circumstances of this case and proceeded on the basis that no information was ever placed before any justice prior to the issue of the summons; the summons was a mere creature of a clerk in the magistrates’ court office"

So I am saying that because the signatures don't match then no evidence was laid before the court making the summons "bad"

[lgfa92]

Signature 2 is on the complaint. The complaint is handed to the court to sign to authorise the issuing of the summons (either a magistrate, judge or clerk) . Once the complaint, the permission to issue the summons, is signed then the summons can be signed by any authorised party (signature 1). The complaint is the judicial authority to issue a summons, the summons is a letter to say the court have authorised a hearing for a liability order. Signature 1 and 2 can be different.

The correct manner to challenge a decision on council tax reduction is to challenge the council first and then appeal to a valuation tribunal. The magistrates have no jurisdiction in your dispute.

If payment of an amount is not made as shown on a demand notice then you can potentially get a summons every single year, as per council tax legislation. The council are not required to make any adjustment to accommodate payment later in the month.

[Oscartdogg]

I have been to the council all they did was change the website and policy but still not of any use to people on universal credit
If the magistrate knew that the amount was wrong and that the council was fully aware that the amount was wrong before applying for the summons and that council refused to correct the bill so could be paid in full so refused full payment can refuse to issue a liability order
The council cannot swear on oath that something is lawful when it is not the council cannot claim that I had a job when I did not I cannot travel back in time and change the past as my time machine is broken and this would be the only way possible for the council tax bill to correct

My point is this
1) I never had a regular job with regular income
2) I did 2 weeks work in June
3) I notify council so can correct bill
4) Council raise bill by £370 based on the assumption I will do 2 weeks work every month for whole year
5) from June to March is 10 month council tax is approx £320 for 10 months at about £16 a week
6) Council billed me for doing work I could not possibly have done in April and May as I was unemployed
7) so I never ever owed the debt because I never had a job

I believe that is perjury and perverting the course of justice to knowingly supply false evidence

I have recorded all calls to the council with regards my council tax

And I still don't get the signatures my understanding is that
1) the evidence is laid before the justice of the peace or the clerk
2) the justice of the peace or clerk then signs to authorise the issue of the summons
3) Council notified that the summons can be issued
4) Council then issue the summons to their victims

I have checked the stones justice manual and that states the signature must be of the person who authorised the issue

The point of using a rubber stamp is to repeat an image and in this case the image should be that of the signature of the person whom the evidence was put before

Brentford case states
"justice before whom the information was originally laid was not the one whose signature appeared on the summons in facsimile form, and indeed I think the applicant would go further and say that this court should infer in all the circumstances of this case and proceeded on the basis that no information was ever placed before any justice prior to the issue of the summon"

So there is no need for 2 signatures to authorises the summons
1 person authorise the summons then their signature rubber stamped on all the different summons

The issue of a summons takes judicial procedure and is not administrative

And if the evidence was laid before the clerk under what legislation?

Sorry if I seem rude and I am listening to your point of view but the letter of the law seems quite clear

[Oscartdogg]

Also you stated

(i) It was sufficient for the purposes of r 81 of the 1968 rules if, after a magistrate had duly considered an information, his signature was affixed to the summons by way of a rubber stamp by a clerk or employee of the justices' clerk who had been given general authority by the magistrate to apply his signature by that means

I am not saying the clerk or council rubber stamped the signature of the magistrate whom "had duly considered an information" I am saying that a completely different magistrate signature appears on the summons

Example
Summons signature is m seath
And authorising signature is judge taft

So m seath can rubber stamp judge tafts name but not his own name

As stated by yourself
"after a magistrate had duly considered an information, HIS signature was affixed to the summons by way of a rubber stamp by a clerk or employee of the justices' clerk who had been given general authority by the magistrate to apply HIS signature by that means"

HIS being the magistrate whom "had duly considered an information"

So what you have posted supports my case
Thanks

[lgfa92]

Also you stated

(i) It was sufficient for the purposes of r 81 of the 1968 rules if, after a magistrate had duly considered an information, his signature was affixed to the summons by way of a rubber stamp by a clerk or employee of the justices' clerk who had been given general authority by the magistrate to apply his signature by that means

I am not saying the clerk or council rubber stamped the signature of the magistrate whom "had duly considered an information" I am saying that a completely different magistrate signature appears on the summons

Example
Summons signature is m seath
And authorising signature is judge taft

So m seath can rubber stamp judge tafts name but not his own name

As stated by yourself
"after a magistrate had duly considered an information, HIS signature was affixed to the summons by way of a rubber stamp by a clerk or employee of the justices' clerk who had been given general authority by the magistrate to apply HIS signature by that means"

HIS being the magistrate whom "had duly considered an information"

So what you have posted supports my case
Thanks

It supports it only if read the wrong part. The part (i) is with reference to a person being delegated to stamp the magistrates name on his behalf (and whether or not that was correct), that is not the issue at point. Your argument is that a different signature appears on the complaint and summons, this is addressed in part (ii) of what I posted. This clarifies that a different signature is not fatal at all to the summons. "the defect was not fatal to the proceedings against the applicant".

The magistrate simply has to consider the complaint made by the council and use his judicial authority to accept or reject the request - he will sign the complaint as such if he accepts it. After a complaint has been approve the summons will be issued - the signature shown on the actual summons is the person who has authority to issue the actual summons - this does not have to be, and is usually not, the same person who authorised the complaint. They are two different steps in a process and, although the summons requires a valid complaint to be made, different parties can sign each part so that signature 1 and signature 2 will , in most cases, be different.

[lgfa92]

How did you get on ? (For all the above it would still be good to hear that the Magistrates did find something in your favour)