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

[p3t3r]

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)

 

hi, i think it was either you or someone else that cleared up my earlier misunderstanding of thinking that non payment of council tax is criminal, it is not.

 

The order of a court - ordering someone to pay council tax is fair enough and justified in the case of a person that has the ability to pay council tax but decides not to pay.

 

The order of a court - ordering someone to pay council tax is unfair and unjustified in the case of a person who does not have the ability to pay council tax and therefore can not pay. (my opinion).

 

For those people who have difficulty in paying, I am wondering whether it is possible for them to use EU / ECHR in relation to their council tax court cases based upon their rights to a fair trial under ECHR?

 

Also, for those people who have financial difficulties in paying the council tax, then it is my opinion that the councils actions of sending bailiffs to those people is also perverse, unjust and maladministration. Any person who can not pay council tax because they can not afford to pay council tax should have their case examined by court, possibly using income and expenditure. As far as I know, this doesn't happen. The people who can not pay are in my opinion vulnerable people. My reading this week shows that the LGO found maladministration occurred in the case of a council proceeding in council tax enforcement against a person suffering with mental health problems. (vulnerable). A person who is in financial difficulty and can't pay council tax is also in my opinion a vulnerable member of society.

 

For the people who can not pay, the actions taken against them with bailiffs etc are unjustified since it increases the debt.

 

Since a court does not examine the income and expenditure and the financial ability of the person to pay their debt, then this goes against the right to a fair trial.

 

 

I am trying to learn a lot over the last few days (plus my own personal thing in taking a company to court). I am trying to understand and am putting together my thoughts in this.

 

But all they are is just that, thoughts. I don't intend taking any action using EU or ECHR for my council tax as it would not be relevant to me, it would not apply to me. But I do feel that EU and ECHR would apply to vulnerable people - and my definition of vulnerable people includes those who are in financial difficulty and find it impossible to pay their council tax.

[Peterbard]

[quote=p3t3r;4711303

 

The order of a court - ordering someone to pay council tax is unfair and unjustified in the case of a person who does not have the ability to pay council tax and therefore can not pay. (my opinion).

 

?

 

Not only in your opinion but in law, see the council tax regs section 47 and the magistrates court act 1980 section 96 also the debt act section 4

[p3t3r]

dodgeball, you clearly know your stuff! thanks for trying to help me learn about this. last few days i have had information overload, so i will take a look at what you suggest another time.

 

but from what you write above seems to suggest that the court does take into account the persons ability to pay, if so, then that negates my opinion that EU and ECHR would apply in that instance, on the provision that the persons affordability to pay was done fairly.

[Peterbard]

To see if Dodgeball really does want to discuss it. It can't go 'off-topic' now!

 

This would be Mark wanting to debate with the adults, and proving he is not quite upto it. (again)

[Bailiff Advice]

dodgeball, you clearly know your stuff!

 

 

It is a subject that Dodgeball (and Fletch) are very knowledgeable about.

[p3t3r]

Not only in your opinion but in law, see the council tax regs section 47 and the magistrates court act 1980 section 96 also the debt act section 4

 

I still haven't had time to read them, though no reason to doubt you. That made me think that things are more fairer than they are, until I read a post like this one: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?443318-Council-tax-demand

 

There is not a lot of detail in that thread concerning liability orders, court hearings, complaints to council, but in extreme situations such as that thread, then it does not show a right to a fair trial. If the trial was fair it would have given consideration to the financial difficulty.

 

 

Also, this thread title is wrong! This thread isn't discussing Notice of Removal of Implied Right of Access. That has already been discussed here:

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/page13

 

This thread = council tax / eu / echr. There are already 3 different threads all discussing notice of implied right of access.

[ploddertom]

It is probably time to move on. After all Liability Orders etc have been going on for some 20+ years so would have imagined some of our more learned friends who deal with the law day in day out would have taken this on. Seems as if by the stony silence from the powers that be that nothing appears to be amiss.

