Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access - EU Law perspective

[Ganymede]

- in civil cases

 

Which CTX is until committal proceedings are issued.

[p3t3r]

Which CTX is until committal proceedings are issued.

 

I see... so, then it becomes criminal. Under article 6 ECHR, right to a fair trial, solicitor should be provided.

[Ganymede]

At that point, yes.

 

But not at the initial hearing.

[p3t3r]

ganymede, thanks for explaining, i was wrong in assuming non payment of council tax was criminal. I was thinking of the OAPs who had been in prison for this, so, naturally thought it was criminal.

 

Reading ECHR, trying to learn, but I can't as yet find any information where someone has used ECHR in relation to bailiff action in respect of council tax.

 

I can't understand why a lot of people say I am wrong / barking up the wrong tree because as of yet, my thoughts and opinions in this have not been disproved in a court case, but neither have they been approved.

 

It is kind of pointless telling someone they are wrong or barking up the wrong tree without at least explaining why the persons thoughts / opinions are wrong.

 

Hopefully someone someday will progress with this using EU law and an outcome will be provided by a court. Until that time, I am neither wrong nor right.

 

Anyway, thanks again for clearing up my wrong assumption in assuming it was criminal!

[Ganymede]

An analogy would be if you were sued for breach of contract, which is obviously civil law, but were found in contempt of court you could face prison if the judge refers you for committal proceedings.

[Old Cogger]

Take it from me, you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't need Google. I've spent years studying EU law.

 

:frusty: noticed on this subject!

[p3t3r]

An analogy would be if you were sued for breach of contract, which is obviously civil law, but were found in contempt of court you could face prison if the judge refers you for committal proceedings.

 

hi ganymede, thanks again, i understand that now. but your analogy confirms it thanks for taking the time to explain!

 

 

 

 

:frusty: noticed on this subject!

Again, I reiterate that it is absolutely pointless to say someone is wrong and not provide reasons as to why they are wrong.

 

I fail to see how I am wrong since my opinion / thoughts have not been tested in a court. Only a court can provide an outcome / answer to my thoughts.

 

Commenting that people are wrong, or agreeing with people who say others are wrong, without providing any reasons as to why they are wrong is IMHO completely pointless.

[ploddertom]

p3t3r

 

At a Liability Order Hearing the Magistrates are restricted to giving a simple yes or no answer as to whether the person summonsed is liable or nor to pay Council Tax. As sad as it may seem they are not allowed to take into consideration whether the alleged debtor can pay or not - this is done at a later stage. The reasons for appealing against being issued a Liability Order are very narrow and if you do not fit into these categories then a Liability Order will be made against you. Here is a link to read http://www.carlisle.gov.uk/advice_and_benefits/council_tax/council_tax_appeals.aspx . These Hearings are different in that they are one of the few civil cases that are heard in Magistrates Courts.

[fletch70]

I fear that google is again misinforming . You can put many questions into google and get the appropriate answer. I can easily find evidence to say that Elvis is alive and even a video clip suggesting that Diana was at her sons wedding, both on the first page of a google search

[fletch70]

ganymede, thanks for explaining, i was wrong in assuming non payment of council tax was criminal. I was thinking of the OAPs who had been in prison for this, so, naturally thought it was criminal.

 

Reading ECHR, trying to learn, but I can't as yet find any information where someone has used ECHR in relation to bailiff action in respect of council tax.

 

I can't understand why a lot of people say I am wrong / barking up the wrong tree because as of yet, my thoughts and opinions in this have not been disproved in a court case, but neither have they been approved.

 

It is kind of pointless telling someone they are wrong or barking up the wrong tree without at least explaining why the persons thoughts / opinions are wrong.

 

Hopefully someone someday will progress with this using EU law and an outcome will be provided by a court. Until that time, I am neither wrong nor right.

 

Anyway, thanks again for clearing up my wrong assumption in assuming it was criminal!

 

If you read the ECHR many of the principals have get outs with wording such as

 

ARTICLE 5

Right to liberty and security

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No

one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and

in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a

competent court;

(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for noncompliance

with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the

fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

 

The right to a fair trial

© to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of

his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay

for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests

of justice so require;

 

Who defines the interests of justice...National government

 

ARTICLE 8

Right to respect for private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family

life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the

exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the

law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of

national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the

country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection

of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms

of others.

[p3t3r]

ploddertom, thank you for that info. it does seem very little grounds to appeal a council tax hearing.

 

as you say, the grounds for appealing a very narrow.

 

imo, this in itself breaches the right for a fair trial. - very limited grounds for appeal, lack of consideration in that it is not taken into account whether the debter has an ability to pay or not.

 

In researching all of this, earlier, I saw a youtube video of some people who attempted to arrest a judge in respect of council tax! i kid you not!!! they tried to arrest a judge! there were loads of people, i personally think they showed no respect for the court and should have all been jailed. ive lost the link to it now as i have so many windows open.... its almost freezing!

 

As there does not seem to be any provision in UK law for those people who can not afford to pay council tax, I feel this to be unfair and that is the reason I am looking at EU law or conventions in relation to this.

 

I have faith in UK justice more or less, apart from council tax hearings. I've never been to a council tax court hearing nor had bailiffs, but I empathise with those who have. I see that to call a bailiff onto a debtor who has difficulty in paying their council tax is unjust, totally unfair since it escalates the debt significantly.

