The council states that a tax is payable by every household, and there are certain ways that the council enforce this tax. Most of the time, they use fear and intimidation to get us to “cough up.” I’m now at a stage in my life where I can barely afford my rent, so the Council is getting nothing. Their literature includes threats of imprisonment, charging orders, and bankruptcy should I not pay up. Is this the only way that the council can get us to pay up is to make threats. What happened to please and thank you.
I’ve been doing a little research behind the scenes and the council issues their own summonses. Many thousands of people do not pay their council tax. Much of the time, people just don’t have the money to pay an extortionate tax. Court summons are also another way to extract unlawful monies from thousands of people, when it is costing the council only a couple of pounds to issue the bloody summons.
The process the council use to issue court summons is called passing off. When the individuals miss their due date, or fail to pay their council tax, the council ring up the court stating that a certain number of summons must be issued. What the court then does is to give the council a due date and time to put on the summons notice, so the council invite non payers of council tax to a bulk hearing.
Bury Magistrates court actually confirmed to me that the council send out the summons, and a room is hired on the day whereby a council representative sees the individual. They said it is perfectly legal, so why are councils charging their customers £75.00 for the summons. There is no chance of a person winning against this private hearing. Imagine how much money the council can extract from several hundred people by charging them £75.00 per time, when it costs only a couple of pound to issue the court summons. I have issued a Freedom of Information request to ascertain how much this process costs. I am wrong, it is £96.00 they charged me.
It is physically impossible for the court to sift through hundreds of non payment of council tax cases, but a summons must be authorised by a justice of the peace of clerk to the justices, and whoever’s signature appears on the summons must have personally considered the complaint. I don’t imagine that a court adjudicator looks through each case personally. I smell a rat. The court is getting paid, and so are the council. I now have evidence of the court summons and liability orders, and the signature of the clerk of the justices is photocopied. No wet ink signature. No personal consideration of the complaint.
When I didn’t turn up at the summons, a liability order was apparently issued, according to the council.
Local Government Finance Act 1992 Section 4 Enforcement Section 3(b) the magistrates’ court shall make the order if it is satisfied that the sum has become payable by the person concerned and has not been paid.
So why did Nigel at Bury Magistrates court confirm on Monday 11 February 2013, that the court had not issued a liability order against my name? Is the council yet again telling porkies? Surely a liability order would show up against my name, but there was no summons and no liability order. The council issue their own liability order with a photocopy of the clerk of the justice’s signature, and they believe this to be legal?
Just by making us believe that a court sends out a summons is perjury, Section 12 (1)(a)(b) of Perjury Act 1911.
12 Form of indictment.
(1) In an indictment—
(a) for making any false statement or false representation punishable under this Act; or
b) for unlawfully, wilfully, falsely, fraudulently, deceitfully, maliciously, or corruptly taking, making, signing, or subscribing any oath, affirmation, solemn declaration, statutory declaration, affidavit, deposition, notice, certificate, or other writing,
it is sufficient to set forth the substance of the offence charged, and before which court or person (if any) the offence was committed without setting forth the proceedings or any part of the proceedings in the course of which the offence was committed, and without setting forth the authority of any court or person before whom the offence was committed.
Section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970
40 Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.
(1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c) falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
(d) utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
Anyone except a court issuing a document, which appears to be from a court, is breaking the law. Councils are causing me harassment by implying that court action has been taken against me when it has not. A magistrate’s court is not a common law court. It is a moneymaking organisation. Is a magistrate or “adjudicator” acting under oath? That is the real question and where the real justice can be found.
The council are now in breach of The Administration of Justice Act 1970 s40: A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt, due under contract, he or she:
(a) harasses the other with demands for payment which by their frequency, or the manner or occasion of their making, or any accompanying threat or publicity are calculated to subject him or his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b) falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c) falsely represent them to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment;
(d) utters a document falsely represented to him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
Last year, I had a visit by R Menzies bailiff. Well it wasn’t actually a visit, a letter was posted through my door twice, at a cost of £24 each time. I caved in and negotiated a repayment plan, but since that time I’ve been reading up a lot more on this entire council tax enforcement plan, which it is completely unlawful and I say, “fuck them.” The bailiff letters were very threatening. Bold words in red ink. However, there was no hint of a liability order reference, no bailiff ID on the letter, nor the full name of the bailiff who claimed to be R Menzies. I smell another rat! The bailiffs were not from the court, but were hired privately by the council. More bullying and intimidation to extract monies. Court bailiffs have to provide their full name, certification number, and court order reference.
Since then, I had a statement of truth notarised. As I swore on the bible, this is my truth and the only way it can be proved wrong is with evidence. This was sent to the council giving them ten days to provide proof of claim. The failure to provide this would form a tacit agreement and make them liable to the fees included, if they broke the agreement.
So now that I know that a summons and liability order HAVE NOT been issued by the court, how exactly do the council think that they can apply to get me imprisoned if they cannot even provide me with proof of a liability order that they claim came from the court, although Nigel reported otherwise and said that I need to contact the council. More passing back. No one accepting liability, although they state that I am liable for council tax.
All in all, the way councils enforce non-payment of council tax is completely fraudulent. It is bullying all the way. If they were charging people £3 for the issue of a summons then fair enough, but £75.00 to attend a bulk hearing is entirely unlawful. Remember, the council issues these summons with the date and time to hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, with the hope that they will not turn up and a liability order is issued, so that they can hire their “bouncers” to collect.
There really is no fear when you know the process. So what if they commit me to prison, it’s just another waste of taxpayer’s money. I still won’t pay up until the council provides me with a contracting showing that I have have agreed to pay. Also I can’t understand, if the entire council tax procedure was lawful, why the council will not admit full commercial liability and swear an affidavit, as I have, if the entire enforcement of Council Tax is legal?
