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

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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!

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!

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.

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.

Also, most of the hire agreements I have seen over the years are for a year and at least 6 months.

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.

I want to bring to the attention of the Caggers a practice by TfL that I believe has serious implications for Car Hire Agreements. I’ll explain. A friend of a friend brought to my attention that TfL has been telling Car Hire firms that they are liable for Congestion Charges and PCNs if the agreement they have with the hirer is for more than a 6 month period. TfL stated the following to support their assertions: Section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which is the adopted definition used by the Road User Charging Regulations, requires that a hire agreement must be for a fixed period of less than six months to enable the transfer of liability when a vehicle is on hire. We would like to bring to your attention that since the hire period shown on the agreement is for a period of six months or greater, the document does not fall within the definition of a hire agreement and therefore liability cannot be transferred to the hirer of the vehicle. The gentleman concerned had made an appeal to PATAS and surprise surprise, the adjudicator from that collusive organisation supported TfL’s stance. It must be borne in mind that TfL is the ONLY local authority making this assertion. Straightaway I saw the ramifications of such a ruling as PATAS has effectively allowed TfL to re-write contract, hire agreement and statute law to support their stance. I decided to prepare a Request to Review for him to file in December of last year. In between waiting for a confirmation, the gentleman received a letter from TfL which was clearly a desperate attempt to sway the PATAS as it stated nothing new and attempted to cast aspersions on the legality of the Review. The review was allowed but PATAS eventually replied to my detailed submission supporting TfL – surprise surprise – citing the very same section TfL quoted as meaning Hire Agreement contracts can only be for 6 months. The regulation is Section 66(7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 which states, This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months (whether or not that period is capable of extension by agreement between the parties or otherwise); and any reference in this section to the currency of the hiring agreement includes a reference to any period during which, with the consent of the vehicle-hire firm, the hirer continues in possession of the vehicle as hirer, after the expiry of the fixed period specified in the agreement, but otherwise on the terms and conditions so specified. Now as you can clearly read in the first line it states This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months. Now anyone reading that would believe that section only applies to hire-agreements that are for a period of 6 months or less which means it wouldn’t apply to the gentleman’s hire agreements which are for a year. Yet the PATAS adjudicator states, Therefore for liability to be transferred to the hirer, the Hiring Agreement must be for less than 6 months. I don’t know how TfL & PATAS can interpret the regulation above as such! Am I being Blind? Dumb? Stubborn?! I made a detailed submission citing various pieces of legislation I felt were relevant which the adjudicator wrote “wrong”, “mistaken”, “misconceived”, without providing statutory evidence to support his stance and wilfully ignoring valid legislative aspects of the appeal. I am willing to post the appeal and the reply for further scrutiny but before I tell the gentleman to consider a High Court Review, I am posting the basic argument here, on Pepipoo and Moneysavingexpert for feedback in light of the implications. Quite simply, are TfL and PATAS right? If it will be a High Court review, I will be advising the gentleman to pool the resources of other hire companies finances as it will affect them as well. Also, whilst I await a response, do you pay the PCN if you intend to go for a HCR or make TfL know it is still being contested?

Hello TomTubby/Mods, Is there a specific thread for updates on specific parts of the TOGR & TCAE that I should use when I want to update CAGers on what I find? There are a number of threads and I obviously want to ensure a comprehensive narrative is maintained on the right thread.

I haven't read this post since my last entry so I don't know if this point has been made (mods pls remove if it has) but my perusal of the TOGR revealed some useful info. For instance: As you know the enforcement of TOGR is pursuant to the TRIBUNALS, COURTS AND ENFORCEMENT ACT 2007 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12. After watching the 1st episode of Parking Mad, and being aware of the fact police are not allowed to get involved in civil enforcement, I decided to check the legislation and discovered this under the TCAE 2007: '33 Goods on a highway (3)The warrant may require any constable to assist the enforcement agent to execute it'. HOWEVER, Section 6 Enforcement of Road Traffic Debts Order 1993 which is pursuant to Sections 85(4) and 86 of the County Courts Act 1984 HAS NOT BEEN REPEALED OR AMENDED! So for those who know legalese the all powerful word in the above regulation is 'MAY', which in light of the aforementioned means 'if you consent' to the police stopping you. All you have to ask the constable stopping you in one of these road heists is: "Are you assisting the EA to enforce a parking fine?" and if the fool says yes, quote the above to him and take his name, badge no. and where he is stationed. Thought this might help. I've noted others but I gotta go! (daily backups!).

