Council Tax Responses 2022 How To Destroy The Councils
This is a summary of the responses to see the variation of different councils from total disregard through to reasonable attempts to address the questions which simply boil down to:
- Under the Courts own rules, until someone can bring the creator (who / whatever that may be to each individual) into a court to provide first hand cross examinable witness testimony that:
- one person has more authority than another and hence can impose their will upon another, or
- One person is more entitled to more of the creators creations than another,
THEN LOGIC AND REASON MAKE IT SELF EVIDENCE THAT:
All are equal under the law, and No one is above the law...
THEREFORE no one has authority to knowingly cause another harm... and we all have the right to self defence...
It is clear there is a fundamental lack of understanding of governance...
It is clear people simply follow order and fail to apply their minds in breach of their duty of care to one another...
It is clear people would rather cause harm than do the right thing...
The lessons from World War II clearly were not learned so humanity has the choice to learn those lessons or will have to go through the lesson more harshly so it is learned...
ORDER FOLLOWING IS NOT LAWFUL EXCUSE
THE IRRATIONALITY OF THE CONCEPT OF PARLIAMENTARY SOVEREIGNTY...
The creation (Parliament Assembled and HM Government) by impossibility cannot have more authority than its creators (the people).
First in time, first in line - people came before parliament
Basic Principle / agency law: How is it 650 MP's who claim to represent the people and hence admit being agents of the people think they can create duties rights and obligation on their principles, the people...
There would be no need for any judiciary, let alone an independent judiciary....
The concept is simply a dictatorship - where previously the King was the dictator, and now Parliament is the dictator...
COMMON THEMES - THEIR CLAIM
In our notices we have stated we are aware of their believed right to make their demands, so once they have admitted that it creates common ground and is not disputed:
The Local Government Finance Act 1992 ("LGFA1992") creates legal duties, rights and obligations to its contracting parties and their agents (from legislation by the legislature - Parliament Assembled, and ) as follows:
- §1 Each 'billing authority' (the Council as Agents of Parliament Assembled) shall levy and collect a tax (what gives them the belief that they have the lawful right to do so? - this is what we are asking - prove my obligation, and do they have any legal or equitable interest in the properties? - This needs to be asked), which shall be payable in respect of 'dwellings' (however the Secretary of State so chooses to define that in §3 and §4) in accordance with the valuation band the property falls into under §5.
- As equity is about what is fair and just (lawfully this is expressed as there must be a legitimate aim, all reasonable options must be evaluated, and the one which least imposes must be the chosen option to determine proportionality). The obvious problem with the valuation bands is Council Tax proportionate to the value of properties on an individual basis... i.e. are demands made for CT in proportion to property values. namely is a demand made for a property which is worth twice as much as another twice as much? If not then the basis of CT cannot be rational, but is one based upon privilege, and hence is unlawful (Statute of Monopolies 1623).
- §6 to 8 are the claims as to who is liable to pay the CT for a property they live in... For this to stand there must be a lawful basis... if Parliament Assembled nor the Council have no interest in the property how can they lawfully demand CT from anyone living there as we all have the right to an equal share of the creators creations which means we all have a right to shelter, food, air and water. Accordingly we all the right of self defence if no one else has a claim to property to claim it as ours to fulfill our rights of survival!
- Rationally if no individual can cause another harm (create duties, rights or obligations without their consent), it is then an impossibility that 650 MP's together can cause any individual harm!!!
The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 ("CTAER1992") prescribe the detail of the procedures of how the Councils must implement the will of Parliament Assembled and HM Government...
This is their starting position, and all have returned to this as all evidence to answer our question prove my obligation is easily rebuttable:
- in legislation (as the LGFA1992 is beyond the authority of those governing expressed in their founding authority), and
- in case law, and
- by self evident truths applying observation, logic and reason!!!
A LINK TO COMMENTARY RESPONSE TO ALL THE POINTS IS AFTER THE REPLIES FROM THE COUNCILS...
Full Range of Councils Responses
Responses with new substance will be added but this is full range of responses upto 11/06/2022
Dear Ms ,
Further to your email dated 8 May 2022 and my email dated 29 April 2022, the Council’s position is that your so called “warning notice” is of no legal effect and does not disclose a valid defence to the Council’s claim against you in respect of non-payment of your Council tax bill. The Council will apply to the Magistrates Court and seek a liability order in respect of the amount of Council tax which you have a statutory obligation to pay to the Council.
