One of my thoughts. But I still don't see which law says they can employ a magistrate, set up a room, turn it into a court. Now if you do go, what you should do is simply state you will wait until your case is called. No need to offer your name. That forces them to read out each name in turn.
I was. I know how it works. I disagree with BBB position. This is a court set up by the council, run by the council, with a council appointed "Magistrate" working for cash so the council can sue people where it wants money from They arrive. 5000 names, magistrate says yes. There's no scrutiny. There's no list of representation's that the "magistrate" considers. It's just industrial processing making the public into criminals because it suits the government @@vatsmith8759
If you don't show up, you lose. Show up and you MIGHT win if you get your facts straight. You seem to think thatcnot paying your way in life is OK. Tough
There is no scrutiny of the liability orders. It is a hired room and a hired magistrate and it generally a rubber stamping operation. It's legal but there is plenty to argue about its lack of scrutiny for Liability Orders.
Irrelevant ... the Council are simply acting as a collection agent for HMRC..HMRC will operate upon a set of presumptions and facts that result in a Chargeable Dwelling (Hereditament passing under intestacy) being entered upon a VALUATION LIST for Rates, the Liability upon the Person is the Liability upon the Birth Certificated Character.. the indexing of which is approved by the Commissioners of HMRC ... You are essentially being presumed to be an agent/employee of the UK Body Corporate, that is an agreement you ratify by your own conduct and admission. Of course even if you do not, the Courts are demonstrably under the thumb of the other two stronger branches of the State and will ignore any evidence you supply to counter that presumption...it is called Judicial Activism, and its always in favour of the State, never the individual. Welcome to the new despotism.
I am saying in the case of taxation a contract is not relevant as a contract is usually understood...but there is actually the enforcement of an agreement, which you could be ratifying and affirming by conduct or action or even inaction ... of course Facts matter, the problem is the Birth Registered 'Event' is deemed to be a reliable document for public purposes, it is the character that this Document evidences that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction over and as it is approved by the Commissioners of HMRC it implies that HMRC has a claim over that civil character, unless you destroy the presumption that you are 'appearing as' or are surety for that incapacitated character ...there is no redemption within their Administrative Courts ... your agreement is you agreeing to a date of Birth at its core. You cannot have two beginnings, Canon Law will crucify you for that, and it is Canon Law that sits above all else within the world of Anno Dominii... You need to know how Regency works ...
@@leavemyrightsalone In the case of Council Tax it is not the determining factor, your agreement is already presumed by your prior conduct, be it by acts or omissions, You are most certainly identifying with something or appearing as some thing that the Demandant identifies as subject to the Public charge.. granted there is a lot of trickery and slight of hand with the terms of art and the fact the Officials who run the lower courts are generally themselves dissonant of these constructive hooks and traps an treat them as facts that cannot be impugned, erroneously so, but it is only you that can tell the world what your true capacity is, it is your responsibility not theirs, so if you are wearing their attire they treat you or address you as though the attire is your capacity..to wear their attire and then ask for the contract is hardly a recipe for being taken seriously.
BBB is totally missing the point. Councils send out their own summonses, then tell you that you have to let them know you're coming to court so that they can arrange a meeting. This is obviously wrong because if you have a summons, then a meeting has already been arranged. If you then go to the court ahead of the date to enquire to see if the court has issued a summons, the court will say no. Therefore, councils are issuing their own fake court summonses. If you say to the council you intend to attend, then on the day you'll be invited into a little room within the larger courts building. In the little room you won't meet a judge, majestrate or justice of the peace. You'll sit in front of a screen and you'll be interviewed by a bureaucrat from the council who refuses to tell you the surname. Therefore, the council issue their fake summonses and hold fake courts because hiring a little room in a court building isn't a court. Any room can be used as a court, but what makes it a court is a judge, majestrate or justice of the peace who is sworn in on his oath at the start of each season. At what point does the claimant/plaintiff (council), become the issuer of summonses, writs, liability orders and warrants ?? Thoroughly corrupt
This is 100% true because I went through this, turned up and insisted on a court hearing. They scrambled together 3 magistrates and pretended to make an official liability order. When I enquired at the front desk the clerk said.. "Its nothing to do with the court". So the question is, how can you make a liability order against a fake council summons? It's a complete scam, you know it, they know it. Either educate yourself and talk truth, or don't say something that is not correct. Thank you.
I had to attend a liability as my direct debit was setup to the wrong account even though I paid it every month on time, got the council letter saying they are going to court gave me a date but no time, went to court couldn’t no one in the court could find out where I was supposed to go, it’s all a big con.
What you've witnessed with the post office scandle is exaclty how other government departments and local councils have been operating. Using same and similar abusive tactics. Its endemic in the system, and there are many bootlickers who rely on it staying that way. It pays their mortgages and car loans, holidays and coke habits.
Maybe, but this is a POLITICAL statement and your are at liberty to vote or stand for a party that wants to change it. Local services need to be paid for somehow - but there may be fairer models, as you say. As someone who can afford the tax, but sees many people living hand to mouth, I have a lot of sympathy for your statement. Same with energy costs and other utilities
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The question in this video isn't political - it's a legitimacy question. It's no use having a vote if parliament are allowed to make whatever laws they want once elected. They could overturn the entire system and turn it into a dictatorship. That's why they can't make laws - only the justice system can. In the case of council tax, parliament have called it "law" but that doesn't make it so. Their statute is in fact *unlawful* and will not stand in any court that does its duty to uphold common law and rules of equity (as instructed in legislation itself - Supreme Courts Act 1981, Sec 49)
@@minesadab So reality conflicts with some of your statements. "It's no use having a vote if parliament are allowed to make whatever laws they want once elected. " - This is excatly the point of Parliament. The high court can and does rule against parliament if legislation contradicts things like the human rights act (which is why it is so important to retain this in law). This is why we have an opposition and also why we have a House of Lords. Do you really think people would vote for someone likely to dismantle our democracy? "Their statute is in fact unlawful and will not stand in any court" - Clearly courts know the law better than you as ALL legilsation stands in EVERY court. Legislation is primary law. That you don't understand the constitution (which you don't because you have been wildly mislead) or want laws to apply to you is NOT a reason for any of your views.
All courts are to some extent courts of record. When Council tax is being dealt with by these bulk courts there are no records held in the court system. therefore it is not a duly authorized court under the Barr association rules! Further to what you said on all of the council tax summonses it expressly indicates the individual need/should not attend, thereby denying them the right to a fair hearing!
When did you black "barrister," last study law? You are not only 'lying' to the public about the definition of law, but you are arrest-able for deliberately giving fraudulent law/legal advice to the public. You should be reported.
@@PeterChapman-rg6gr The education budget is £100 billion. That's about £10k per pupil each year. That's so much money it's getting to the point where you can hire a private tutor for each pupil at school. We are over taxed and the poorest are hit hardest
"roof" is the operative word here. Council tax is also charged on new and/or refurbishment buildings as soon as they get a roof, even if there is no water, power etc, and is uninhabitable. Historically, large estates, manors etc., removed their roof when moving out, so as not to pay taxes, ditto having glass in their windows I believe.
The real reason why the council and government can enforce this stuff on you and gives them the 'right' too is simple. The State has the monopoly on force and so can enforce it desires and will. Wrap it up in all the nice words, 'the people's government' etc as much as anyone likes. In the end it always comes down to who has the monopoly of force in their hands.
The monopoly on violence specifically, which gives them the right to force, and legal murder. And yes, its under that threat to life and liberty we are all held captive.
@user-xj2im1ep3o Well only a Government can really have the resources to have that much violence under their command. All I was saying is that when you remove all the fluff and go to the very foundation- all authority stems from the ability to use violence. Put if people where armed with guns they might be able deter it slightly.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu so corruption is justified because it's part of the system behave so a company can set up a court because the councils are companies can set up a court try you sentence you in your absence deploy enforcement agents remove your property is that what passes for British justice now is it
The council is a business so it needs to give invoice and a full breakdown!!same as the court is a company!! that's why look up it!! Judges are registered in a small country in the US!!look it up!!all councils are a business look it on company house!!
I contacted my local magistrates court (who were very helpful) to ask a few questions about council tax. When I asked them how many people appear in court summoned by the local for council tax to defend themselves she said not very many at all. She went on to say most cases are resolved before coming to court or in a pre court hearing. If everyone made a meal out of defending themselves in court we would probably see some change in the system.
It's not law. Statute is given the colour of law by means of coercion. Law reflects the custom, mores, attitudes and characteristics of a society and does not require its forceful application.
@@KevinHorrox According to the British Constitution, Acts are only ever given the power of law, they are never law. You should know that because on charge sheets, the charge will read "the law" where there is a living victim. They use "Contrary to Statute...." where it is an act of Parliament. The consent of the governed, which is required under the Constitution, to give an Act the power of Law, is only achieved when the legislation is tried by a genuine Trial by Jury, as opposed to a Jury Consultation trial which is what they try to convince us is the same as trial by a Jury of your peers. In a true Trial by Jury, the judge only acts as a referee to ensure decorum and procedures are followed. Only those with personal knowledge are allowed to testify, under oath of truthfulness and punishment for perjury. No lawyers allowed to speak on anyone's behalf, and where every juror knows their duty is to cure the statute as law. Or through Jury Nulification, they strike the statute as unlawful. Funny how all BAR members refuse to admit this. Parliament has never lawfully revoked or reversed the Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights, as they don't have the authority except as a special Parliament specifically elected and convened to do so, after having g receivec the plebiscite of the people
You have sworn an oath to the bar council so you would be on the side of the authorities ! How about finding a way to defend the people who are taxed for just having a roof over their heads ??
@@50somethinglawyer All published in the Ethics and Practice document (look it up.) Barristers act as Commissioners for Oaths, Notary Public and related matters, it is NOT imaginary !