[p3t3r]

It is probably time to move on. After all Liability Orders etc have been going on for some 20+ years so would have imagined some of our more learned friends who deal with the law day in day out would have taken this on. Seems as if by the stony silence from the powers that be that nothing appears to be amiss.

hi,

I don't understand most of your post.

 

It would appear that some of our more learned friends are discussing this and even quoting relevant law showing so far why EU and ECHR does not apply, since it is already within UK law. They are helping me to understand.

 

You are site team here, is it possible you can look at my previous post again? Hopefully you can change the title of thread? More importantly flag the link I gave in previous post for someone to help that poster? Shes made a plea from her heart, she needs expert advice which I can not give her.

 

It is for reasons as shown in the link in my last post that I am discussing this. If you want me to stop discussing this then as site team you can close thread and I can then discuss this on an alternative forum. The reason why I use CAG to discuss this is because I do a lot of reading and CAG does seem to be the best out of alternatives like MSE or LB etc. People help me learn in this thread, experts such as yourself. I try and help other people in their threads. So, I don't really understand why you say it is time to move on? Ultimately, the 'conclusion' from this thread will provide a solution for those people who have been ignored by any council, ombudsman, court, in their complaints, - negating their right to a fair trial possibly? A solution for people who have been affected by unjustice and / or maladministration.

 

btw - the other thread, I couldn't see how I took that off topic, i was wrong, i certainly did take it off topic, sorry about that again!

Edited March 24, 2015 by honeybee13
Modifying legal beaglles.

[ploddertom]

hi,

I don't understand most of your post.

 

It would appear that some of our more learned friends are discussing this and even quoting relevant law showing so far why EU and ECHR does not apply, since it is already within UK law. They are helping me to understand. By learned friends I mean those in the law profession and/or Judiciary.

 

You are site team here, is it possible you can look at my previous post again? Hopefully you can change the title of thread? More importantly flag the link I gave in previous post for someone to help that poster? Shes made a plea from her heart, she needs expert advice which I can not give her. Not sure which posts you mean, as for changing the title of this one then I see no need as it was set to discuss EU perspectives.

 

It is for reasons as shown in the link in my last post that I am discussing this. If you want me to stop discussing this then as site team you can close thread and I can then discuss this on an alternative forum. Whether you go somewhere else or not has to be your own decision, threads here do get closed and in the main for those who target them to cause disruption particularly those who use multiple user names. The reason why I use CAG to discuss this is because I do a lot of reading and CAG does seem to be the best out of alternatives like MSE or LB etc. People help me learn in this thread, experts such as yourself. I try and help other people in their threads. So, I don't really understand why you say it is time to move on? It is time to move on as there is nothing that proves the process is wrong, as said the Regulations surrounding this are more than 20 years old so would have thought if there was any merit in what is being said then it would have been done. Ultimately, the 'conclusion' from this thread will provide a solution for those people who have been ignored by any council, ombudsman, court, in their complaints, - negating their right to a fair trial possibly? A solution for people who have been affected by unjustice and / or maladministration.

 

btw - the other thread, I couldn't see how I took that off topic, i was wrong, i certainly did take it off topic, sorry about that again!

 

PT

[p3t3r]

hi,

Yes, I do realise what you meant by the term "learned friends"

 

As for changing title of thread, it was because the thread is discussing EU perspectives and not a "notice of implied rights of access" since that there appear to be 2 others threads discussing that and I see no reason to give those notices any credence. They are ineffective and some people believe they are effective against those people who have a legal right to be on the property.

 

The thread I linked to above, link here again: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?443318-Council-tax-demand

 

I am not targeting any thread to cause disruption.

 

Neither do I have multiple user names. I do have 2 other user names, neither of which has caused disruption. Previous user name used about a year ago, prior to that about 3 years ago. CAG site rules 7.4 in relation to user names!

 

As for you saying it is time to move on because there is nothing that proves the process wrong??? It was intended to be a discussion, neither right nor wrong, just a simple discussion to try and find solutions for those people who have been affected by what I believe to be injustice.