Excellent Post Guys! Someone mentioned compatibility with other laws which is something I'm looking into at the moment to see if the Taking of Goods Act supersedes laws that I have found very useful to keep council bailiffs at bay, namely: The Local Government Finance Act 1992 - SCHEDULE 4 Enforcement Regulation 17 Termination of Proceedings, which states: “(1)Regulations under paragraph 1(1) above may provide that in a case where— (a)proceedings under the regulations have been taken as regards the recovery of any sum mentioned in paragraph 1(1) above; and (b)the outstanding amount is paid or tendered to the authority to which it is payable; the authority shall accept the amount, no further steps shall be taken as regards its recovery,” I have used this to enable tenants to pay the full amount owed to the council only - regardless of bailiff involvement! I'm worried now this new act will still allow the bailiff to claim fees after the council has been paid. I still say we are digging into the minutae and should organise to have it repealed because I'm in absolutely no doubt in this current depression many will suffer grave financial hardship as a result of this corporate-friendly legislation.

I don't know why we're waiting to see the effects this horrendous piece of legislation will have - we all know the horrors that will occur! I believe we need to have this act repealed. By we I mean CAGicon, MSE, TPUC, PePiPoo members all need to unit and organise to repeal this abusive piece of legislation. Cameron states he only wants a 100,000 signatures to look at a law. Lets give him a million signatures with as much social network pressure as we can mount to force the corporate controlled press to take up the issue. I was thinking the heads of these organsiations pool together their members to start a campaign to have it either repealed or drastically re-worded as surely it is clear that those that will be most affected are those on benefits and the working poor?! What do you CAG members think?

We need to have this act repealed. By we I mean CAG, MSE, TPUC, PePiPoo members all need to unit and organise to repeal this abusive piece of legislation. Cameron states he only wants a 100,000 signatures to look at a law. Lets give him a million signatures with as much social network pressure as we can mount to force the corporate controlled press to take up the issue. What do you CAG members think?

A site as good as this always deserves a little something given back - I hope this helps. For those who don't know, all acts of parliament can be found on http://www.legislation.gov.uk. Traffic Management Act 2004 Part 6 Notification, adjudication and enforcement - Section 79 (5)The regulations shall provide— (a)that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle; The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Part 21B The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 CHAPTER 44 The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 PART 3 IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES – Regulation13.— (1) An immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if there is displayed on the vehicle— (a)a current disabled person’s badge; or (b)a current recognised badge. THE LAW Disability Discrimination Act 2005 - Public authorities Section 2 21BDiscrimination by public authorities(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to discriminate against a disabled person in carrying out its functions. --------------------------- 21DMeaning of “discrimination” in section 21B(1)For the purposes of section 21B(1), a public authority discriminates against a disabled person if— (ii)unreasonably adverse for the disabled person to experience being subjected to any detriment to which a person is or may be subjected, by the carrying-out of a function by the authority; and (b)it cannot show that its failure to comply with that duty is justified under subsection (3), (5) or (7)©. ---------------------------- Part VII Section 57 57 Aiding unlawful acts.(1)A person who knowingly aids another person to do an [F1unlawful act] is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as himself doing the same kind of unlawful act. ------------------------------ Public authorities Section 3 - Public authorities Section 3 - Duties of public authorities ------------------------------- TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004 79 Immobilisation of vehicle where penalty charge payable (5) The regulations shall provide— (a) that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if a current disabled person’s badge is displayed on the vehicle; and (b) that if, in a case in which an immobilisation device would have been fixed to a vehicle but for paragraph (a), the vehicle was not being used— (i) in accordance with regulations under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c. 44), and (ii) in circumstances falling within section 117(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (use where a disabled person’s concession would be available), the person in charge of the vehicle commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (6) The regulations shall also provide that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle in a parking place in respect of a contravention consisting of, or arising out of, a failure— (a) to pay a parking charge with respect to the vehicle, (b) properly to display a ticket or parking device, or © to remove the vehicle from the parking space by the end of a period for which the appropriate charge was paid, until 15 minutes have elapsed since the giving of a notification of a penalty charge in respect of the contravention. (7) In this section— “disabled person’s badge” has the same meaning as in section 142(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; “parking device” means a parking device within the meaning of section 35(3B) or 51(4) of that Act; and “parking place” means— (a) a parking place designated by an order under section 45 of that Act, or (b) an off-street parking place provided under section 32(1)(a) or 57(1)(b), or under a letting or arrangement made under section 33(4), of that Act. ------------------------------- Road Traffic Act 1991 - Part II - Parking in London - Section 70 70 - Exemptions from section 69.(1)Section 69(1) of this Act shall not apply in relation to a vehicle if— (a)a current disabled person’s badge is displayed on the vehicle; (Section 69 is ‘Immobilisation of vehicles in parking places’). Anyone who can add to this, please do!