@user-xj2im1ep3o using thst phrase doesn't help anyone, it's similarly used to denounce ppl in other sciences and fields of study. If someone is wrong or incorrect then highlight it. Many actual laws can be described as pseudo if properly picked apart.
@roydavis5613 I'm a commissioner for oaths too. But I've never sworn an oath to anyone. Commissioners for oaths are people others can swear oaths before. The clue is in the "commissioner for" bit.
The council tax liability order provided under the 1992 No.613 SCHEDULE 2 Form A)Was removed from law1 Oct in 2003 and no form has been substituted in it's place.This is in the council guidelines handbook.
Everyone should turn up to court and demand a hearing. Absolutely refuse to let them do bulk hearing. They do thousands of them in bulk imagine when they have to deal with each person.
I don't think the system should be overwhelmed as so it breaks. But it's does need overhauling and auditing and reviewing what it does, and the means by which it operates.
The fact that they do them in bulk proves that the people the council are making claims against aren't interested in providing a defense. You are issued a summons with the time, date and location of your hearing. If you don't turn up, that is on you.
So are you saying that the local authority enforcers can legitimately use a council notice, of a verbal court liability order, to serve on the individual? I thought the court case you referred to ruled against that?
The case you are thinking of CRITICISED the enforcement agency for asking people to accept a liability order had been made but without providing a copy - it was the agency who was criticised and told to have proper documentation.
You are very careful not to upset anyone in the legal system. Have you ever posted anything that supports us and fights back at the corrupt legal system? You know that council tax is corrupt and that the Acts after we joined the EU are worthless, so why don’t you ever look into this?
...people are doing it, they arnt paying because part of the process is unlawful, councils are going bankrupt because people understand their rights like never before, this guy has no place anymore, people are realising the power is theirs and there is NO comeback 👊
One major problem is the magistrates court don't hold a record of the hearing. The court room is hired, and the judge is not working for the people. The verbal Liability order is hearsay in law.
Magistrates will record the outcome of each hearing, even if the overall hearing is not recorded verbatim. Also, magistrates do work for the betterment of their society, given that magistrates judges are generally people of the local society. Magistrates judges are also unpaid.
Also, magistrates do work for the betterment of their society, Not in this case. They are working for the prosecution. If they don't do what the prosecution wants, they don't get the gig. @@KevinHorrox
@@KevinHorrox so BBB said the council produces the liability order SO how's it recorded at the magistrates? SO the council is also impersonating a magistrates. The summons doesn't have a court seal. I'm confused
@@martind7418 because the council go to the magistrates to apply for the orders. The magistrates grant the orders. The council are then able to produce a letter stipulating the facts of the order upon you. The council is not impersonating the magistrates because the council are not making the decision - the magistrates is, there fore no impersonating takes place. And they do not need to be sealed. They only need to be signed by a person who holds the requisite authority in the courts to sign them. As per the appropriate procedure rules "Where sealing or signature is required, failure to seal the order would have no effect on the legality or effect of the court order. The legality and effect of the order is created by the announcement of the judge, magistrate or justices’ legal adviser, not by a court officer committing it to paper. The primary effect of sealing is to authenticate the order so that it is admissible in evidence or in other proceedings, for example foreign enforcement"
@@martind7418 and they also state this, relating specifically to council tax liability orders " On the subject of a summons, and specifically those issued in Council Tax Liability cases, the only people authorised to issue a summons are judicial officers: lay justices, District Judges (MC), Justices’ Clerks, and Assistant Clerks with delegated powers. However it is worth noting that issuing the summons is not the same as preparing or printing it, or delivering it. The latter functions are administrative, not judicial, and responsibility for carrying them out lies with the complainant."
Please stop calling it a court. It's a hearing in a room, in a court building which the local magistrate court supplies for free. A lot of our frustrations are not about the legitimacy of paying council tax, but the wording in letters supplied by the council when we don't pay or miss payments and the process it's self.
@@graceydavis429He literally refers to the apecific law in the video. But, however many times the law is quoted to you, you will ignore it and talk like you have some special knowledge. You don't.
@@timg1246 you’re right, I don’t have special knowledge, but I do have an understanding of the William and Mary Bill of Rights, the rights King Charles relied upon during his coronation, what’s good for the goose, as they say. In addition there is the indisputable evidence of no obligation.
Talking more bollocks. They hire the court room. The judges refuse to name themselves nor state under which oath they act. The state what can and cannot use as a defence. The liability order is only spoken. It is NEVER recorded in the court. As it is not recorded in the court it is not a court order. That has been confirmed by the head of the Department of Justice The order has NO LEGAL STANDING. AS USUAL HE'S USING LEGALESE TO DECIEVE. THE COURTS ARE NOT UNBIASED. THE COURTS ARE NOT LAWFUL.
The council tell people not to attend the council court which isnt a court its just a room hired in the building . Jp name isn't displayed in the courts in session. Its just a room not administered by the magistrate court all administration is done by the claimant the council take the role of the court and pretend to be a court which is illegal . The council is the claimant and act as a court
@@eattherich9215no it doesn't. A court is only a court when a real judge, majestrate or justice of the peace is sworn in on their oath at the start of the court session. Otherwise, my fekin cat could hold a court in my kitchen. That's the point, council bureaucrats are pretending to be courts by hiring a little room within a bigger court building. It's like going to a majestrates court and the claimant/plaintiff dragging you into the toilet and telling you he's put you on trial. The councils are fraudsters
@@StudentDad-mc3pu No. That's just legislation. No one is above the law (not even the Monarch) and therefore no one can impose their will on another unless there has been an unlawful breach of their peace. With no contract, the only breach of the peace is the council demanding money with threat of violence. If an enforceable obligation can be just written into legislation, then that's a dictatorship.
@@duneideann9241 Irrelevant. I'm not keen on the pension scheme. Councilors get an allowance of about £12,000. It's not much for a hard working councillor. However you don't even need to attend to get the allowance - so I do agree it's taking the piss.
@BlackBeltBarrister We had to pay £10k of the tenants CT, as the property owners. The council took us to the county court, as the tenant had no assets & then put a 2nd charge against the property and tried to obtain ownership until the land registry notified us & we then became aware of the issue & had to pay them the £10k, £6k CT & £4k legal costs inc £500ph barrister
@@BlackBeltBarrister We already have our office address registered with LR & it wasn't until the 2nd charge / council trying to take ownership of the property that they notified us of the issue. Allegedly the CT department didn't have our address, even though the same council were writing to us about the tenants Housing Benefits change.
Imagine if we could set up a kangaroo court and prosecute the authorities. We could issue liability orders against the councils, police and the courts.
A liability order is a good thing if you're on benefits assuming that you only have one single debt that is owed for council tax arrears. Simply refuse to pay the debt and when you have your hearing with the magistrate, offer to have the debt deducted from your benefits. The most they can take out is 5% of what you get and they can't include any disability benefits. For example, if you're a person over 25 on Universal Credit, you probably get the standard £369.00% . 5% of that is about £18.50p. So, even if you owe thousands, the most you pay is 5% of your benefit.
I had a liability order against me last year for £74 their costs were £80 there were another 190 people on their list that day wow seems like a scam to me so it cost them £80 to type a name on a list ???
Interesting how its "not a sum adjudged to be paid by order ot the court" and theres not your typical court order documentation to accompany the order. Make you wonder ....
How is it even remotely legal that we are forced to psy council tax when we have no say on what the councul spends the money on. Its outrageous my council are their own law doing their own actions without asking the public. 😢
What is it, that you would like your money spent on. You could make a list, and compare it with the breakdown that the council sends you with the annual statement.
A court can be anywhere. I believe. At sea. On a battlefield. In the school hall of a bombed out city. A court is the assembly of people not the actual building or place.
The hearing takes place in a proper court, I know because I’ve been there. The confusion arises because the council take people into a Private room which people misconstrued as the court probably because the council are so bolshy and up themselves
Is it? I hear they hire a room, which isn't a court building. Check, FOI for list of courts. If its not on the list, covert film. You have your defence in advance. @@truefoa
Good clear description of the law as always. However, there are large holes in the process you describe. I have a liabilty order against me currently. I have asked on 3 occassions for the court to confirm the order. No order has been confirmed by the court, my question is do you still think the order is real? oh and of course the summons was issued by the council not the court, do you still think the court is real? If it is real why would they ask me to contact the council to be able to attend court what has it got to do with the council?
The liability order is not individual - the council will confirm it for you. Just asking the wrong person the wrong question does nothing for your case. Do you owe the money or not - if you don't know yourself you need to have a think.
Hi Student Dad - thanks for replying. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but as BBB said in the video. The order of the court starts with an 'order of the court' by a magistrate. If there is no evidence of that order what are the council doing? The court could send me the court record of the order being stated. But they don't...without this order or evidence of this order, there is no liability order. By the way when asked the question the ministry of justice confirmed the liability order issued by the council is not a legal document. I know all the legal theory says this works perfectly when you read the 1992 act, but in practice it's a shambles. If my council present me with a proper legal document I'll pay until then I'll wait....
@@paulallen5321 The council should be able to send you the record of when the liability order was made. As BBB really has said previously, there is no actual requirement for a liability order to be on paper, once it has been stated by the magistrate the council is responsible for informing the debtors of the order against them. When they say it is 'not a legal document' they mean that there is no standard legal form for a liability order. I know this is hard to get into our heads but the order simply needs to be made by a Magistrate - once this has happened it exists and ignoring it will simply lead to more difficulties. I agree, and higher courts have stated, that this system is not really fit for purpost. But so far it is how it is.
what gives them the right? they can take your house and the people as a mass tolerate it all. French and German farmers aren't putting up with the 'green' and taxation legislation their governments are brining in. the system will keep applying more control the more the masses continue to roll over. the only way is for everyone not to pay tax until we get the services required and not our hard earned cash being cronied away.