The Council will not be responding to any further warning or caution notices from you in respect of this claim for Council tax arrears as they have no legal effect and they disclose no valid legal defence to your liability to pay Council tax. The Council will be contacting you in due course regarding its application for a liability order to the Magistrates Court in respect of your Council tax liability and thereafter, enforcement of such payment.
Peter Cosgrove (he/him)
Head of Revenue and Debt
Customer Service and Digital Directorate
Advance notice of leave: Friday 3 June to Monday 13 June inclusive.
- Notice of no legal effect...
- no valid defence of Councils claim...
- 'Statutory obligation
- Will not correspond further
Thanet District Council
Dear Miss ,
Thank you for your caution notice.
However, there is no provision in the UK to ‘opt out’ or avoid ‘opting in’ to statute law and common law as it is understood and interpreted by the courts, which would include taxation.
Whilst I am very happy to correspond with you on topics relating to data protection and freedom of information within my remit at the Council, further communications on such 'Freeman on the Land' subjects will be deemed vexatious.
I therefore kindly suggest you desist in this debt management approach.
If you have difficulties in paying your Council Tax bill, please contact the Council Tax team as soon as possible to discuss your options: https://www.thanet.gov.uk/services/payment-difficulties/
Catherine Curtis LLM MSc | Information Governance and Equalities Manager
Thanet District Council | Cecil Street | Margate | Kent CT9 1XZ
- no opt out to statute law and common law
- freeman of the land deemed vexatious
From: Swindon Council Tax <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022, 3:43 pm
Subject: RE: Council Tax Bill : 2022/23: 770789028622 dated 09.03.22 & 5.4.22
Capita Secure SMTP Gateway
Dear Ms ,
Thank you for your email.
There is no contract to the billing of council tax is not a commercial agreement between parties it is a tax that is charged on all domestic properties to the owner/occupier depending on who is occupying the property.
Your account is currently £361.51 in arrears and the next stage would be a Summons being issued which means costs will also be applied to your account.
Council Tax Officer
From: Swindon Council Tax <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022, 12:58 pm
Subject: RE: Council Tax Bill : 2022/23: 770789028622 dated 09.03.22 & 5.4.22
Capita Secure SMTP Gateway
Dear Ms ,
I refer to your email below and I can advise that under the Council Tax regulations, as occupier, tenant or owner of the property, you are liable for Council Tax and the Council does not have to provide further evidence of this if you remain so.
If you are having difficulty making payment and only receive a low income you can apply for Council Tax support via the following link:
any discounts you may be entitled to can be found via the following link:
I hope this clarifies the situation.
Council Tax Department
- no contract
- liable for occupying the creators creations - source of shelter, air, water and food.
- do not need to prove anything = order following
North Somerset Council
Dear Mr & Mrs ,
Council Tax was introduced by The Local Government Finance Act 1992 and is supported by secondary legislation The Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement) Regulations 1992.
You have a lawful obligation to pay Council Tax; your liability to pay is not a contractual agreement, it is a statutory charge. If you wish to dispute the legalities of this matter further, I would strongly suggest that you seek independent legal advice where clarification of the law can be obtained. I must advise you that until such a time that the law is changed, North Somerset Council will continue to carry out its duty in collecting the tax in accordance with the law.
Revenues Technician & Court Officer
T: 01934 888144
- lawful obligation (arising out of LGFA1992 which is legislation)
- Legal advice can clarify law
- ... duty to collect tax according to law...
For all the latest coronavirus and council news, sign up to our monthly email newsletter: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/newsalerts
East Pallant House opening hours: 9am-4pm Monday to Friday
Dear Sir / Madam,
Council Tax General Advice re A/c 33003434
Thank you for your email of 25th 2022.
The Council receives letters indicating that people do not consider they should pay council tax on what are put forwards as legal grounds fairly often. These letters typically rely upon websites that provide what the courts have called “pseudo-legal” theories. Sadly from my own direct experience as a litigator at Court dealing with such cases, people using such theories have been exposed to significant costs and risk of imprisonment for trying to apply them by the Courts so I would strongly recommend you seek independent legal advice before attempting to do so in relation to any proceedings issued by the Council against you for Council tax arrears.