Hello Guys, after a couple of PC crashes and being crazily busy as a result, I have taken ages to find this post again but I see it has moved back to the TEC argument and away from the disabled driver issue that first peeked my interest. Jamberson and Green_Mean asked for more legislation protecting disabled drivers and blue badge holders which I have but I don't know if I should post it here or start/update a separate post. Can admin let me know if I should post it here, start a new one or update an existing one on the issue? With regards the TEC, this is my understanding: The purpose of membership to any organisation is to gain privileges. Member local authorities gain the privilege of being able to use the TEC as a clearing house for the allegations they make against motorists. They do not have to prove these allegations as Civil Parking Enforcement was designed to operate on a presumption of guilt - a description confirmed by the Ministry of Justice. That may be satisfactory to those who gain from this arrangement, but it falls well short of the principles established in 1,000 years of English law and the accepted burdens of proof under which judicial courts operate. The only redeeming feature of this questionable arrangement is that bailiffs and bailiff companies cannot be members of the TEC. Although officially designated as an administrative court, the Traffic Enforcement Centre does not possess either the power or the status to apply general Civil Procedure Rules to the parking claims that commence within its jurisdiction, one effect of which was the creation a vacuum within the legal profession in the matter of parking enforcement. Another consequence was the creation of CPR 75 which uniquely applies to the Traffic Enforcement Centre, thus within the limited status of being created as an administrative court, the TEC has its own set of rules. Though misleadingly titled as the ‘Code of Practice’, these are in fact the rules of the court. With that said, if you word a Witness Statement right, even though the council get to challenge one, they will be revoked or cancelled rather than refused.

Sorry, I've been busy and it appears my last post didn't go through (maybe Admin checking facts) so here it is again: That law on the disabled is just one that came immediatley to mind but it is just one of a number of laws - a couple of those being parking/traffic laws - that forbid the towing/clamping of disabled motorists. In fact, they stipulate that at worst the vehicle should be relocated to another street. If I must I will find and post the laws on here for you but I find a trip down the rabbit hole a worthwhile journey! With regards my other comment: Regulation 76(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004, Regulation 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 & Regulation 63A of the Road Traffic Act 1984 states: “A civil enforcement officer/parking attendant must be an individual employed by the authority”.

I'm sorry guys, I've been busy. I just quoted the 1st piece of legsilation that I had in mind. I can think of at least 3 other acts of parliament that state a disabled drivers vehicle cannot be towed and a couple of them are traffic/parking related laws and they make it clear alternatives such as moving to another street must be employed - towing/clamping is not an option for disabled drivers - I will paste them for you if I must but I thought you would be aware of them. With regards my other comment, Regulation 76(2) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 & Regulation 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 & Regulation 63A of the Road Traffic Act 1984 states: “A civil enforcement officer/parking attendant must be an individual employed by the authority”. Spending time down the rabbit hole can yield useful information.