Council Tax not Lawful?

[Bookworm]

Any thoughts? why, yes actually...

 

:-D

Edited May 23, 2010 by Bookworm

[Bookworm]

Your image shows as being moved or deleted Bookie.

That's because the link contained a swear filtered word, so the kink wouldn't post properly, I had to delete it and re upload it wth a different name. Bad bookie.

[Bookworm]

I have seen it before, read it before, read the lengthy debate before, and it is utter and complete garbage. There is no legal precedent set except in their deluded minds. It's all part of the extremely tedious, self-congratulory, part fanatics, part gullible "Freeman of the land" myth.

[Bookworm]

Correct. And I believe that the end result was that he still ended up paying it anyway.

[Bookworm]

It was a while back, and it was discussed on CAG, but that's as far as I remember at the moment, I'll see if I can find it.

[Bookworm]

Sorry, I did a search and couldn't find the documents themselves, links seem to have been removed from all the sites (wonder why? )

 

I did find a couple of comments from people pointing out that the case had not been dealt with in court because the defendant had agreed to pay by instalments, which is what I remembered, but unless you can find a copy of the actual paperwork still standing, can't help further I'm afraid.

[Bookworm]

Yes, but if you look at the sited you have found, they ALL quote the same one incident, with the same interpretation copied and pasted at infinitum, and then the faithful join in with their Hasannahs and halleluias. In the end however, there is nothing that ever gets proven, it's all smoke and mirrors.

 

Sam, it's interesting for me - briefly - for its novelty value and I never dismiss something out of hand. The problem is that as soon as you start really digging, it all falls flat. As you start expanding your search, you realise that it all is self-repeating and never actually provides any proof. Rumours, yes. Self-congratulating rants, yes. Actual proven court wins? No. Not one. The one(s) they try to claim as victories and precedent setting like the one mentioned in this thread turn out to have been carefully edited and trimmed to suit their purpose when they are nothing of the sort.

[Bookworm]

Well, define "for profit" for starters. If it's merely a term to set that they're not charities fo example, that means nothing. And even if they do make a profit, so what? They still have a role/duty/powers set by parliamentary rule.

 

As for D&B, wouldn't it make more sense to search, in the UK, quite simply, on the Companies House database, which is after all the recognised one here? Just asking, I haven't done it myself. But D&B, again, so what? it may be that D&B use a different cataloguing system for their own records, who knows?

 

Thanks for the vote of confidence btw, but you are quite right not to take everything without querying, not even from me ;-), but I have to say that my niggling feeling from the start was "that doesn't sound right" and when I dug in, it just got confirmed. Compare this with my feeling about the bank charges stuff, when I first read about it, I got a bit excited, read more and more about it, and the deeper I was digging, the more things were firing up in my brain, thinking that this made complete sense, even though at the time, there were hardly any positive results. But I do trust my own instincts a lot in these type of things and I have to say the whole FOTL just doesn't add up for me. The main flaw is that on one hand, they discard or argue a right to reject the laws that don't suit them as being irrelevant to them, but then expect the courts which they say have no jurisdiction to uphold their assertions. You can't have it both ways , you either work within the system or if you reject it, you get yourself onto a private area where you create your own rules etc... and even then, there is so much you could do before a higher set of laws would apply.

 

IMO, of course!

[Bookworm]

Heyyyy, don't call them tree huggers, there's nothing wrong with liking trees! (although I don't personally hug them, I just like them platonically!)

[Bookworm]

I have no idea. :-? The state/local authorities, presumably? Is it relevant? I mean, we always hear about the cost to the taxpayer of such and such legal action, so presumably when a profit is made, it goes back into the tax chest?

[Bookworm]

Well, bearing in mind that I don't actually know, I'd hasard a guess that if it goes back in the state's coffers, it becomes part of the pot that goes in things like benefits, civil servants' wages, etc, etc... Is this leading somewhere? :-?

[Bookworm]

That's ok, I didn't know if you thought you had the answers and were slowly leading me towards a "ha HA" moment...

 

As for your situation, I don't think it's a personal thing, even though to you it obviously is. The problem is that if they start treating the "can't" differently from the "won't" then there'll be a massive ooha, as you can imagine. I also think the harsh way in which CT non-payers are being treated stems from when it originated and so many people refused to pay it in protest. Councils applied a zero tolerance policy then and just carried on from there, sadly.

[Bookworm]

If you spend any time in the debt forums, or the benefits forums, you will find that it makes not one jot of difference. The law is the law is the law... Whether you did "it" on purpose or in error, the fact remains that there is a scale of retribution and precious little to be done about it.

[Bookworm]

So? It does't mean that the UK is that company.

 

Sorry, but this conversation is veering towards the Alice in Wonderland kind of dialogue, and I think that if that's the direction you are trying to take to get out of your money issues, you are going to be in for a rude awakening.

[Bookworm]

but you see, I don't think that they are "challenging the law" at all.