I am afraid that the points you make in your letter appear to come from a similar base. Your reference to the Coronation Oath Act 1688 is part of the “glorious revolution” and the balancing of rights of Parliament. The statute you quote had effects upon what it termed “dominions”, that is other lands which this country ruled as part of its then Empire. The Act does not affect the role of Parliament and statute in any way worse for the argument you raise, the act was largely repealed and replaced by the Statute of Westminster in 1937 to change George VI’s oath into the modern form.
Following the English Civil War and the establishment of Privy Council’s modern powers, it has been a principle of our law that the Crown prerogative powers are superseded by and inferior to Parliamentary, statutory, authority. This is the reason for the black rod ceremony when he monarch has the door closed in her face – an acknowledgement of the priority of Parliament following the War. This is a school of law rooted in the Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74 and related cases settling provisions of the Bill of rights which prohibit prerogative suspension or dispending with statutes by the Crown.
To answer your request to provide proof within 7 days – a period I do not recognise as legal but with which this letter complies the obligation against you is that of the legislation quoted by yourself and referred to in the Council’s correspondence, the Council Tax (administration and Enforcement) regulations 1992 – with all associated legislation as to Council tax.
Incidentally – you raise a case known as R v Howell – that does not form a legal authority for fraudulent misrepresentation, but in fact deals with the definition of anticipated breach of the peace. The case deals with police powers, not what you suggest it does in your email.
You go on to mention the pre-action protocol for debt. This does not apply to Council tax debt, which has its own enforcement powers through the Magistrates Court unlike the protocol which relates to the civil courts (County typically). The Council tax process through the Magistrates Court includes imprisonment powers as well as additional cost powers under that Courts general powers through the Magistrates Courts Acts. What it does not do is require the Council to comply with irrelevant legal obligations relating to the pre action protocol for debt.
I hope this is helpful to you, but my strongest encouragement is to liaise with the Council tax department who are ready to help you with the arrears in question and support you in how to deal with them. They, along with perhaps the Citizens Advice team also located in the Council offices, will be a far better route of sorting these issues than using the pseudo-legal arguments you make. Legal advice taken from unqualified legal web sites or similar suggesting legal “magic bullets” should be treated with appropriate suspicion I would suggest compared with the independent informed advice you can get from the Citizens advice and Council tax support teams. I have asked my colleagues in Council tax to contact you separately to advise what help is available to you.
Nick Bennett (Solicitor)
Legal and Democratic Services Manager"
Clearly the person has shown the respect and has taken time to read the submissions - Thanks you Nick!
'pseudo legal theories'
risk of imprisonment
Coronation Oath Act 1688 is part of the “glorious revolution” and the balancing of rights of Parliament.
The Act does not affect the role of Parliament and statute in any way
the act was largely repealed and replaced
establishment of Privy Council’s modern powers, it has been a principle of our law that the Crown prerogative powers are superseded by and inferior to Parliamentary, statutory, authority.
Case of Proclamations (1610) 12 Co Rep 74
Bill of rights which prohibit prerogative suspension or dispending with statutes by the Crown
R v Howell – that does not form a legal authority for fraudulent misrepresentation,
pre-action protocol for debt.
Council tax debt, which has its own enforcement powers through the Magistrates Court
Magistrates Court includes imprisonment powers
Chichester District Council
From: Nicholas Bennett <email@example.com>
Subject: RE: Urgent Action Re Council Tax Reminder Notice dated 20/05/22 (your ref: NB/003013)
Date: 7 June 2022 at 16:41:05 BST
Dear Ms ,
Thank you for your letter which I read with interest.
If you are seeking "evidence" as you say below, can I direct you to use the normal Court disclosure routes and not freedom of information which is expressly not intended for that purpose (see the relevant exemptions at section 30 and 31 of that act)
I don’t believe a point by point response to your arguments is reasonably within the Council's obligations as a "business as usual" enquiry, nor do I think it is covered by the Freedom of Information duties as explained above. I am also concerned that it might well be prejudicial to the Council - or yourself - if you were to make representations to the Court on the Council tax matter you wrote to the Council about.
I think that your correspondence is moving to a point where you are in fact looking to debate legal points rather than carry out requests under the information legislation so it would appear proper for me to politely ask that if you wish to raise points of legal dispute you do so through the Court via Judicial review or otherwise. I maintain that the Council is acting properly and within lawful powers on the Council Tax reminder of 20/05/2022 and otherwise in that function.
