Jump to content

Marincor

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group
  2. Firstly, these are just a few letters of a fight spanning years. They were trying to get payment for Council tax going back as far as 2007 – despite the fact I was unemployed at the time. Due to battling on many fronts at the time, I agreed to pay £650.49 for all Council Tax from 2011 to present with last years’ being wiped off completely. They don’t deserve a penny! The £991 is if I don’t pay up – but it’s stupid because that figure contains the already proven illegal Summons & LO fees! You will find letters to the Council, the Courts and DCA. I also included 2 letters from the Birmingham case I referenced as the content is valuable and differs from my slightly as the client’s circumstances were different. There was one name I could not remove but the letter itself explains why, as it is his direct involvement that apparently gives the air of authority to their unlawful proceedings. Here is a brief index on the letters: Page 1 - Initial Response to Claim Page 3 – Complaint at no Reply Page 4 – Validity of Liability Orders – to Council Page 7 – Response to Council info provided Page 11 – Reply to DCA ‘Final Notice’ Letter Page 13 – Reply to DCA ‘Removal Notice’ Letter Page 14 - Validity of Liability Orders – Birmingham Council Page 17 – Query to Justice Clerk Page 19 – DCA harassment letter Enjoy! And not too much questions please!
  3. I am compiling what letters I could find now as I remove personal details and then convert to pdf. Can anyone remind me if its ok to leave the names of the people I was writing to at the council and the courts? I know we use to be able to name public servants - when they were public servants!
  4. Here is my council tax bill. I will look for and compile the letters I can find over the next 2 evenings and convert and post those also.
  5. HCEOs, you are falling for the lie that is State Gangsterism. The lie being 'because we say we have the right to enforce and the power to do so, we are in the right". Or in true Goodfellas speak "F*** You Pay ME". Once categorically and lawfully proven there is no debt, then there can be no liability and when the issuing court fails to answer my direct challenges, then there's definitely no liability! Still waiting to find out how to attach my council tax bill.
  6. Whist I wait to figure out how to attach the bill, I will answer your queries. Birmingham City Council tried to claim that my client who has students occupying his house was directly liable for the council tax despite irrefutable evidence in the form of tenancy agreements and proof of payments that the tenants were liable and were paying. The council's argument was based on a flawed mis-perception of one tenant. A wilful mis-perception I might add as I was able to prove the council were trying it on. I took the case to the LGO who apparently instructed the council to produce documentary evidence of their claim - as I repeatedly requested - but they were unable to. This is a synopsis of an 18-month case. So their DCA Equita has no right of enforcement as not only has a debt not been proven, it was roundly refuted. I could be polite and say it was an administrative oversight on their part but the persistence and aggression with which they pursued my client for monies suggests otherwise.
  7. Oh, and I recently rebutted a false claim from Birmingham City Coucnil for a client. They still have Equita sending him letters but I've put him in the position where their letters have all the effect of junk mail as neither the council, the LGO nor the DCA can provide lawful documentary-evidence to justify their council tax/occupancy claim. Important: there are some people who are able to lawfully refute a council's claim but because they keep sending the EA/bailiff around they believe they are in the wrong or get pressured into paying. The important point to note is that once you have soundly and lawfully refuted any claim, the only avenue they have is to send their enforcer around and once they do that they are wilfully engaging in State Gangsterism! I should point out Equita were making doorstep visits until I made them aware of the criminality of their behaviour and I've told my client anytime they want file an EAC2 or a civil case under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, they can.
  8. It was correspondence between myself, the council and the courts. I will try to find all my letters. I say try because I had a period when my PC was crashing my harddrive incessantly and I lost some letters as this fight lasted for 2-3 years. I do know where my zero bill is but I will find and collate all letters in chronological order and post them here for you.
  9. Basically, that Red Council Tax Summons is not worth the paper it is written on and is illegal and unlawful! I'm still waiting for a reply from the justice clerk - Mr Seaton I think? - as to what his name is doing on an unlawful document!
  10. I don't want to boast but I proved this 2 years ago and got my council Tax wiped because of it. It took me 2 years to get a reply out of the South-West group of courts but they admiitted it under the heading of "Validity of Summons" and I quote: "You will need to contact the Wandsworth Borough Council directly as they merely use our Court Rooms for the purpose of obtaining enforcement proceedings on Council Tax matters. These matters are heard before a Magistrates bench. The Wandsworth Borough Council are the ones who can formally inform you of the due process in such matters" I remember I soundly did my research - even quoting Henry VIII clauses and such! Believe it or not, it was information from the FOTL/TPUC posse that helped greatly. Which just goes to show if that group remembered their movement is about 'lawful rebelllion' not getting something for free, how powerful and useful they would be!
  11. UPDATE: I've read the 'Autolease Limited vs the London Borough of Barnet and Other Cases’ and after doing so I've adivsed the gentleman concerned to bite the bullet and restructure his business to ensure he doesn't fall foul of the various stipulations. Though I still can't shake the uncomfortable feeling of corporate yet again corralling us to their will!
  12. Ok, I see what you are saying steampowered - there is a difference in enforcement ownership practice for PCNs to Congestion Charges. However, seeing as the Road User Charging (Charges and Penalty Charges) (London) Regulations 2001 Regulation 6(b) clearly references 'Statement of Liability' as does the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 Schedule 4(1)(2) - both of which I quoted in the appeal - isn't this a valid argument for the hirer of the vehicle to be liable especially when the Hire Agreement signed included the following text: “Any parking infringements/contraventions are the sole responsibility of the driver and all fines must be paid within the relevant period set by the charging authority”. Also bear in mind "the act you mentioned" is the Act brought up by TfL, I merely attempted to challenge their & the PATAS assertions regarding its relevancy in relation to the gentleman's hire agreements.
  13. I made the argument on the basis of an agreed contract and ownership of the vehicle under contract at the time of the ConCharge/PCN issue and cited various legislation that made reference to 'Statement of Liablity', which is in effect what the hirer of the vehicle signed with his hire agreement. After reading your submissions I find it disconcerting that TfL - or anyone else for that matter - has a right to intercede into a contract wilfully entered. However if you require the full details, let me know and I will upload them.
  14. Also, most of the hire agreements I have seen over the years are for a year and at least 6 months.
  15. We are talking Congestion Charges here and unless I misunderstood Steampowered, it was TfL relying on Section 66 to justify their enforcement, not the hirer to protect him. So if Sections 63-65 allow Tfl to do so, then again they and PATAS are incorrect because they both stated Section 66 as justification.
×
×
  • Create New...