 

I think we have seen a proliferation of sites on the Internet, where the same premise, 1/2 baked theory etc, are being rehashed at aeternam. They trim the evidence to pervert its meaning (like the "we set precedent" cited above) and congratulate one another on how they alone have seen the light whilst the rest of us still follow sheep like the system.

 

All well and good, except that like any cult, they rely havily on their followers taking an awful lot on faith and lecturing us in Latin so we won't be able to question the facts.

 

I'm not sure I understand the question about the summons, can you elaborate?

 

As for the way councils operate, I am not disagreeing with you, but I think that's a different story from the FOTL's theories. It would be nice if our CT bills were lower, but the councils would probably argue that if there is any surplus, they plough it back in the system and/or lower the bill next year (or increase it less! )... Or in my case, they're apprently going to build themselves a nice new HQ while our pools are crumbling, but that's again a different story, and they had a chance to kick them out 2 weeks ago and didn't...

[Bookworm]

Oh, I didn't mean it to be offensive! It just it can come to the point where you can get bogged down in so much rhetoric that you lose the focus in real life, you know? which is what I feel with the FOTL spiel... but when it comes down to brass tacks, their theory collapses against well, the facts, such as the guy who claimed he could de-register his car and not pay road tax etc, using the FOTL arguments... but still ended up with his car seized and crushed.

[Bookworm]

Ps: I agree it doesn't always make sense, but as they say "the law is an ass". ;-)

[Bookworm]

Oh, you found them, good.

 

that's actually the ones I was talking about, yes.

 

See this bit:

 

 

THAT's the important part. He made an offer of payment (which funnily enough, he doesn't see fit to share). Since he HAD in fact offered tp ay, there was no reason for a liability order hearing, and of course, since he had offered to (or even maybe made payment in full? We of course are not told), THEN the council confirms -obviously- that there is nothing to pay.

 

Like I said, smokes and mirrors, rhetoric and nothing in between.

 

As for his "costs", well, the last of the letters is dated July 2009, and has anyone seen an update? Hmmm, no, didn't think so. Couldn't be that he got sent with a flea in his ear by any chance?

[Bookworm]

I've just realised, do you know what it makes me think of? Stroppy teenagers who say: "I didn't ask to be born" as if it somehow gave them the right to withdraw from society when it suits them, but still expect everything to be provided for them anyway.

[Bookworm]

No, Sam, do contradict me, I do not pretend to know everything and it's always interesting to discuss things anyway!

 

You are of course right and I had missed that the enclosed offer was the letter which was posted above.

 

I am a bit confused as to why the narration says he had sent the letter 3 weeks previous, but the date on it is the 20th July, or why the e-mail dated 20th July refers to a phone call made on the 21st July, but let's say that these are genuine typos, for the sake of argument.

 

Problem remains that even if the council withdrew the court summons, the liability order and even the council tax liability, we don't know the background story, we don't know why Jim may not be liable after all, as you know there could plenty of reasons. (it could even be that he DID pay the CT after all and carefully doesn't reveal so in order to shore up his theory, after all, we see stranger things on the Internet). What's more telling is that despite the FOTL clamouring that this is precedent setting, it isn't, despite them claiming that it proves they were right all along, it really doesn't, and despite them claiming that the council admitted it... they don't.

 

Meanwhile, any update on his costs since July 2009? Or can we look forward to a repeat of the same thing this year? That should be entertaining!... ;-)

[Bookworm]

Proof, please.

 

Actually, that's one thing which has been niggling at me: If "let's call him Jim" succeeded and efficiently challenged the system, why would he hide behind a pseudonym? If I had found a way to overturn centuries of dogma, I'd want to spread the word as far as I could, give checkable evidence to all and sundry! :-?

[Bookworm]

Will need more than that, sorry. DCAs are easy to send packing just using good old-fashioned methods, so that won't wash. Same with credit card companies.

 

Interested in reading about the card de-reg and council issues (depending on what the issue is) though.

[Bookworm]

So you sent this 1 month ago, correct?

 

Any response from DVLA yet?

[Bookworm]

Oh, and btw, your whole thing is going to fall apart at first hurdle:

Failure to respond to this offer and to do so completely and in good faith within 10 (Ten) working days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties agree in full to the points made herein and whole heartedly accept this claim.

Lack of response can not be construed as acceptance, Felthouse v Brindley (1862).

[Bookworm]

nothing now driving tax free with my own plates

Yes, for one month! It doesn't mean that you have won, it just means the wheels of the DVLA turn slowly!

 

I have to ask, when (not if, when) you start getting court summons, fines, your car gets towed/crushed etc... will you have the honesty to come and tell us? Please?

 

One thing which strikes me about the FOTL recurring themes is that we see a lot of started actions... and zilch end results, and that alone is enough to make me more than suspicious. We had someone making the same claims as yours, and last I heard (but couldn't confirm), his car HAD been taken away and crushed, but he never came back to admit it, and so I do not know whether this is a rumour or a fact, and I would dearly love to see at least one person posting unequivocal proof, end game that theit methods have worked... or not, and if not, having the stones to say: "I was wrong, it's all claptrap". :-|