As explained in my previous letter the Council position is clear that the role of the Council is as an enforcement body under the Council tax legislation and not by way of contractual or similar extra-legislative agreement nor do I believe there is any requirement so to do.
I imagine from your letter and email below that you wish to maintain a different position - that of course is your right though as I explained again in my letter, my experience of that at Court when others have attempted the same and similar arguments is that the Courts did not accept them but it is a matter for you ultimately and I can offer no more than my thoughts and suggestions to you as I have done.
I note your advice that you have received no other correspondence from the Council.
Can I also ask that further correspondence from you is directed to myself and not to the other several persons above to avoid duplication of work by the officers in question, all of whom are working hard for the community. I will do my very best to assist and of course will undertake to direct relevant enquiries as needed this end. I would be very grateful if you could do so.
Nicholas Bennett (Solicitor)
Chichester District Council
Ext: 34657 | Tel: 01243534657 | firstname.lastname@example.org | Fax: 01243776766
- court disclosure as responses may prejudice parties (the council as the respondent cannot be prejudiced as they can only get information which will help their defence!)
- Council follows orders and the lawfulness of those orders could be challenged by judicial review or other means.
- Council is merely enforcement agent of Parliament Assembled and HM Government.
- Not contractual or by agreement
St Albans District Council
On 7 Jun 2022, at 16:32, Council Tax Recovery (SADC) <CouncilTaxRecovery@stalbans.gov.uk> wrote:
From: St Albans District Council - Recovery Section
Council Tax Reference: 62758256
Our Reference: Mrs B
Date: 7th June 2022
Dear Mr and Mrs ,
Please be advised that there is a Magistrates court session booked for St Albans City & District Council tomorrow at St Albans Magistrates Court at 3pm as set out on the summons document received..
You are not required to attend unless you wish to address the Magistrates regarding your defence for non payment. There are only a few defences against the issue of a Liability Order and they were listed on the back of your summons. None of what you have attached is a valid and recognised defence. However, should you wish to address the bench personally you are entitled to do so.
We issue demands for payment in accordance with The Local Government Finance Act of 1992, as amended by The Local Government Finance Act of 2003, the Localism Act 2011 and the Local Government Finance Act 2012.
Council Tax is payable on any dwelling which is not exempt. Please check our website for details of any exemptions. Properties upon which the tax must be paid are referred to as the chargeable dwelling. It is not contingent upon a person’s consent or the existence of a contractual relationship with the council. This is a statute created by a democratically elected Parliament of the United Kingdom which has received the assent of the Crown. Any assertion that a person is required to consent or to enter into a contract with the Council and this precludes their liability to pay Council Tax is incorrect in law and there is no legal basis upon which to make such an argument.
As the owner of this F banded property since 1st October 2021, you are liable for the Council Tax charge and have been issued demands for payment accordingly.
If you are not resident and have tenants in the property, then you are required to inform us and provide a signed tenancy agreement. The account will be apportioned accordingly in this instance.New demands and liability will be passed to your tenants.
We issued a demand for payment of the 2021 charge for the period 1/10/21 to 31/3/22, after doing a Land Registry Search to identify the owners of the property. As this was not paid as demanded we issued a reminder for non-payment on 21/4/2022. Both of which I have attached to this email for your reference.
All documents are served under Regulation 17, and in accordance with, Section 233 of the Local Government Act and with Section 7 of the Interpretations Act of 1978 which allows service by post and deems proof of posting as proof of delivery in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.
As this was not paid, we issued a summons for non-payment. This was issued correctly and is payable under the Council Tax (Administration & Enforcement Regulations) of 1992.
The summons laid out the hearing date and time and what must be paid in order to stop the hearing taking place (£1472.94). Alternatively it also advises what you can do if you cannot pay the sum in full.
This is not a criminal case but a civil one and the Liability Order does not affect your credit rating and is not held on your financial history. However, should you fail to engage in either paying in full or paying as per the repayment plan set out on the summons, we do have the power to enforce that order in a bid to recover monies owing.
I should add for your information, that you are currently in arrears of the current year by £877.85 to date. In addition to that, you have also been issued a further reminder for the current year and therefore if they are not paid within the next 14 days you will likely receive a further summons for non payment again.
I trust this has confirmed what is now taking place and what your options are from here.
