Jump to content

Marincor

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    98
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Marincor

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  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 t
  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 documenta
  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
  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
  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
  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...