 

As for you saying that there is no merit in what is being discussed? With all respect to you, other members of site team, other cag members, in one of my threads in my previous user name, I was told constantly that I am SO WRONG, barking up the wrong tree, flogging a dead horse etc etc etc, some comments came from members, others from site team. Said thread was closed. The outcome of that thread was the governing body dealing with my complaint found out that I was infact not wrong. Thread was reopened again for discussion.

The outcome of that conclusion and the fact that I was not wrong probably surprised many people including site team who automatically assumed I am wrong. You are infact showing same here, automatically assuming I am wrong! Difference between here and the thread where I was shown to be right is here I am neither wrong nor right because it is a discussion.

Therefore, I can not possibly see how you can assume I am wrong!

 

I can not see why I am wrong here, I am neither wrong nor right. It was meant to be a discussion in order to find solutions.

 

Though as you suggest it is time to move on and suggest that I am wrong, - maybe I am! But until the discussion has reached its conclusion, then you can not correctly make that assumption.

 

Hopefully its conclusion will be that I am not wrong - similar to outcome of the governing body in another of my threads from a long time ago showing I was not wrong, despite many site team and members saying I was wrong.

[Peterbard]

I notice dome of the FMOTL posters are still pushing this dead horse, as well as the "pay the council direct nonsense.

I understand they now have produced a new notice to correspond with the current schedule 12 procedures, It goes along the lines of

 

Dear Mr EA

Do not call at this address as your implied right is w...., oh sorry you don't rely on that because there is implicit permission to attend in section 14 of the TCE.

Well anyway if you do you will be committing trespass, no sorry pesky schedule 12 section 66 . er well any way dont you dare come onto my property because you will be in big trouble. Oh and anyway i spent the money so you cant have it because of promissory Estoppel.

 

Impressive legal knowledge demonstrated as usual.

Edited July 25, 2015 by caro

[Peterbard]

Usual concise intelligent response

 

:lol:

Edited July 25, 2015 by caro

[Peterbard]

For those who still do not understand the procedure regarding council tax collection, the enabling process for the use of schedule 12 is an enactment, not the LO or a warrant, section 62 of the act and every informed publication available as well as common sense,.

A debt collector has no official remit to call at all he is instructed via s creditor not via a court process or enactment.

 

The two are completely different.

 

Frankly people giving advice who do not understand the basic difference between the two is somewhat scary.(although not surprising since one of the two thought that proceeds and goods where the same thing.

 

The EDIT is now branching out from misinterpreting bailiff law to completely missing the point on the common variety.

 

The serious point is that debtors should never under any circumstances confuse a debt collector with a bailiff, bailiffs are one way or another under the instruction of the legislative process, debt collectors are not.

Edited July 25, 2015 by caro

[Peterbard]

Paul by the way what is the excuse for talking rubbish now, or is it the same as always.

[Peterbard]

Richard, culpable neglect and willful refusal to repay both show a willingness to withhold payment, at least the author of the piece agrees with me that it does , so your opinion is not really worth much in the scheme of things.

 

Why you pick on minutiae instead of examining the main issue is beyond me, actually it isn't i was being polite, you Ami pote correct spelling because on the whole you do not understand the arguments, better just keeping quiet really.

[Peterbard]

[caro]

Is there some reason that this old chestnut has been raised again because it seems to me that it's been discussed and made very clear that there is nothing in this theory.

 

 

We have seen other sites argue otherwise and berate CAG and caggers for saying otherwise.

 

 

As it would appear that the recent posts above have no responses on CAG, unless there are compelling reasons to allow this thread to run, I intend to close it shortly.

[Peterbard]

Yes sorry caro just a resurgence of the nonsense all over the place originating form the usual suspects, i will say no more .

[caro]

Yes sorry caro just a resurgence of the nonsense all over the place originating form the usual suspects, i will say no more .

 

 

I thought that might be the case. In that case thread closed.

Edited July 25, 2015 by caro