Mrs B Bartmeier
Revenues Collection Team Leader
- they dictate reasons it they want to let you off
- do not accept any other defence
- tax must be paid to live - shelter, air, water and food
- not contingent on consent
- not contingent on contract
- implies democratically elected can impose their will on anybody they so choose
- Not criminal matter - Civil
- Does not effect credit rating
- not held on your financial history
Date: 21 April 2022
By email only
Re: Council Tax Liability
Thank you for your recent correspondence in relation to your liability to pay Council Tax. As per my previous correspondence of 06 April 2022 the legal position you are stating is incorrect.
Your statements do not set out any structured legal arguments. You appear to be suggesting that consent in required by you for Council Tax to be payable.
Council Tax was created by Parliament through legal statute and liability for this arises under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and subsequent regulations. The tax is payable and by whoever is the liable party, which is determined by reference to the legislation mentioned above.
There is no legal principle that you are required to consent before being bound by the laws made by Parliament. The arguments you have made are what was referred to in the case of Meads v Meads by the judge as “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants”, or “OPCA”, due to a common thread of the arguments made by these litigants all being of a similar nature specifically that in order to be bound by the law, you have to explicitly agree to it, akin to entering a commercial contract.
The principle underpinning our constitution is that Parliament is sovereign, which can make or unmake any law it wishes (see, among other sources, the Bill of Rights 1688/9, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Claim of Right Act 1689 (Scotland), the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707.) If any law of Parliament could be defeated just by saying I do not consent this would defeat any laws passed by Parliament.
Whether you are of free body, god made or any of the other superlatives that you use your consent is not required to be subject to Acts of Parliament as set out above.
Maldon District Council does not recognise the “notices” that you have provided. These have no legal basis and indeed the website they have been copied from advised you to seek your own legal advice.
You also appear to have misunderstood the term common law. Common law is the development of the law by the higher courts; it fills the gaps between legislation made by Parliament. Parliament is sovereign, meaning that legislation enacted by Parliament takes precedence over previous court decisions (common law), and courts are required to interpret existing common law principles consistently with legislation.
Your statements in relation to pre-action protocols appear to confuse the law relating to contracts and alleged rights under common law with the legislation relating to Council Tax. Your liability for Council Tax arises under the Local Government Finance Act 1992 and the subsequent regulations. It is not contingent upon either your consent or the existence of a contractual relationship with the Council. Your assertion that the absence of consent or a contract precludes your liability to Council Tax is incorrect in law and there is no legal basis upon which to make such an argument.
Further to my previous correspondence I again must state that as an occupier of the property you are liable for Council Tax. You advised the Council of your occupation of …………… on 16 September 2019. As the party in occupation, you meet the requirements of s6 of the Local Government Finance Regulation’s and are therefore liable for Council Tax as part of these regulations.
The Council will proceed against any party for non-payment of Council Tax if it remains unpaid. You will have the opportunity to place any argument before the Court should you wish. I would however strongly urge you to seek legal advice prior to such a hearing.
The Council has clearly set out the legislative grounds on which your liability arises on 2 occasions. It does not intend to enter into any further correspondence on this matter. I would strongly suggest you seek legal advice on this matter before taking any action.
Emma Holmes (Mrs) ACILEX
Senior Specialist Legal
- not set out any structured legal arguments.
- payable and by whoever is the liable party, which is determined by reference to the legislation
- arguments you have made are what was referred to in the case of Meads v Meads by the judge as “Organised Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants”, or “OPCA” ...to be bound by the law, you have to explicitly agree to it, akin to entering a commercial contract.
- principle underpinning our constitution is that Parliament is sovereign, which can make or unmake any law it wishes meaning that legislation enacted by Parliament takes precedence over previous court decisions (common law),
- courts are required to interpret existing common law principles consistently with legislation.
- If any law of Parliament could be defeated just by saying I do not consent this would defeat any laws passed by Parliament.
- Whether you are of free body, god made or any of the other superlatives that you use your consent is not required to be subject to Acts of Parliament as set out above.
- the Bill of Rights 1688/9, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Claim of Right Act 1689 (Scotland), the Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707.
- does not recognise the “notices” - they have no legal basis
- misunderstood the term common law. Common law is the development of the law by the higher courts; it fills the gaps between legislation made by Parliament...
- pre-action protocols appear to confuse the law relating to contracts and alleged rights under common law with the legislation relating to Council Tax.
- assertion that the absence of consent or a contract precludes your liability to Council Tax is incorrect in law and there is no legal basis upon
- as an occupier of the property you are liable