[fletch70]

I have faith in UK justice more or less, apart from council tax hearings. I've never been to a council tax court hearing nor had bailiffs, but I empathise with those who have. I see that to call a bailiff onto a debtor who has difficulty in paying their council tax is unjust, totally unfair since it escalates the debt significantly.

 

I would agree however in many cases and i do not have figures it is because the debtor either refuses to pay or has completely ignored all efforts by the council to make an arrangement although I am aware that some council tax enforcement officers are less than obliging

[brassnecked]

I think that it could be argued that Council Tax itself by not taking ability to pay into account has a potential to breach Article 6 when the council seeks the liability order, as the debtor could not afford to pay anyway and the LO plus extra fees compounds the debt. That one is another argument though. as it is unlikely to be challenged in the ECHR.

[p3t3r]

brassnecked, yes, i also believe this to be so. it is unjust, unfiar, and certainly not a fair trial.

it simply penalises those who are struggling to pay and makes the situation worse for them.

 

as well as being a breach, I would also consider it to be maladministration (although suspect that the LGO and others would naturally disagree with that)

[Coughdrop]

Council Tax benefit is means tested. Is that not a measure of assessing ability to pay? I thought the thread was about the NOROIROA though. I still believe that my previous post is relevant:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?406801-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access......debtor-loses-in-court-and-ordered-to-pay-bailiff-companies-legal-costs&p=4710707&viewfull=1#post4710707

[Queens_king]

As far as I know when I left the UK two years ago there was no such thing as UK law, I understood that is was either English and Welsh Law or Scottish Law.

 

If I am wromg then I stand corrected

[unclebulgaria67]

As far as I know when I left the UK two years ago there was no such thing as UK law, I understood that is was either English and Welsh Law or Scottish Law.

 

If I am wromg then I stand corrected

 

It is correct, as when parliament passes an act, it makes it clear whether it applied to England etc.

 

The use of UK is just to simplify the conversation.

[Peterbard]

Someone wants me to discus the effectiveness of aa notice given or shown to a bailiff stating that he is breaching EU law.

 

OK it will not work.

 

The reason as I have said before is that the EAs function is to enforce the warrant/order not to pass judgment on the validity of the debt, that boat will have sailed long before the bailiff arrives at the door, the EA has neither the skill or the authority to question the courts judgment. I trust that answers the question.

 

Any query regarding EU law would have had to be presented at the court, and since the court is utilizing the procedure set in legislation the issue would as I have said before have to be taken up with the supreme court, that is of course if you could find EU law which contradicted said legislation, which there is none unfortunately.

[Peterbard]

Sorry i should also say that this is as much input as I feel this subject is worth, others may dissagree and they are of course free to discuss this to there hearts content without me.

[p3t3r]

You say that EU law does not contradict legislation.

 

However, EU law / ECHR trumps UK legislation as if the claimant or defendant brings EU / ECHR into the argument, then the UK legislation must be interpreted in a way to comply with that of EU / ECHR

[fletch70]

You are still confusing ECHR with the EU. They are two completely different things . ECHR does not trump UK legislation although it can confuse it. Ask a prisoner who wants to vote in May

[p3t3r]

i am not confusing them. i know they are 2 different things. convention etc.

 

but having said that, ECHR does IMHO trump UK legislation since UK legislation has to be interpreted in a way to comply with ECHR, but only if the claimant or defendant brings ECHR into the court argument.

[fletch70]

I am really sorry to disillusion you

 

ECHR does not trump Statute law, if it did all prisoners would be able to vote in May's election. This is a case that was taken all the way to the ECHR

 

If in this country a court finds that law does not comply all they can do is record that the current law is in conflict with ECHR they must still abide by the statute

[p3t3r]

fletch, Trump. Ok, that is the wrong word then.

 

EU law / ECHR when used, makes it that UK legislation should be interpreted in a way that is compliant with both EU and ECHR.

 

Neither EU law or ECHR directly trumps UK law. However, since UK law has to be interpreted in a way to be complaint with EU / ECHR. then it trumps UK law indirectly, but not directly.

 

EU / ECHR indirectly trumps UK law since UK law has to be compliant with ECHR and EU law when the claimant or defendant brings this into their argument.

 

If a claimant takes their case to the European Court and is successful, whilst the conflict between the 2 laws has to be recorded (which you say), the UK law still is applicable until such time as parliament amends it or abolishes it.

 

The EU court can award compensation / remedy for any breaches of its laws or convention if the claimant is successful in their claim of UK legislation not being in accordance with that of EU law or conventions.

[Peterbard]

- in civil cases

 

 

Remaining articles above describe there is possibly a right to legal aid.

 

If someone can not afford to pay council tax, then surely the court should recognise that fact and act accordingly instead of rubber stamping a liability order.

 

If someone who can afford to pay council tax and decide not to pay it, then i believe they should go to prison as it is unfair on the rest of society.

 

Non payment of council tax is criminal? I read that criminal cases require legal aid.

 

This point is something which needs clearing up.

None payment of council tax is a civil offence not a criminal one. It is impossible in this country to be jailed for a civil offense, nor incidentally is there any committal to coerce payment this is also nonsense,

The debtor is committed not for none payment of the fine but for disregarding an order of the court, that is the criminal aspect and results in a jail sentence, no one has been imprisoned for debt since the middle of the 19 century(1869)