This isn't a existential issue about freedoms or rights. It's about how much is paid and where the money is spent. Everyone, moslty everyone agrees there ought be some sort of levi to help fund services in your immediate area, but there is always conflict and contention regarding the amounts and the ppl it goes to. The fact is, the majority of ppl don't see or use many of the services its used for, they can't understand why so much is being taken when everything is being cut. It's seems like a fraud to them because money is being taken by deception
legal is not the same as LAWFUL you sell yourself in the legal ie legalize which is a corporate construct to the highest bidder, win or lose makes no difference, payment shall be forthcoming. It is the legal system that is corrupt not you personally
The problem here is the system is wrong. As someone who once got a council tax bill (we are taking you to court) from Portsmouth ! Whilst in Hong Kong and never having lived in Portsmouth. Sending Bailiffs or deducting money from my account fine OK do it. BUT ! When I return I expect one A4 sheet of paper to give me access to a court where I can present my proof plus all my costs and expenses. Loss of work, flight from Hong Kong, charges for the inconvenience of my credit scores being hit and charges against the bailiffs if any visit caused distress and fear to any individual. I have no problem with the system being a failure as long as it can quickly be put right. This is the failure 😊
there is no uk legalisation that gives the council authority to send out BILLS of any kind? only demands or am i missing an important part of uk legalisation?
Once the "liability order" (whether obtained lawfully, or not) is obtained, the full weight of any enforcement legislation can, and will, be used against you. Again, it is in the councils interest to deny you the opportunity to defend yourself against their accusation. The current system is clearly enabling abuse of the councils power.
To clarify...... The question was a slightly sarcastic rhetorical one. The man or woman who asked it knows full well that the councils shouldn't issue summonses, writs, warrants, orders etc. No legislation grants the claimant/plaintiff the power to do so. As BBB rightly pointed out, only a court can do these things. And that's the bloody point....... Because councils all over the country are frauding people out of their money by issuing fake documents as listed above. When you get a council "summons" from a "majestrates court ", people who gone to the courts office before the court date to check the validity of the summons are told "we didn't issue that, it's not from the court". Councils are fraudsters, they're making illegal demands on people. Just because they've always got away with it, doesn't mean its lawful. It's an abuse of power. That's the point of the question, that's what's going over BBB's head.
you look as if your struggling with it. if a liability order has been granted then the person who it effects should be given a copy but if no such paperwork exists how is a person supposed to believe it exists.
As a sociologist who studied a little law, i find it very interesting ppls responce to 'law' in general. Some fight for it to be adheared to the letter, others prefer the spirit of the law, others again might be interested how both the letter and spirit can be used for their own gain, and lots of arguments inbetween by various vested interests as to how it must be interprered and used.. And ive found that to be quite hard to pick apart. Law is subjective no? And add a tyrant into the mix, what does the law say then?
You've missed the current trend. Government doesn't like people challenge it in court. So they have industrialised justice where they win. Council tax is one example. A court run by the prosecutor, paid for by the prosecutor, with a magistrate paid for by the prosecutor. If the magistrate doesn't play ball, they replace them with one that will. Then is the game where the prosecutor says, you don't need to turn up, because heaven forbid someone wants to defend themselves. Due diligence? 5000 cases in a day, and no questions asked? Signed off as a batch. That's evil. That's why people are against it. It's also why I think you have to think even when the BBB is presenting something. He's been involved in the law for so long that he's in the club. There's a group think going on. They can't get their head around the moral issue. Is this acceptable?
He thinks its all unchangeable/un-challengable, the courts and the system are above reproach... that is simply garbage. ======== For him, yes, because he's in that game. So we need to have discussions about false convictions, and failure to convict. They are the errors of a legal system. I learned that lesson with Lord Denning. An evil man. On the Birmingham bombers he was complaining that if they had been killed the legal system wouldn't have had to admit to the error. Namely kill people so he doesn't have to apologise. The big issue at the moment is the industrialisation of making the population criminals. @@rfxtuber
@adenwellsmith6908 oh I've not missed the trend, I noticed it in 2011 and wrote about it. I could see quite clearly as they removed services and imposed cuts they weren't willing to move on anything unless someone took it to the high court, and in the following years rhey were taking to the high and human rights courts on multiple occasions for multiple breaches to the law on groups and individuals alike. And they lost some of those cases. This took place in tandem with their culture war discourse, attackes on judges and experts and nudging the general public to hate them and the systems we come to rely and depend on. Like the judiciary, human rights law, and the UN declaration itself. The blog I wrote was called 'David Cameron and the human wrongs charter'. And they read it.
As you say there are thousands to be heard in the same day. If everyone actually turned up to have their case heard they wouldn't have the time or the space to hold all the people outside... What does that tell you about the lack of ability for people to pay this tax that goes to pay the council CEO and employees vast pensions? My council CEO is paid £165,000 PLUS a £25,00 a year pension! The PM gets paid less than that! That's where the money is going..not on services.
The council tax or pol tax was forced on the population: its is not what we ever asked for the money is not spent wholy on the premise its for services.
All tax is 'forced' however you are free to vote for a party that simply stops local services and makes you pay for everything you use (including care when you are elderly).
At 5:40 you say the council is “producing the order based on the court order”. Again so misleading. The council does not produce an “order”. They do not have the authority to produce an order. They produce a notice which informs a debtor that an order exists. However, as we are now all well aware, this notice is misleading as no actual order is ever produced by the court. Speaking an order in to existence might satisfy you as a barrister Daniel, but once your opposition request evidence of the order you are duty bound to disclose it.
Liability orders ceased in 2003 , liability orders when asked for are never shown . They can't exist electronically , they have to be signed and in paper form so they can be read by the person that it is against . Hearsay is not recognized in law as far as I am aware . Sous it recognized in legislation ?
@@nickkitchen4972 No they did not "cease" at any time. And there is nowhere in law that says a person has to see the copy of the order. An order is signed in court and that is enough, and is in accordance with the 1992 procedures. However, I agree it creates a problem when debt collection agencies are involved. There is no question that every household is liable for council tax.
That's what should happen but what often happens is they meet you in an intetveuw room within magistrates court and lead you belive this is the hearing. I've sat as a Mackenzie friend numerous times for freends and stopped this action. When highlighted to magistrates it is denied by council by which time as magistrates are just a extension of council by proxy on old times a sheriff appeal is made to county court and usually the liability order is overturned and a agreement to pay made inset county court order which is easier to vary
1st answer PRESUMES the council give you the chance to attend - which they often dont. He is giving HIS opinion on what he THINKS happens, but clearly has no experience of its reality.
Presumably if you moved out in March and the local authority sent the notifications to that address you would not be aware that you were on a liability order list .
'... moved out in March ...' without telling the council FOR SOME REASON. People are their own worst enemy and when the law finally catches up with them, it's everbody else's fault.
As a magistrate I can tell you that I do not like making these orders, same for warrants to remove meters. You just get a list of names, the officer swearing that everything is above board and correct and that's that. We don't really have any choice, but to make the order. On what grounds could we possibly refuse? In reality its a tick box, my name could be on the list for all I know!
My understanding is that if you signed it, you own it. By that I mean you become the person to sue, if the process goes wrong. You do have a choice. You are perhaps to lazy to do the job as it should be done
@@letsgobrandon8495 no, you cannot sue a magistrate for making an order, you can only appeal against the order. And no, there is no real choice, because the process only allows you not to make an order if there is a good reason not to. There’s no such reason not to. Plenty of airchair lawyers on here who ought to better listen to the BBB.
@@WraithRaider I didnt say you can sue a magistrate for making an order. I said "if the process goes wrong" You yourself admitted that you signed off on bulk (thousands) of orders, without reading any of them, instead relying on the " officer swearing that everything is above board and correct". Thing is "the officer" says that the stack of orders are all "above board and legal", but he (the officer), doesnt do the final sign off,.. YOU DO.
You are supposed to hear the defendant. We rely on you to protect our Constitutional rights without fear or favour. Don't bulk sign anything. Defendants have a right to trial by jury. You taking instruction from a court clerk craps all over us. A majestrate is the boss of his court. Please, show some courage and remember our forefathers died in two world wars to protect our freedoms which transnational corporations and banks and corrupt politicians rapidly stripping us of. We need you to be strong and do your job properly. Bulk hearings are an abomination, Where's the fairness, equity or justice in that ?
I dont object to paying for local amenities that actually benefit the local people and are actually WANTED by the people that pay .... I do think we should have a rebate on what we pay the police as they do not do the job we pay them for ...
The council tax banding was fixed as of April 1991 and the government has said that there will be no re-assessment. Look, if you really want council tax to keep pace with the exponential rise in property prices, you must be mad.
Their general approach isn't to discover the facts and allow those facts to lead to a conclusion rather to decide on the desired conclusion then scurry round to find facts which rarely fit but which they panel beat and otherwise distort, borrow facts from other jurisdictions and make up any missing ones.
At the the same time it's perfectly reasonable and legal to challange the system and the status quo. The law changes, its not static, and it can only change through challange and reflection.
@legalweasel73 irs doesn't help anyone to simply ignore facts or make them up, however nor is it right that everyone simply does as rhey are told by an authority , an authority that's proven to be unjust and arbitrary.
The Council Tax is a charge for a service foisted upon us. It has no legal basis. It's a contract enforced against one parties will and is and always will be a void contract enforced at the barrel of a gun.
We have a home in Wales. Mortgaged. Councils are allowed to tax up to treble. What is obscene is that we use less local council services but pay more than locals and the rented properties trash the areas and abuse refuse disposal. It is actually a joke and with remote working we can spend time between homes! Council tax should be for services provided . They have no financial interest in our property and we PAY to maintain them including structural such as roof repairs! 😠
No, what's wrong is people having second homes. There's a housing shortage, it's selfish. No need to build new ones, just more efficient use of the ones we have.
