Retaining Constitutional Rights Explained

legal letter to council tax

i am ask the meaning as layman

what equates to the "law" on council tax

the rates were abolished in *, - Council tax is a local taxation system with domestic rates.

so how doe srate lawfully apply

in law domestic property is not in fact rateable

can you see a way to rebut this letter: Further to your letter dated 7th August received 12th August * "This letter conveys, a thorough examination of the legislation exposing potential procedural improprieties and potential legal breaches, statutory instruments such as CTA & E, and VAO manuals which inform your asserted authority, have provided case law and comprehensive information. This deep dive has identified inconsistencies and potential breaches, warranting serious attention and rectification." Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent Notice of Conditional Acceptance *. I am compelled to express profound disquietude about your conduct, which appears potentially illicit and troubling. Your recent requisition for payment, issued on 7th August * and received on 12th August *, is particularly concerning. There is a notable lack of a valid Liability Order in the Magistrates' Court or County Court records, casting serious doubts on the lawfulness of the impending enforcement actions. It appears that we have fallen victim to dubious legal practices, marked by a striking absence of communication and transparency. The haste with which the bulk liability hearing seems to have been conducted, or "railroaded", is deeply unsettling. *. I draw your attention to the seminal cases of "R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [*]" and "Ridge v Baldwin [*]". These cases enshrine the principles of natural justice and due process, central tenets of English law.We have grave concern about your demand for payment without a valid bill and signature. This act not only breaches the principles of the Bills of Exchange Act * but also represents a procedural impropriety by Doncaster City Council and could potentially be considered malfeasance. This lack of due process is deeply concerning and unacceptable. We unequivocally view the order as null and void, and we maintain our right to robustly challenge it. I urge you to rectify these procedural inaccuracies immediately or face potential legal repercussions. *. I uphold that under English law, specifically referencing the Local Government Finance Act *, a 'dwelling' for Council Tax implications is perceived as any construction or portion thereof, operational or fit for habitation. It is crucial to underscore that this does not inherently correspond to 'houses', ‘Principle and only Home’, 'domestic property', 'living accommodation', 'private domestic property', or 'private domestic living accommodation'. The term 'dwellings' is employed without an explicit reference to the 'lawful definition' of one's residential premises. The Local Government Finance Act * markedly omits a pointed reference to the 'dwelling lawful definition' that corresponds to the individual types of property where one resides, instead directing to the (VOA) technical manual for assessing Council Tax Practice note *. *. I underscore the English judicial system's imperative for rigorous compliance with the following tenets: Liability Orders necessitate the 'court's seal' to be deemed valid. Absence of a Liability Order may render enforcement actions illegitimate, as substantiated by 'Nicholson v Tottenham Magistrates'. ‘Every individual case' requires a 'unique court case number' to uphold due process. All pertinent documents must be presented in court; non-compliance may nullify the case. The rulings of "R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [*]" and "Ridge v Baldwin [*]" are instrumental in explicating these principles. *. In adherence to Schedule * of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act * and the Taking Control of Goods Regulations *, there is alarming non-compliance evident from the lack of a supportive Liability Order within the Magistrates' or County Court records. We demand comprehensive details of the initial debt, the original creditor, date of transfer, and the identity of the new debt holder. Additionally, a copy of the case file presented to the court and the individual case number is required. *. Referenced Cases not limited to: *. John Leslie Head (Valuation Officer) v London Borough of Tower Hamlets, [*] RVR *. *. Thorburn v Sunderland City Council, [*] EWHC * (Admin). *. Bolsover District Council v Ashfield Nominees Ltd, [*] EWCA Civ *. *. North Somerset DC v Honda Motor Europe Ltd, [*] EWHC *. *. Regentford Ltd v Thanet DC, [*] EWHC * (Admin). *. Hakeem v Valuation Tribunal Service, [*] EWHC *. *. Hardy v Sefton MBC, [*] EWHC *. *. Martin & Ors v Hewitt (Valuation Officer), [*]. *. RGM Properties v Speight LO, [*]. *. Post Office v Nottingham City Council CA, *. *. Wilson v Coll LO, *. *. R v East Sussex Valuation Tribunal Ex p. Silverstone, * RVR *. *. Baker (VO) v Citibank LT, *. *. Council Tax Manual: practice notes updated: * July * The Valuation Office Agency's (VOA) technical manual for assessing domestic property for Council Tax. Practice note *: Definition of dwelling and basis of valuation for council tax: states, “If a property is removed from the council tax list because it has become a non-domestic property, it is no longer considered a ‘dwelling’ for council tax purposes”. When a property transitions from ‘non-domestic’ to ‘domestic’ use, it doesn't in fact immediately become a 'dwelling' for council tax purpose a) is it not the fact’ It first becomes ‘domestic property’. b) is it not the fact If this property undergoes improvements during its time as a domestic property, a new valuation is necessary. c) is it not the fact only when the property is added back to the ‘non-domestic’ list and meets the 'Dwelling' criteria for that list it is then and only then considered a 'new dwelling' and becomes ‘liable for council tax’ as a ‘dwelling’. In respect of the above definition, the following points are to be noted; *. *.* VOA Manual Points to note: (i) Hereditament is defined in Section *(*) of the General Rate Act * as being, “property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list”. It is case law, however, which tells us what this means in practice *. Hereditament in relation to CT was examined in the case RGM properties v Speight LO *. In paragraphs *-*, an analysis of the law was undertaken in relation to beneficial occupation. The authorities were examined and the practical definition linked to that expounded in Post Office v Nottingham City Council CA * in the answer to the question “as a matter of fact and degree, is or will the building, as a building, be ready for occupation, or capable of occupation, for the purposes for which it is intended?” *. In both the RGM case and Wilson v Coll LO *, the need to separate the ‘hereditament test’ as to whether an existing property is capable of reasonable repair, and the valuation assumptions to be applied once it was found that a hereditament existed, was emphasised. *. In R v East Sussex Valuation Tribunal Ex p. Silverstone * RVR *, it was confirmed that where two separate dwellings are converted into a single unit, a new dwelling comes into existence. *. The case of Baker (VO) v Citibank LT * confirmed the principle that a change in the boundaries of a hereditament created a new hereditament. It follows from this that where a dwelling either acquires or disposes of land, to add or subtract from its boundaries (that is not merely de minimis in extent), a new dwelling will have been created in each case. In these circumstances a relevant transaction is not necessary to trigger a band review where material increases have taken place. *. A dwelling which is removed from the list because it becomes non-domestic property will cease to be a dwelling. If subsequently it becomes ‘domestic property’ again and qualifies as a ‘dwelling’ it will be treated as a new dwelling when brought back into a CT non-domestic list. Any improvements which may have occurred will be taken into account as part of the new dwelling. *. If evidence is not presented within 14 days, your services are legally regarded as a gratuitous act. Non-compliance breaches my peace. Recognise this as a formal NOTICE and a prelude to legal proceedings. If your claim lacks legal substance, a compulsory withdrawal confirmation is required. Consider the legal implications if this case advances to the High Court. The amounts deducted from me under the 'dwelling' pretext could potentially be fraudulent and malfeasance. Public exposure may facilitate resolution. It's crucial for Scott Fawcus, Head of Legal Services, to handle this issue to prevent potential legal consequences.