The PeaceKeepers organization is making significant strides in empowering individuals to challenge unlawful enforcement actions by demanding transparency and accountability from judicial officers and authorities. Central to this strategy is the insistence on perfected liability orders, a concept that strikes at the heart of how official judgments are made and enforced.
The Imperative of Perfected Liability Orders
A “perfected liability order” is a written, publicly enforceable judgment from a magistrates’ court, detailing the names of the decision-makers (magistrates and legal advisors). The PeaceKeepers assert that without such a perfected order, any verbal or “extemporal” orders lack finality in judgment and cannot be lawfully enforced. This stance is rooted in the open justice principle, which grants individuals the right to a written decision and its explanation.
This critical point has already seen success, with county courts issuing orders questioning council evidence and directing magistrates’ courts to produce orders with the names of the decision-makers. This reinforces the “Leighton,” “Sharon’s,” and “Kofa” judgments, which highlight that council paperwork alone does not constitute a court order in accordance with council tax and enforcement regulations. The clear message is: no perfected order, no enforcement. This strategy aims to resolve a long-standing issue concerning liability orders that dates back to 2003.
Challenging Enforcement Agents and Agencies
The PeaceKeepers have updated their enforcement notices to address a recent claim by enforcement agencies like Bristow and Sutor that they are not “enforcement agents” under the Tribunal and Courts Act 2007, Schedule 12. This claim creates a significant problem for these agencies, as it implies they cannot lawfully correspond with individuals regarding enforcement. The updated notice challenges them to clarify if they are acting as a “related party” for accepting liability under Schedule 12. If they continue to communicate without doing so, their actions could be deemed harassment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and an attempt to steal property. This applies to all forms of enforcement, including parking fines and council tax.
Unpacking Specific Enforcement Challenges
The PeaceKeepers are also tackling various specific enforcement mechanisms:
- Attachment of Earnings Orders: These orders are being challenged on the grounds that they require an underlying perfected liability order to meet statutory requirements. Without it, the council or authority lacks the legal basis to issue such an order.
- Charging Orders (via the CNBC): The use of the Civil National Business Centre (CNBC) for charging orders is deemed problematic. Firstly, regulations dictate that applications should be made to local county courts, not the CNBC. Secondly, the 2018 “Power” judgment suggests that enforcement must align with statutory powers, potentially rendering Civil Procedure Rules 73 ultra vires. Crucially, as these orders are often made by non-judicial officers (court officers or legal advisors) without sitting justices’ names, they are argued not to be legitimate court orders, rendering the entire CNBC process “unconstitutional.”
- Bankruptcy Petitions and Committal for Prison: Both of these severe enforcement actions require a minimum debt (e.g., £5,000 for bankruptcy) and, more importantly, a lawful underlying order from the magistrates’ court. Without a perfected order, any progression of these actions or even applications for committal are considered unlawful, as there is no lawful authority for enforcement.
Holding Judicial Officers Accountable
The broader strategy aims to force courts to produce the necessary orders and, crucially, to hold judicial officers accountable for their actions. The Courts Act 2003, specifically Sections 30 and 31, provides a powerful tool. While justices of the peace have immunity for acts within their jurisdiction, they can be held liable if they act beyond their jurisdiction or in “bad faith”—meaning they fail to perform their duties once informed of them. This applies equally to legal advisors and, significantly, to all judges, from county courts upwards. The “Tracy and Norman’s open justice order” appeal, though lost, confirmed the remedy of suing magistrates. The Courts Act 2003 statutorily affirms the common law right to remedy under the rules of equity, setting a precedent for holding judges accountable for keeping “government revenue scams” going.
The PeaceKeepers‘ approach is about making it clear that no council tax enforcement is lawful without a perfected liability order that includes the magistrates’ names, going beyond a mere certified extract of proceedings. This strategy aims to bring accountability to those in power and uphold the rule of law.
You are not alone. Join hundreds of fellow PeaceKeepers in our official Telegram chat to discuss these ideas, ask questions, and share what you’ve learned. Connect with the community now at: https://t.me/+dYtCEN_127o0MDY8