In principle you make a fair point, in practice it’s totally ridiculous. How do you propose to relieve people who have second homes of those second homes…..send in the bailiffs and just repossess them. People who are lucky enough or who have worked hard enough are entitled to keep the spoils of their hard work. Anything else is just madness.
Well, tax means , really you don't have much say in how it's spent, or how often you go to the Welsh house .Like Income Tax , the gov't spends , without directly asking you
Key words : Mr,child, when dealing with corporations, it's contract law. Liability orders have to name the "person" and court stamp so you know who has "authorised " this "order" "against ""you" . Who is Liable for "your""suffering " in the case of "misjudgement" by way of false allegations for gain?.
Again, 'person' is the word here. Only companies and organizations are liable for Council Tax according to Legislation. Also, there are no liability orders, and hasn't been since the forms were removed from Legislation in 2003. Finally, the Local Government Finance Act 1992 is NOT proof of a debt or liability to pay Council tax, as proved in the Marc Horn v Liverpool City Council case. Anybody can verify all the points i made by simply looking at the Regulations themselves and doing some research.
@@50somethinglawyer Funny that you should mention misread. As Dan said in his recent video on tv license, words are important.If you can find one Legislation that says a legal person is NOT a company or organization, i will happily donate a thousand pounds to a charity of your choice. Take your time, and good luck.
@ukinvasion2012 I never said a company is not a person. Persons are not exclusively limited to companies though. Read and construe IA 78 properly. Cancer Research is fine. Send me a copy of the receipt please.
@@50somethinglawyer You mean this Legislation, where it states under definition " Person " includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [1889]? I'm not sure what you are reading, because it says the exact same thing as the original and even quotes it. So i'm afraid Cancer research are going to be waiting a lot longer. Please feel free to keep looking however, i'll still be here.
I am glad that all those objecting to the Council tax no longer have to pay the "Church" tax as well. whilst Council tax can be considered "Morally" bad the "Church tax is pure criminal extortion.
@@phil2544 Church tax and thithes were abolished a long time ago but Chancel repair liability is still enforceable where the Church can force some house owners to stump up the costs of repairing their local churches.
time point 4:20 further to 'the other case' you talk about (L v B&S), So when an a local authority issues an Attachment of Earnings Order in paper form to an employer based on a LO that cannot be evidence, can the L v B&S judgement be used. Does the employer have to have evidence of the LO before they action an AOE order and make deductions? Also what if the AEO the local authority send out is missing the Regulations that are meant to be included at the end of the order, and what if the very same SEO aka statutroy instrument Schedule 3 of TCTAER92 the 'order' is not signed by a 'proper Officer of he Authority' as it is mean to be according to the statue or even officially endorsed with a stamp of the authority? So missing guidance Regulation amounting to 5 pages and no signature. Is it a defective instrument and void? Would love to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks
The working British person is taxed to death and for what? Sending money abroad and then back into the corporations purse and ridiculous things like 2 aircraft carriers 😡
These authorities take your money and spend it as they see fit I call that theft but the law doesn't deal with authority that's because it's the authorities that make the law. Accountability and justification is what the law lacks.
We vote. You can stand for election. You will lose, but at least you will see how the system operates in a democracy. The Monster Raving Loony Party is currently looking for candidates in your area. Lucky you.
@@timg1246 Not sure we have a democracy anymore as for the looney party they will probably do a better job if they get in couldn't be any worse that's for sure
As far as I understand it, the council rents a room, and charges every defendant the price of the rental. They don't divvy the rent out, every one gets to pay the hire charge. Money for old rope.
@@SpeekYoureBranes OK... So some one gets their summons order. On the order is their bill for the hire of the premises. If 100 people are summonsed to appear that is 100 x £££ the cost of the hire. Thats how I understand it, as explained to me by some one who did get a summons. .
The phrase " they're all heard...". They are neither "heard" nor even looked at. There is only a paper with "smith, et al" (or something similar) which could represent 500 separate people - some (or all) of which, havent even been informed of the date or place of this procedure and therefore cannot defend themselves. Once this procedure has taken place, everything else is rubber-stamped "on assumption" that correct procedure has been followed, and CCJ's are handed out automatically.
@BlackBeltBarrister There is a lot to debate. Most of your claims to start with. According to the British Constitution, Acts are only ever given the power of law, they are never law. You should know that because on charge sheets, the charge will read "the law" where there is a living victim. They use "Contrary to Statute...." where it is an act of Parliament. The consent of the governed, which is required under the Constitution, to give an Act the power of Law, is only achieved when the legislation is tried by a genuine Trial by Jury, as opposed to a Jury Consultation trial which is what they try to convince us is the same as trial by a Jury of your peers. In a true Trial by Jury, the judge only acts as a referee to ensure decorum and procedures are followed. Only those with personal knowledge are allowed to testify, under oath of truthfulness and punishment for perjury. No lawyers allowed to speak on anyone's behalf, and where every juror knows their duty is to cure the statute as law. Or through Jury Nulification, they strike the statute as unlawful. Funny how all BAR members refuse to admit this. Parliament has never lawfully revoked or reversed the Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights, as they don't have the authority except as a special Parliament specifically elected and convened to do so, after having g receivec the plebiscite of the people
No government or parliament has the authority to tax the human right to private and family life and home. The act and process of collecting property tax does not conform to the absolute right of a person in Art 8 ECHR. To demand a tax for your home is to be held in slavery and servitude. No wonder the government wants to get rid of human rights. And has already taken you out of the EU. And this so-called barrister comes here and tells you nonsense.
It's demanding money with menaces, except the council seem to think they are acting legally. I don't need any of their "services", so why should I be forced to pay? I don't pay a TV licence, so I don't watch any live TV.
@@Sonya_Makepeace All employees are entitled to pension and all employers are required by law to provide pensions schemes into which they make contributions. If you are employed YOU have a pension that is being paid for in part by your employer.
The court or council can't wright to you it can't speak or rent buildings as it's only a name of a corporation it can't come after you as it is only stationary on paper. Someone that works in its office,ie a living being has typed and sent you the letter. they must have been given an order to do so by someone with lawful authority to do so. If they rent the court on a regular basis they will be familiar with the judges and others that work there isn't that bias against the so called debtors. How is that a fair court hearing. Has anyone looked up the Miami state court building on Google maps. looking down on it from above. I found it highly compelling. Would you be stood on the deck or in the docks 😂 have a look❤
Whilst I don't enjoy having to pay Council Tax, I wonder if those against it would explain how they think Local Authorities would pay for services provided. However, I do think the charges are too high, mainly due to financial cuts from Central Government to LA's and preceptors, such as Police etc.
@@raymondmunroe5459Education, School meals, Breakfast clubs for school children, street lighting, refuse collection, recycling, food waste disposal, Policing, social care, elderly care, meals on wheels, special needs care, special needs schools. But yeah, "what services?".
@@vern1588Use of the funds and efficiency are the arguments/discussions people should be having. The sov cit types are too lazy to address the real issues and find it easier to simply pretend it's not an obligation.
I wonder when the local authority is going to provide me with the service I paid for. The money is often spent to benefit their own political ideology and the only thing you ever get from them is herrassment, extortion and fraud.
As a cabinet member for finance in a council I can tell you that no part of the law on council tax is really in serious dispute. Some people dispute how the law applies to their particular facts but we tend to sort that out quite quickly and it doesn't need a court hearing. And followers of esoteric TH-cam channels should note that by definition, if any liability order for council tax has ever been upheld by a higher court, that would prove in and of itself that council tax is legal - and of course they have been.
it's not law you clown, it's legislation, which is nothing more than deception through legalese. There is no liability order and there is no liability - end of.
Do tell me which man or woman employed at the council claims to be that council? I do believe only a man or woman can make a claim against another man or woman who owes council tax. I'm kinda confused how a council is God created in order to bring any complaint to a court that displays the Crown Crest God and my right when that council is not God created.
@@mauricebarnett6951 Dunno what you're on about. I have no concept of 'god'. Local authorities are creatures of statute: Local Government Act 1972 in most of E+W, London Government Act 1963 in London, Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 in Scotland.
Good advice! On a similar vien water and sewerage services are charged by private limited companies who are requited by law to "make arrangements" with the owner or occupier of business premises but treat their "terms and conditions" as a done deal. As they are private companies, in my view, they must be subject to contract law where impositions undermine the "right to contract" and the offerees' right to accept, refuse or modify the offer. It would be interesting to hear BBB's views on this.
You are entering into a contract for the supply of something in exchange for a consideration (usually money). If you fail to honour your agreement, then the "terms and conditions" that bind you to pay have been broken. Trying to be smart won't save you from proceedings.
@@eattherich9215 With respect, I think you're missing the point. A bilateral contract is a voluntary agreement between the offeror and the offeree and unless accepted by the offeree there is no contract unless the offeree uses the services which then becomes a deemed contract. If you don't use the services there's no contract.
@@angusmacmillan5365You accept the deal by using the services. Not every contract has to be in writing. You are happy to use water, sewers and electricity, so pay for it. Well, let's be honest, you do pay. Then you post a load of old tosh on t'internet.
@@reality_pls5696Irrelevant. You do not pay National Grid. You pay thecsupplier, who then pays National Grid. You are trying to distract from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
A crime in the UK law, requires a living victim. Otherwise its not a crime, its a violation of statute, which is an entirely civil and not criminal action.
