TRY ME!
Unlawful Council Tax Demand
Ask Your Question For FreeSummary
Demanding council tax without a lawful liability order in England is illegal. Such actions could be seen as harassment or a breach of peace, leading to legal consequences. Always consult a legal professional for advice specific to your circumstances.Full Conversation
uk
Hello, it seems there might be an unlawful demand for council tax payment. In England:
- It's illegal to demand council tax without a lawful liability order.
- Such demands could be seen as harassment or a breach of peace.
Always seek legal advice for your situation.
- It's illegal to demand council tax without a lawful liability order.
- Such demands could be seen as harassment or a breach of peace.
Always seek legal advice for your situation.
rewrite as a senior barrister
As a senior barrister, I must inform you that in England, the demand for council tax without a lawful liability order is prohibited. This type of action can potentially be construed as harassment or breach of the peace. I strongly encourage you to seek legal advice tailored to your circumstances.
please rewrite as a letter of harassments as this letter has been ignored: Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent
Notice of Conditional Acceptance
Further to your letter dated 7th August received 12th August *
It appears we have been subjected to questionable legal practices. Notably, there is an unaccountable absence of a tangible Liability Order from the Magistrates Court records throwing into question the legitimacy of the threatened enforcement actions.
*. This lack of communication and transparency, where it appears that the bulk liability hearing was rushed or "railroaded", is deeply distressing.
*. We draw your attention to the pivotal cases of "R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [*]" and "Ridge v Baldwin [*]", which uphold the principles of natural justice and due process in 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.
*. In English law, the Local Government Finance Act * defines a 'dwelling' for Council Tax purposes. It includes any building or part of a building used or suitable for use as a dwelling. This does not in fact equate to 'houses', 'domestic property', 'living accommodation', 'private domestic property', or 'private domestic living accommodation', the term 'dwellings' is used, without in fact referring to the ‘lawful definition’ of the property one resides in, and the local government finance act * in fact makes no reference to the ‘dwelling lawful definition’ being such definition of the noted individual definition of the types of property were one resides.
*. In England, the judicial system mandates strict adherence to the following principles:
*. Liability Orders must possess the 'court's seal' for validity.
*. Without a Liability Order, enforcement actions may not be legitimate, as established in 'Nicholson v Tottenham Magistrates'.
*. ‘Each individual case’ must receive a 'unique court case number' to ensure due process.
*. All relevant documents must be court-presented; failure to comply may render the case null and void. The cases "R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [*]" and "Ridge v Baldwin [*]" are critical in understanding these principles.
*. Compliance with Schedule * of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act * & Taking Control of Goods Regulations *. We raise serious concerns regarding the absence of a corroborating Liability Order within Magistrates' or County Court records. I require full details on the original debt, creditor, transfer date, and new debt holder's identity, and a copy of the case file laid before the court and the individual case number.
Case references:
*. - 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) [*]
*. - National Provincial Bank v Ainsworth [*]
*. - R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [*]
*. - Ridge v Baldwin [*]
*. In absence of this evidence within 14 days, the services you offer can only be legally recognised as a gift. A failure to provide a complete response results in a breach of my peace.
*. If your claim lacks lawful authority, I require your confirmation of withdrawal.
*. I strongly urge you to secure legal counsel immediately to properly address this matter and avert any possible legal repercussions.
Subject: Urgent Attention Required: Notice of Harassment and Unlawful Practices
Dear [Recipient],
I write to express my deep concern over your conduct, which I deem to be potentially unlawful and distressing. Your recent demand for payment, dated 7th August * and received on 12th August *, lacks an accompanying Liability Order from the Magistrates Court, thereby questioning the legitimacy of your enforcement actions.
Please note the following:
*. The absence of transparency and communication is alarming, especially considering the rushed nature of the bulk liability hearing.
*. I refer you to the cases of "R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [*]" and "Ridge v Baldwin [*]", which uphold due process and natural justice principles under English law.
*. Your demand for payment lacks a valid invoice and signature, breaching the Bills of Exchange Act *. This procedural impropriety by the authorities potentially constitutes malfeasance.
*. The Local Government Finance Act * defines 'dwelling' for Council Tax purposes differently from common usage. This discrepancy raises questions about your claim.
*. English law mandates the following:
- Liability Orders must bear the court's seal.
Dear [Recipient],
I write to express my deep concern over your conduct, which I deem to be potentially unlawful and distressing. Your recent demand for payment, dated 7th August * and received on 12th August *, lacks an accompanying Liability Order from the Magistrates Court, thereby questioning the legitimacy of your enforcement actions.
Please note the following:
*. The absence of transparency and communication is alarming, especially considering the rushed nature of the bulk liability hearing.
*. I refer you to the cases of "R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Doody [*]" and "Ridge v Baldwin [*]", which uphold due process and natural justice principles under English law.
*. Your demand for payment lacks a valid invoice and signature, breaching the Bills of Exchange Act *. This procedural impropriety by the authorities potentially constitutes malfeasance.
*. The Local Government Finance Act * defines 'dwelling' for Council Tax purposes differently from common usage. This discrepancy raises questions about your claim.
*. English law mandates the following:
- Liability Orders must bear the court's seal.
more
- Each case must have a unique court case number.
- All relevant documents must be presented in court.
*. Your compliance with Schedule * of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act * & Taking Control of Goods Regulations * is questionable without a corroborating Liability Order.
*. If evidence is not provided within 14 days, your services will be legally recognised as a gift.
*. If your claim lacks lawful authority, please confirm its withdrawal.
*. I strongly recommend you seek legal counsel to address this matter and avoid potential legal repercussions.
Yours sincerely, [Your name]
- All relevant documents must be presented in court.
*. Your compliance with Schedule * of the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act * & Taking Control of Goods Regulations * is questionable without a corroborating Liability Order.
*. If evidence is not provided within 14 days, your services will be legally recognised as a gift.
*. If your claim lacks lawful authority, please confirm its withdrawal.
*. I strongly recommend you seek legal counsel to address this matter and avoid potential legal repercussions.
Yours sincerely, [Your name]