Council Tax not Lawful?

[nunnyrose]

"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."

 

 

profit - definition of profit - The positive gain from an investment or business operation after subtracting for all expenses. opposite of loss

 

Sorry to butt in -

perhaps the question is where does this profit go? who ends up with this financial gain?

[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?

[nunnyrose]

depends on your outlook I suppose - this profit must be going somewhere, or maybe to someone? another question to ask is how is this profit being used?

[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? :-?

[nunnyrose]

Sorry Bookworm, not asking you directly so not expecting you to now the answers. I'm just asking general questions as in " I wonder..."

I'm sure it's leading somewhere, just not sure where yet lol

You see, I came to CAG initially because of serious debt issues and as a consequence of this I am constantly asking myself "what if wonderings"

Things like if I cant pay my council tax, then what is the point in taking me to court, adding charges to a debt that I already can't afford? I know the crime is to refuse to pay, not can't pay but however much you tell them you can't pay they only seem to hear "wont". The only way it makes sense to me is that it must be of benifit to somebody to take me to court.

[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.

[nunnyrose]

is that a ha ha lol or an ah Eureka! moment - if any of us get that far let's promise to share.

 

So - is it acceptable that the "can'ts" and "won'ts" are treated in the same way to avoid the massive ooha or is the law being used in a way that it wasn't intended for ? I think we should all be asking this serious question.

[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.

[nunnyrose]

so is it acceptable, although we have all been taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right ?

[nunnyrose]

btw... I've just looked up united kingdom on companies house.... it's there

[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.

[mills1]

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.

 

 

The Law is the Law is the Law only when we " All " work to the idea?

But yes, whether you forgot to pay or you want to challenge the system you are all put in the same box.

As I see it, although some would see differently, these " Tree Huggers " as they are being called are challenging the system, lets for the sake of it call it the Law.

If people do not pay this government tax, because at the end of the day that is what it is, there can be no argument, they are sent letters that are lets say fragile, it is meant to be a summons.

Can we agree that a summons can only come from a court?

I am not siding with any party here, just want an answer.

It seems to me that councils are playing a questionable game, to me their approach is not really ethical.

When they are asked questions to justify their actions they go into air raid mentality, nobody wants to give a straight answer.

If I receive one of these summonses, and I ask who signed it they do not know, or they will not disclose.

Does that seem correct? that money can just be demanded by a squiggle on a piece of paper?

I think that in the cases I have seen footage of, they have only asked the judge to prove his oath, what is the problem with this?

If we have a system, or law, call it what you want, everyone has to play a part, that includes the council and the courts.

Every part of that process should be open to scrutiny.

An interesting point is that in most cases, the amount owed by the alleged debtor, tree hugger, whatever you want to call them, is less that what it costs to take through the system.

Does this make sense when the country is in the financial mess it is in?

Even after costs have been added to a case they get less in than what is paid out in judges fees etc etc.

Now to the question of what is done with the money that is left at the end of the year.

If anyones council is similar to ours you will see roadworks on strangely around the same time every year, as far as I know they have to spend all the money that has been accumalated.

So, scratching my head, if there is a surplus, why not lower the original bills?

If the council are having to get rid of £2 or £3 million pound at the end of a financial year, is it not that we are paying too much to begin?

[mills1]

so is it acceptable, although we have all been taught that 2 wrongs don't make a right ?

 

Nunnynose I agree wholeheartedly with you, two wrongs do not make a right.

An analogy for everyone, we are informed that speed kills, yet most morning while I drive to work at the speed limit appropriate a police car speeds past, no blues or sirens on, if there is an ideal world we all live to the same ethics.

In that example, if speed will kill me it is only logical that speed will kill that bobby?

I could be wrong

[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...

[nunnyrose]

Hey Bookworm! - this thread isn't about my money issues. I think long and hard before replying to comments to try and keep my personal situation out of it where possible - I mearly used my CT story as an example. I think you make very strong and valid points. My questions are open to debate -I wont be offended if you don't want to participate but I feel you have more understanding than me of why we should accept it.

[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". ;-)

[mills1]

A little more reading material to peruse.

WIRRAL COUNCIL ? Admits that Council Tax is Unlawful and Sets a Legal Precedent. | www.tpuc.org

 

Ofcourse, the letters from Wirral Council could be [problem] letters.

[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.

[nunnyrose]

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...

 

Since posting last night I've been doing a lot of thinking, and have had a look at FOTL - all very new to me. I dont think I am contemplating a challenge of the system but I am still quietly asking questions.

You say they trim the evidence..... isn't that what the courts/law does by refusing to accept that you have no means to pay? is it that these challenges are really about technicalities in the same way that the law twists that if you can't pay then techincally you won't ?

 

And I think it is apparent that you too are questioning the system...why does your local council need a new HQ when there far more important ways to spend money. Going back to why I originally joined this thread - IF there is a profit being made, should we accept that they spend it how they please. As you say, we put them in the position of power, but that still doesn't answer "is it acceptable"

 

btw... I'm honestly not offended just inquisitive

[nunnyrose]

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.

 

 

Sorry to keep banging on about this but isn't that the point ?

(I never thought that at my ripe old age I would be discussing such issues )

Do we really have choices? well, of course we do - but it seems to me that we can either choose "black" or "white" and all the other colours that might actually suite better are no longer an option. During the recent election campaign most of us received leaflets for various candidates and I got quite cross that I was being given the opportunity to "ask" my local candidates questions. However, those questions where pre printed for me "did I want to ask about..... there followed a list of 4 or 5 choices but no space for "other"

So basically we're only allowed to ask only the questions they want to answer ?

[samsmoot]

Has anyone on here looked at 'Common Purpose'?

 

Apparently CP is a semi-clandestine 'charity' whose purpose is the takeover of Government upon its forced collapse. They have agents scattered throughout councils, police forces, schools etc and prospective 'members' are sent on training courses paid for by the taxpayer in order to prepare them for a role in a new alternative 'government'.

 

Brian Garrish is the man with the info, the videos, the newspaper etc. As the FOTL 'debate' is of interest to a few on here, then Common Purpose might also be. They aren't really related to each other than that links to each subject tend to appear alongside each other on a website or two.

[samsmoot]

You're the last person I would want to get nitpicky with, Bookworm, but I think the point is that it actually wasn't an offer of payment:

 

 

 

 

"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. :-("

 

The letter referred to makes conditions upon which the offer to pay Council Tax would be accepted - conditions which the Council couldn't possibly comply with:

 

The evidence does seem to show a cancelled Council Tax bill for that year.

 

I'm still not 100% sure that these Freemen are totally full of it - my mind is still open.

[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!... ;-)