@@andrewdavies7827 Really? Are you too dumb to work out murder is a crime, because a LIVING PERSON IS THE VICTIM. THAT MAKES IT A CRIME AND A VIOLATION OF STATUTE. It literally lists both on a murder charge sheet. Go look it up
@user-xj2im1ep3o they have deprived another of their property. The owners of the bank, being living beings, are the victims, hence theft is a crime as well as a stature violation
Would be far easier to say “ local authorities do not respect the court process and don’t give two hoots about legislation” It’s not the courts fault The thing bbb says which is true is you have to defend yourself or they’re right regardless of what is legal or illegal If you don’t defend yourself the local authorities win by default
Its mad in this day and age ,that the council should work with the people or for the people , we understand we need to pay for services , but surely the council cant police its own policy , its true about the order , but i thought the court was not issuing those orders, so without the paper work ,its unefforcable. Im like this ,the council should be in the service of the people , similar to the goverment , which they are not . I think we need a brand new system because neither is working for people .
The Council Tax is a charge for a service foisted upon us. It has no legal basis. It's a contract enforced against one parties will and is and always will be a void contract enforced at the barrel of a gun.
And does the court have on system that a liability order is in place as the next day I rang them didn't tell them what the order was for but asked them to check both criminal and civil and they couldn't find anything 🤔
Woolway vs mazer's Lord Sumption struggles to define the definition of a dwelling hereditament and concludes it's real estate, real estate is commercial
The Council Tax Handbook 13th Edition by Child Poverty Action Group | Page 220, Chapter 10 "In practice, the courts seldom issue individual liability orders; the judge or chair of the magistrates normally just signs a certificate attached to the list of nonpayers, but in a form that does not comply with the regulations - without the stamp or seal of the court or any form laid down in regulations since 2003.” "However, if no proper stamped and sealed order is drawn up and issued by the court, then effectively the local authority may not be able to establish that any such order exists or existed at any stage, nor show that the magistrates were ever satisfied that the local authority had proved all the matters it is required to prove." “The form (Form A) originally provided to draw up liability orders was removed from law from 10 July 2003 in Wales and 1 October 2003 in England and no form has been substituted in its place. Without any written record of its order or judgment being issued by the court, an order from a magistrates’ court may be invalid. This point has been raised in proceedings at various magistrates’ courts since August 2015 and has yet to be resolved, The failure by parliament to create the necessary form is a serious flaw in the legislation which potentially compromises the making of all orders and enforcement activity. A liability order is meant to identify the aggregate amount that can be recovered, including the costs, but it is unclear how this can be achieved if a magistrates’ court does not make a liability order in writing and only purports to issue the liability order orally."
The prosecutor runs their own courts to extract cash from people
Notice the problem? Court in cahoots with the prosecutor.
What's stopping and body forming a court?
One of my thoughts. But I still don't see which law says they can employ a magistrate, set up a room, turn it into a court.
Now if you do go, what you should do is simply state you will wait until your case is called. No need to offer your name.
That forces them to read out each name in turn.
Not true. The Court and the Crown Prosecution Service are independent of each other.
You were't listening to BBB's explanation, were you?
I was. I know how it works. I disagree with BBB position.
This is a court set up by the council, run by the council, with a council appointed "Magistrate" working for cash so the council can sue people where it wants money from
They arrive. 5000 names, magistrate says yes. There's no scrutiny. There's no list of representation's that the "magistrate" considers.
It's just industrial processing making the public into criminals because it suits the government
@@vatsmith8759
Sounds like a kangaroo court to me. The final decision has already been made prior to the ‘court’ being convened.
Well it has , in as much as they know you haven't paid , and they're in order to go to next step .
If you don't show up, you lose. Show up and you MIGHT win if you get your facts straight.
You seem to think thatcnot paying your way in life is OK. Tough
Because there is doubt about the liability - unless a mistake has been made or information is incorrect on who lives in the property.
@@timg1246 Where did he write that?
There is no scrutiny of the liability orders. It is a hired room and a hired magistrate and it generally a rubber stamping operation. It's legal but there is plenty to argue about its lack of scrutiny for Liability Orders.
Where is the contract?????????????????????
Irrelevant ... the Council are simply acting as a collection agent for HMRC..HMRC will operate upon a set of presumptions and facts that result in a Chargeable Dwelling (Hereditament passing under intestacy) being entered upon a VALUATION LIST for Rates, the Liability upon the Person is the Liability upon the Birth Certificated Character.. the indexing of which is approved by the Commissioners of HMRC ... You are essentially being presumed to be an agent/employee of the UK Body Corporate, that is an agreement you ratify by your own conduct and admission. Of course even if you do not, the Courts are demonstrably under the thumb of the other two stronger branches of the State and will ignore any evidence you supply to counter that presumption...it is called Judicial Activism, and its always in favour of the State, never the individual. Welcome to the new despotism.
@@genuinearticle33 So you think a contract is irrelevant?? So facts don't matter?? Any Presumption can be stopped with facts?
I am saying in the case of taxation a contract is not relevant as a contract is usually understood...but there is actually the enforcement of an agreement, which you could be ratifying and affirming by conduct or action or even inaction ... of course Facts matter, the problem is the Birth Registered 'Event' is deemed to be a reliable document for public purposes, it is the character that this Document evidences that the Courts have inherent jurisdiction over and as it is approved by the Commissioners of HMRC it implies that HMRC has a claim over that civil character, unless you destroy the presumption that you are 'appearing as' or are surety for that incapacitated character ...there is no redemption within their Administrative Courts ... your agreement is you agreeing to a date of Birth at its core. You cannot have two beginnings, Canon Law will crucify you for that, and it is Canon Law that sits above all else within the world of Anno Dominii... You need to know how Regency works ...
@@leavemyrightsalone In the case of Council Tax it is not the determining factor, your agreement is already presumed by your prior conduct, be it by acts or omissions, You are most certainly identifying with something or appearing as some thing that the Demandant identifies as subject to the Public charge.. granted there is a lot of trickery and slight of hand with the terms of art and the fact the Officials who run the lower courts are generally themselves dissonant of these constructive hooks and traps an treat them as facts that cannot be impugned, erroneously so, but it is only you that can tell the world what your true capacity is, it is your responsibility not theirs, so if you are wearing their attire they treat you or address you as though the attire is your capacity..to wear their attire and then ask for the contract is hardly a recipe for being taken seriously.
@@genuinearticle33 What a load of pretentious tripe.... I liked it though.
BBB is totally missing the point.
Councils send out their own summonses, then tell you that you have to let them know you're coming to court so that they can arrange a meeting.
This is obviously wrong because if you have a summons, then a meeting has already been arranged.
If you then go to the court ahead of the date to enquire to see if the court has issued a summons, the court will say no.
Therefore, councils are issuing their own fake court summonses.
If you say to the council you intend to attend, then on the day you'll be invited into a little room within the larger courts building.
In the little room you won't meet a judge, majestrate or justice of the peace.
You'll sit in front of a screen and you'll be interviewed by a bureaucrat from the council who refuses to tell you the surname.
Therefore, the council issue their fake summonses and hold fake courts because hiring a little room in a court building isn't a court.
Any room can be used as a court, but what makes it a court is a judge, majestrate or justice of the peace who is sworn in on his oath at the start of each season.
At what point does the claimant/plaintiff (council), become the issuer of summonses, writs, liability orders and warrants ??
Thoroughly corrupt
Yes BBB he is also promoting wrong way .They also say you don't have to attend ,he does not tell you this .
This is 100% true because I went through this, turned up and insisted on a court hearing. They scrambled together 3 magistrates and pretended to make an official liability order. When I enquired at the front desk the clerk said.. "Its nothing to do with the court". So the question is, how can you make a liability order against a fake council summons? It's a complete scam, you know it, they know it. Either educate yourself and talk truth, or don't say something that is not correct. Thank you.
Test
Why are my comments being deleted?
@@Royal-JaywickEveryone should turn up to court well the Mickey mouse court
I had to attend a liability as my direct debit was setup to the wrong account even though I paid it every month on time, got the council letter saying they are going to court gave me a date but no time, went to court couldn’t no one in the court could find out where I was supposed to go, it’s all a big con.
That's exactly the point the question was about at the start of the video.
BBB is totally missing the point.
@@simoncollins6529likely quite deliberately it seems. System through and through stamped on the head.
"I'm too stupid to find the right courtroom, somehow this is evidence of a conspiracy and not me being a blundering idiot."
"They book or arrange a room". A bit draconian and somewhat mafia like.
What you've witnessed with the post office scandle is exaclty how other government departments and local councils have been operating. Using same and similar abusive tactics. Its endemic in the system, and there are many bootlickers who rely on it staying that way. It pays their mortgages and car loans, holidays and coke habits.
If they didn't you would be saying "the hearing did not even take place in a court". Can't win.
Council Tax was a band aid fix for a broken system that punishes the poorer people in society by a disproportionate sum.
Maybe, but this is a POLITICAL statement and your are at liberty to vote or stand for a party that wants to change it. Local services need to be paid for somehow - but there may be fairer models, as you say. As someone who can afford the tax, but sees many people living hand to mouth, I have a lot of sympathy for your statement. Same with energy costs and other utilities
Poorer people in society? Most of them get a council tax reduction, which is often significant. The less you have the better you are off
@@XENUGOLFCLUB I'm not sure that is true either.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu The question in this video isn't political - it's a legitimacy question.
It's no use having a vote if parliament are allowed to make whatever laws they want once elected. They could overturn the entire system and turn it into a dictatorship. That's why they can't make laws - only the justice system can.
In the case of council tax, parliament have called it "law" but that doesn't make it so. Their statute is in fact *unlawful* and will not stand in any court that does its duty to uphold common law and rules of equity (as instructed in legislation itself - Supreme Courts Act 1981, Sec 49)
@@minesadab So reality conflicts with some of your statements. "It's no use having a vote if parliament are allowed to make whatever laws they want once elected. " - This is excatly the point of Parliament. The high court can and does rule against parliament if legislation contradicts things like the human rights act (which is why it is so important to retain this in law). This is why we have an opposition and also why we have a House of Lords. Do you really think people would vote for someone likely to dismantle our democracy?
"Their statute is in fact unlawful and will not stand in any court" - Clearly courts know the law better than you as ALL legilsation stands in EVERY court. Legislation is primary law.
That you don't understand the constitution (which you don't because you have been wildly mislead) or want laws to apply to you is NOT a reason for any of your views.
All courts are to some extent courts of record. When Council tax is being dealt with by these bulk courts there are no records held in the court system. therefore it is not a duly authorized court under the Barr association rules! Further to what you said on all of the council tax summonses it expressly indicates the individual need/should not attend, thereby denying them the right to a fair hearing!
When did you last attend a Magistrates building for COUNCIL TAX .
He clearly never has
When did you black "barrister," last study law? You are not only 'lying' to the public about the definition of law, but you are arrest-able for deliberately giving fraudulent law/legal advice to the public. You should be reported.
@@Сергій-ц8о it written on his face... liar liar
The form for council tax liability was removed from law in 2006 and not replaced with anything else. It states this fact in the council tax hand book.
A tax for having a roof over your head is evil.
It pays for your services 🙄
Garbage collection
Road maintenance
Police/emergency services
Schools
Etc.
Irrespective of our views on taxation can you explain where, and how, the central, and local, Governments get the funding to meet their commitments?
@@PeterChapman-rg6gr The education budget is £100 billion. That's about £10k per pupil each year. That's so much money it's getting to the point where you can hire a private tutor for each pupil at school. We are over taxed and the poorest are hit hardest
"roof" is the operative word here. Council tax is also charged on new and/or refurbishment buildings as soon as they get a roof, even if there is no water, power etc, and is uninhabitable. Historically, large estates, manors etc., removed their roof when moving out, so as not to pay taxes, ditto having glass in their windows I believe.
@@DrJams 10K is cheap for education
The real reason why the council and government can enforce this stuff on you and gives them the 'right' too is simple. The State has the monopoly on force and so can enforce it desires and will. Wrap it up in all the nice words, 'the people's government' etc as much as anyone likes. In the end it always comes down to who has the monopoly of force in their hands.
The monopoly on violence specifically, which gives them the right to force, and legal murder.
And yes, its under that threat to life and liberty we are all held captive.
@@DJWESG1 Exactly for all the bluster about voting, people's government and such it comes down to who is wielding the big stick still.
@user-xj2im1ep3oI point to the American constitution, 2nd amdt. If you like, a balance of power.
If you owe money, they are going to come after you. Try not paying your credit bill and see what happens.
@user-xj2im1ep3o Well only a Government can really have the resources to have that much violence under their command. All I was saying is that when you remove all the fluff and go to the very foundation- all authority stems from the ability to use violence.
Put if people where armed with guns they might be able deter it slightly.
He's part of the system do you expect him to tell you it's a scam
This is just a silly word salad. We have a system. If you don't like it go and live in china or Russia or Spain.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu so corruption is justified because it's part of the system behave so a company can set up a court because the councils are companies can set up a court try you sentence you in your absence deploy enforcement agents remove your property is that what passes for British justice now is it
@@7702alan Just saying the word 'corruption' is meaningless. Councils are not companies - simple as. That is a piece of nonsense.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu I think you'll find they are registered companies try some research before you justify corruption
@@StudentDad-mc3pu "Councils are not companies?" Then why are they listed as such under Dun & Bradstreet?
If the council pay for a court room & pays for the magistrate then its own court and as such an unfair trial
No, magistrates recieve no money. They are volunteers.
We are supposed to have the right to a fair trial. Just not when the council, politicians or police want to abuse us.
@@TobiasJugg-Regis No such thing as a trial in a magistrates court.
The council is a business so it needs to give invoice and a full breakdown!!same as the court is a company!! that's why look up it!! Judges are registered in a small country in the US!!look it up!!all councils are a business look it on company house!!
If you phone the court they haven't got your name they ask what it is for council tax that's council
I contacted my local magistrates court (who were very helpful) to ask a few questions about council tax. When I asked them how many people appear in court summoned by the local for council tax to defend themselves she said not very many at all. She went on to say most cases are resolved before coming to court or in a pre court hearing.
If everyone made a meal out of defending themselves in court we would probably see some change in the system.
Just because it’s law doesn’t mean it’s right!
It's not law. Statute is given the colour of law by means of coercion. Law reflects the custom, mores, attitudes and characteristics of a society and does not require its forceful application.
Bad Law is not Law as stated by our great English Judges many years ago!
@@kilowhiskeyalpha6078 no, those are 'social rules'. However some 'law' is based entirely on the development of those 'social rules'.
On the contrary, the fact that it is law means it is more right than not. Whether you like to believe it or not believe it is irrelevant.
@@KevinHorrox
According to the British Constitution, Acts are only ever given the power of law, they are never law.
You should know that because on charge sheets, the charge will read "the law" where there is a living victim. They use "Contrary to Statute...." where it is an act of Parliament.
The consent of the governed, which is required under the Constitution, to give an Act the power of Law, is only achieved when the legislation is tried by a genuine Trial by Jury, as opposed to a Jury Consultation trial which is what they try to convince us is the same as trial by a Jury of your peers.
In a true Trial by Jury, the judge only acts as a referee to ensure decorum and procedures are followed.
Only those with personal knowledge are allowed to testify, under oath of truthfulness and punishment for perjury.
No lawyers allowed to speak on anyone's behalf, and where every juror knows their duty is to cure the statute as law. Or through Jury Nulification, they strike the statute as unlawful.
Funny how all BAR members refuse to admit this.
Parliament has never lawfully revoked or reversed the Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights, as they don't have the authority except as a special Parliament specifically elected and convened to do so, after having g receivec the plebiscite of the people
You have sworn an oath to the bar council so you would be on the side of the authorities ! How about finding a way to defend the people who are taxed for just having a roof over their heads ??
Making up stuff about imaginary oaths isn't much of an argument.
@@50somethinglawyer All published in the Ethics and Practice document (look it up.) Barristers act as Commissioners for Oaths, Notary Public and related matters, it is NOT imaginary !
@user-xj2im1ep3o And you are undoubtedly a shill. Explain (in detail) why I am wrong !!
@user-xj2im1ep3o using thst phrase doesn't help anyone, it's similarly used to denounce ppl in other sciences and fields of study. If someone is wrong or incorrect then highlight it. Many actual laws can be described as pseudo if properly picked apart.
@roydavis5613 I'm a commissioner for oaths too. But I've never sworn an oath to anyone. Commissioners for oaths are people others can swear oaths before. The clue is in the "commissioner for" bit.
The council tax liability order provided under the 1992 No.613 SCHEDULE 2 Form A)Was removed from law1 Oct in 2003 and no form has been substituted in it's place.This is in the council guidelines handbook.
Everyone should turn up to court and demand a hearing. Absolutely refuse to let them do bulk hearing. They do thousands of them in bulk imagine when they have to deal with each person.
I don't think the system should be overwhelmed as so it breaks. But it's does need overhauling and auditing and reviewing what it does, and the means by which it operates.
The fact that they do them in bulk proves that the people the council are making claims against aren't interested in providing a defense. You are issued a summons with the time, date and location of your hearing. If you don't turn up, that is on you.
Some people can’t pay because they don’t have the means to. Others will not pay even though they have the means, and they are liable.
yer lossed when agreed to be the 'Person';
Why? You will still owe the tax at the end of the day.
I think you struggled sometimes to come to terms with the obvious authoritarianism interwoven into the law even as ypu were reading it aloud.
So are you saying that the local authority enforcers can legitimately use a council notice, of a verbal court liability order, to serve on the individual? I thought the court case you referred to ruled against that?
The case you are thinking of CRITICISED the enforcement agency for asking people to accept a liability order had been made but without providing a copy - it was the agency who was criticised and told to have proper documentation.
You are very careful not to upset anyone in the legal system. Have you ever posted anything that supports us and fights back at the corrupt legal system? You know that council tax is corrupt and that the Acts after we joined the EU are worthless, so why don’t you ever look into this?
Its a worthy point. I think I've raised similar issues.
How is council tax corrupt? Should we not pay for council services?
You clearly didn't watch the video
@@davidmcculloch8490how much tax do we pay from wages to death yet we cannot afford anything
@@gallyman100 That's probably because the richest don't pay their fair share, while the economy is generally mismanaged.
...people are doing it, they arnt paying because part of the process is unlawful, councils are going bankrupt because people understand their rights like never before, this guy has no place anymore, people are realising the power is theirs and there is NO comeback 👊
One major problem is the magistrates court don't hold a record of the hearing. The court room is hired, and the judge is not working for the people.
The verbal Liability order is hearsay in law.
Magistrates will record the outcome of each hearing, even if the overall hearing is not recorded verbatim.
Also, magistrates do work for the betterment of their society, given that magistrates judges are generally people of the local society.
Magistrates judges are also unpaid.
Also, magistrates do work for the betterment of their society,
Not in this case. They are working for the prosecution. If they don't do what the prosecution wants, they don't get the gig.
@@KevinHorrox
@@KevinHorrox so BBB said the council produces the liability order
SO how's it recorded at the magistrates?
SO the council is also impersonating a magistrates. The summons doesn't have a court seal.
I'm confused
@@martind7418 because the council go to the magistrates to apply for the orders. The magistrates grant the orders. The council are then able to produce a letter stipulating the facts of the order upon you.
The council is not impersonating the magistrates because the council are not making the decision - the magistrates is, there fore no impersonating takes place.
And they do not need to be sealed. They only need to be signed by a person who holds the requisite authority in the courts to sign them.
As per the appropriate procedure rules "Where sealing or signature is required, failure to seal the order would have no effect
on the legality or effect of the court order. The legality and effect of the order is
created by the announcement of the judge, magistrate or justices’ legal adviser, not
by a court officer committing it to paper. The primary effect of sealing is to
authenticate the order so that it is admissible in evidence or in other proceedings, for
example foreign enforcement"
@@martind7418 and they also state this, relating specifically to council tax liability orders
" On the subject of a summons, and specifically those issued in Council Tax Liability
cases, the only people authorised to issue a summons are judicial officers: lay
justices, District Judges (MC), Justices’ Clerks, and Assistant Clerks with delegated
powers. However it is worth noting that issuing the summons is not the same as
preparing or printing it, or delivering it. The latter functions are administrative, not
judicial, and responsibility for carrying them out lies with the complainant."
We need mass non payment of council tax
Definitely 👍
Please stop calling it a court. It's a hearing in a room, in a court building which the local magistrate court supplies for free. A lot of our frustrations are not about the legitimacy of paying council tax, but the wording in letters supplied by the council when we don't pay or miss payments and the process it's self.
Does it matter? You have to pay , forget the rest .
@@normanpearson8753 Find the law which states this please, in fact find the law for paying income tax while you are at it #hensteeth
@@graceydavis429He literally refers to the apecific law in the video. But, however many times the law is quoted to you, you will ignore it and talk like you have some special knowledge. You don't.
@@timg1246 you’re right, I don’t have special knowledge, but I do have an understanding of the William and Mary Bill of Rights, the rights King Charles relied upon during his coronation, what’s good for the goose, as they say. In addition there is the indisputable evidence of no obligation.
@@graceydavis429So, again, why are you asking for the specific law when it is directly referred to in the video ?
Allegations in absence is guilt defaulted.
Ah.. guilt before proven innocent, how very uncivilised.
WHAT? read your comment again.
Talking more bollocks.
They hire the court room.
The judges refuse to name themselves nor state under which oath they act.
The state what can and cannot use as a defence.
The liability order is only spoken. It is NEVER recorded in the court.
As it is not recorded in the court it is not a court order.
That has been confirmed by the head of the Department of Justice
The order has NO LEGAL STANDING.
AS USUAL HE'S USING LEGALESE TO DECIEVE.
THE COURTS ARE NOT UNBIASED.
THE COURTS ARE NOT LAWFUL.
correct
Spot on
Blinding everyone with crap Acts and statutes, so much garbage. Acts and Statutes is not Law.
@@deborahpowis7375 lol - y'all are a special kind of stupid.
The council tell people not to attend the council court which isnt a court its just a room hired in the building . Jp name isn't displayed in the courts in session. Its just a room not administered by the magistrate court all administration is done by the claimant the council take the role of the court and pretend to be a court which is illegal .
The council is the claimant and act as a court
I think you will find that the summons makes the "room" a properly constituted court.
You ignored everything said in the video I favour of thise voices you hear.
Exactly, the claimant/plaintiff is the prosecutor too.
Completely unlawful, and totally corrupt
@@eattherich9215no it doesn't.
A court is only a court when a real judge, majestrate or justice of the peace is sworn in on their oath at the start of the court session.
Otherwise, my fekin cat could hold a court in my kitchen.
That's the point, council bureaucrats are pretending to be courts by hiring a little room within a bigger court building.
It's like going to a majestrates court and the claimant/plaintiff dragging you into the toilet and telling you he's put you on trial.
The councils are fraudsters
@@simoncollins6529No one 'hires' the court.
Where the obligation to pay bet you can't prove that ?
1992 LGFA. The obligation is clear.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu No. That's just legislation. No one is above the law (not even the Monarch) and therefore no one can impose their will on another unless there has been an unlawful breach of their peace. With no contract, the only breach of the peace is the council demanding money with threat of violence.
If an enforceable obligation can be just written into legislation, then that's a dictatorship.
@@StudentDad-mc3puis that an obligation to pay for councillors pensions ????????
@@duneideann9241 Irrelevant. I'm not keen on the pension scheme. Councilors get an allowance of about £12,000. It's not much for a hard working councillor. However you don't even need to attend to get the allowance - so I do agree it's taking the piss.
@ It’s not irrelevant when I am being billed for Services not for paying for someone’s Pension 😡
@BlackBeltBarrister We had to pay £10k of the tenants CT, as the property owners.
The council took us to the county court, as the tenant had no assets & then put a 2nd charge against the property and tried to obtain ownership until the land registry notified us & we then became aware of the issue & had to pay them the £10k, £6k CT & £4k legal costs inc £500ph barrister
Council tax is evil
That's terrible. Always worth having a different service address for the LR.
@@DrJams Council tax is a load of rubbish. Being removed weekly and extracted monthly
This makes no sense. If the prop is tenanted then the tenant is solely liable not the owner
@@BlackBeltBarrister We already have our office address registered with LR & it wasn't until the 2nd charge / council trying to take ownership of the property that they notified us of the issue.
Allegedly the CT department didn't have our address, even though the same council were writing to us about the tenants Housing Benefits change.
I’d love to know how a Council can send out the Court Summons, I’d think it would be Fraud
Imagine if we could set up a kangaroo court and prosecute the authorities. We could issue liability orders against the councils, police and the courts.
What for?
A liability order is a good thing if you're on benefits assuming that you only have one single debt that is owed for council tax arrears. Simply refuse to pay the debt and when you have your hearing with the magistrate, offer to have the debt deducted from your benefits. The most they can take out is 5% of what you get and they can't include any disability benefits. For example, if you're a person over 25 on Universal Credit, you probably get the standard £369.00% . 5% of that is about £18.50p. So, even if you owe thousands, the most you pay is 5% of your benefit.
I had a liability order against me last year for £74 their costs were £80 there were another 190 people on their list that day wow seems like a scam to me so it cost them £80 to type a name on a list ???
Interesting how its "not a sum adjudged to be paid by order ot the court" and theres not your typical court order documentation to accompany the order.
Make you wonder ....
How is it even remotely legal that we are forced to psy council tax when we have no say on what the councul spends the money on. Its outrageous my council are their own law doing their own actions without asking the public. 😢
You can vote your councillors in or out. If you want more say in what happens, either vote for someone you respect or run for council yourself.
What is it, that you would like your money spent on. You could make a list, and compare it with the breakdown that the council sends you with the annual statement.
It might be a magistrate, I'll have to PRESUME it's a magistrate, because the council refuses to let the respondent, respond or even attend.
no one gets a court date in post to attend court.
I don't live in a dwelling i live in a private living accommodation
An employer doesn’t have a legal
Liability to pay an attachment order - they can refuse !
No they can't.
the hearing room doesn't have a judge or
records at the civil court service or a civil court judgement
In your first comment basically then it's not a court just a room. No legality
A court can be anywhere. I believe.
At sea. On a battlefield. In the school hall of a bombed out city.
A court is the assembly of people not the actual building or place.
The hearing takes place in a proper court, I know because I’ve been there. The confusion arises because the council take people into a Private room which people misconstrued as the court probably because the council are so bolshy and up themselves
Which means you can video it. :-)
@@adenwellsmith6908 It would be good if you could, but unfortunately we can't as it is in the court building.
Is it? I hear they hire a room, which isn't a court building.
Check, FOI for list of courts. If its not on the list, covert film.
You have your defence in advance.
@@truefoa
How can anyone owe money without a contract or consent to owe money , so what you are saying we are all stuffed.
Good clear description of the law as always. However, there are large holes in the process you describe. I have a liabilty order against me currently. I have asked on 3 occassions for the court to confirm the order. No order has been confirmed by the court, my question is do you still think the order is real? oh and of course the summons was issued by the council not the court, do you still think the court is real? If it is real why would they ask me to contact the council to be able to attend court what has it got to do with the council?
The liability order is not individual - the council will confirm it for you. Just asking the wrong person the wrong question does nothing for your case. Do you owe the money or not - if you don't know yourself you need to have a think.
Hi Student Dad - thanks for replying. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but as BBB said in the video. The order of the court starts with an 'order of the court' by a magistrate. If there is no evidence of that order what are the council doing? The court could send me the court record of the order being stated. But they don't...without this order or evidence of this order, there is no liability order. By the way when asked the question the ministry of justice confirmed the liability order issued by the council is not a legal document. I know all the legal theory says this works perfectly when you read the 1992 act, but in practice it's a shambles. If my council present me with a proper legal document I'll pay until then I'll wait....
@@paulallen5321 The council should be able to send you the record of when the liability order was made. As BBB really has said previously, there is no actual requirement for a liability order to be on paper, once it has been stated by the magistrate the council is responsible for informing the debtors of the order against them.
When they say it is 'not a legal document' they mean that there is no standard legal form for a liability order. I know this is hard to get into our heads but the order simply needs to be made by a Magistrate - once this has happened it exists and ignoring it will simply lead to more difficulties.
I agree, and higher courts have stated, that this system is not really fit for purpost. But so far it is how it is.
Here is what a JUDGE says - please download before it is deleted - richardvobes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/retired-judge-spills-the-beans-1.pdf
Then how come when you contact the court they have no record of it...a little strange if its supposed to be a legitimate court.
The records are held by the council - this is not a criminal charge so the court does not keep the records.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu bull..
what gives them the right? they can take your house and the people as a mass tolerate it all.
French and German farmers aren't putting up with the 'green' and taxation legislation their governments are brining in.
the system will keep applying more control the more the masses continue to roll over.
the only way is for everyone not to pay tax until we get the services required and not our hard earned cash being cronied away.
This isn't a existential issue about freedoms or rights. It's about how much is paid and where the money is spent. Everyone, moslty everyone agrees there ought be some sort of levi to help fund services in your immediate area, but there is always conflict and contention regarding the amounts and the ppl it goes to. The fact is, the majority of ppl don't see or use many of the services its used for, they can't understand why so much is being taken when everything is being cut. It's seems like a fraud to them because money is being taken by deception
@DJWESG1 what's collected local still goes to central government who the redistribute it.
legal is not the same as LAWFUL you sell yourself in the legal ie legalize which is a corporate construct to the highest bidder, win or lose makes no difference, payment shall be forthcoming. It is the legal system that is corrupt not you personally
The problem here is the system is wrong. As someone who once got a council tax bill (we are taking you to court) from Portsmouth ! Whilst in Hong Kong and never having lived in Portsmouth.
Sending Bailiffs or deducting money from my account fine OK do it. BUT ! When I return I expect one A4 sheet of paper to give me access to a court where I can present my proof plus all my costs and expenses. Loss of work, flight from Hong Kong, charges for the inconvenience of my credit scores being hit and charges against the bailiffs if any visit caused distress and fear to any individual.
I have no problem with the system being a failure as long as it can quickly be put right.
This is the failure 😊
If you have never lived in Portsmouth, how could the council take you to court for council tax? You need to fill in the holes in your story.
Normally a quick phone call sorts this out.
there is no uk legalisation that gives the council authority to send out BILLS of any kind? only demands or am i missing an important part of uk legalisation?
Once the "liability order" (whether obtained lawfully, or not) is obtained, the full weight of any enforcement legislation can, and will, be used against you.
Again, it is in the councils interest to deny you the opportunity to defend yourself against their accusation.
The current system is clearly enabling abuse of the councils power.
Where does it say that councils should give ratepayers value for money? as they at present use us as cash cows.
The ballot box.
To clarify......
The question was a slightly sarcastic rhetorical one.
The man or woman who asked it knows full well that the councils shouldn't issue summonses, writs, warrants, orders etc.
No legislation grants the claimant/plaintiff the power to do so.
As BBB rightly pointed out, only a court can do these things.
And that's the bloody point.......
Because councils all over the country are frauding people out of their money by issuing fake documents as listed above.
When you get a council "summons" from a "majestrates court ", people who gone to the courts office before the court date to check the validity of the summons are told "we didn't issue that, it's not from the court".
Councils are fraudsters, they're making illegal demands on people.
Just because they've always got away with it, doesn't mean its lawful.
It's an abuse of power.
That's the point of the question, that's what's going over BBB's head.
Personally, I identify as a ships cat from the 16th century so all these laws dont apply to me, do they?
Don't start them off on maritime issues!
lol..@@50somethinglawyer
Did you have nine tails. 🤣🤣
Harry Rednap gave money to his cat lol and they soon patched that up
you look as if your struggling with it. if a liability order has been granted then the person who it effects should be given a copy but if no such paperwork exists how is a person supposed to believe it exists.
This IS a bit of a flaw - they should not have abolished the paperwork, however they did and now bailifs have a hard time showing paperwork.
As a sociologist who studied a little law, i find it very interesting ppls responce to 'law' in general. Some fight for it to be adheared to the letter, others prefer the spirit of the law, others again might be interested how both the letter and spirit can be used for their own gain, and lots of arguments inbetween by various vested interests as to how it must be interprered and used..
And ive found that to be quite hard to pick apart.
Law is subjective no?
And add a tyrant into the mix, what does the law say then?
You've missed the current trend. Government doesn't like people challenge it in court. So they have industrialised justice where they win.
Council tax is one example. A court run by the prosecutor, paid for by the prosecutor, with a magistrate paid for by the prosecutor. If the magistrate doesn't play ball, they replace them with one that will. Then is the game where the prosecutor says, you don't need to turn up, because heaven forbid someone wants to defend themselves.
Due diligence? 5000 cases in a day, and no questions asked? Signed off as a batch.
That's evil. That's why people are against it. It's also why I think you have to think even when the BBB is presenting something. He's been involved in the law for so long that he's in the club. There's a group think going on. They can't get their head around the moral issue. Is this acceptable?
He thinks its all unchangeable/un-challengable, the courts and the system are above reproach... that is simply garbage.
========
For him, yes, because he's in that game.
So we need to have discussions about false convictions, and failure to convict. They are the errors of a legal system.
I learned that lesson with Lord Denning. An evil man. On the Birmingham bombers he was complaining that if they had been killed the legal system wouldn't have had to admit to the error. Namely kill people so he doesn't have to apologise.
The big issue at the moment is the industrialisation of making the population criminals.
@@rfxtuber
@adenwellsmith6908 oh I've not missed the trend, I noticed it in 2011 and wrote about it. I could see quite clearly as they removed services and imposed cuts they weren't willing to move on anything unless someone took it to the high court, and in the following years rhey were taking to the high and human rights courts on multiple occasions for multiple breaches to the law on groups and individuals alike. And they lost some of those cases.
This took place in tandem with their culture war discourse, attackes on judges and experts and nudging the general public to hate them and the systems we come to rely and depend on. Like the judiciary, human rights law, and the UN declaration itself.
The blog I wrote was called 'David Cameron and the human wrongs charter'. And they read it.
@@adenwellsmith6908Did you watch the video with the sound turned off ?
No with it on. Go and watch Richard Vobes latest.
@@timg1246
As you say there are thousands to be heard in the same day.
If everyone actually turned up to have their case heard they wouldn't have the time or the space to hold all the people outside...
What does that tell you about the lack of ability for people to pay this tax that goes to pay the council CEO and employees vast pensions?
My council CEO is paid £165,000 PLUS a £25,00 a year pension! The PM gets paid less than that!
That's where the money is going..not on services.
The council tax or pol tax was forced on the population: its is not what we ever asked for the money is not spent wholy on the premise its for services.
All tax is 'forced' however you are free to vote for a party that simply stops local services and makes you pay for everything you use (including care when you are elderly).
@@StudentDad-mc3pu no tax is mandetory
@@meatabolichealingUK Yep - taxes are obligatory and created by law.
At 5:40 you say the council is “producing the order based on the court order”. Again so misleading. The council does not produce an “order”. They do not have the authority to produce an order. They produce a notice which informs a debtor that an order exists. However, as we are now all well aware, this notice is misleading as no actual order is ever produced by the court. Speaking an order in to existence might satisfy you as a barrister Daniel, but once your opposition request evidence of the order you are duty bound to disclose it.
The order is made in court - that is a misconception. Once the judge says there is an order, it exists.
@StudentDad-mc3pu and the moon is made of cheese so someone said 😅
@@nickkitchen4972 Only if it's a judge sitting in a court.
Liability orders ceased in 2003 , liability orders when asked for are never shown .
They can't exist electronically , they have to be signed and in paper form so they can be read by the person that it is against .
Hearsay is not recognized in law as far as I am aware .
Sous it recognized in legislation ?
@@nickkitchen4972 No they did not "cease" at any time. And there is nowhere in law that says a person has to see the copy of the order. An order is signed in court and that is enough, and is in accordance with the 1992 procedures. However, I agree it creates a problem when debt collection agencies are involved.
There is no question that every household is liable for council tax.
when are you going to do a video about what a/the person is in law
Bad Law cannot be Law as the greatest English Judges stated!
That's what should happen but what often happens is they meet you in an intetveuw room within magistrates court and lead you belive this is the hearing. I've sat as a Mackenzie friend numerous times for freends and stopped this action. When highlighted to magistrates it is denied by council by which time as magistrates are just a extension of council by proxy on old times a sheriff appeal is made to county court and usually the liability order is overturned and a agreement to pay made inset county court order which is easier to vary
1st answer PRESUMES the council give you the chance to attend - which they often dont.
He is giving HIS opinion on what he THINKS happens, but clearly has no experience of its reality.
Presumably if you moved out in March and the local authority sent the notifications to that address you would not be aware that you were on a liability order list .
'... moved out in March ...' without telling the council FOR SOME REASON. People are their own worst enemy and when the law finally catches up with them, it's everbody else's fault.
You have a duty to inform the council of your last day of occupation - if you don't bother, you are going to have a problem of your own making
As a magistrate I can tell you that I do not like making these orders, same for warrants to remove meters. You just get a list of names, the officer swearing that everything is above board and correct and that's that. We don't really have any choice, but to make the order. On what grounds could we possibly refuse? In reality its a tick box, my name could be on the list for all I know!
My understanding is that if you signed it, you own it.
By that I mean you become the person to sue, if the process goes wrong.
You do have a choice. You are perhaps to lazy to do the job as it should be done
@@letsgobrandon8495 no, you cannot sue a magistrate for making an order, you can only appeal against the order. And no, there is no real choice, because the process only allows you not to make an order if there is a good reason not to. There’s no such reason not to. Plenty of airchair lawyers on here who ought to better listen to the BBB.
@@WraithRaider I didnt say you can sue a magistrate for making an order.
I said "if the process goes wrong"
You yourself admitted that you signed off on bulk (thousands) of orders, without reading any of them, instead relying on the " officer swearing that everything is above board and correct".
Thing is "the officer" says that the stack of orders are all "above board and legal", but he (the officer), doesnt do the final sign off,.. YOU DO.
You are supposed to hear the defendant.
We rely on you to protect our Constitutional rights without fear or favour.
Don't bulk sign anything.
Defendants have a right to trial by jury.
You taking instruction from a court clerk craps all over us.
A majestrate is the boss of his court.
Please, show some courage and remember our forefathers died in two world wars to protect our freedoms which transnational corporations and banks and corrupt politicians rapidly stripping us of.
We need you to be strong and do your job properly.
Bulk hearings are an abomination, Where's the fairness, equity or justice in that ?
I dont object to paying for local amenities that actually benefit the local people and are actually WANTED by the people that pay .... I do think we should have a rebate on what we pay the police as they do not do the job we pay them for ...
Stand for council
@BLACKBELT BARRISTER what about the fact they wont send a invoice? Itemised billing so we can see what we are paying for?
The problem is with the banding as houses were over priced to get the higher banding
The council tax banding was fixed as of April 1991 and the government has said that there will be no re-assessment. Look, if you really want council tax to keep pace with the exponential rise in property prices, you must be mad.
but it does rise every year ? the original banding was wrong
@@eattherich9215
ANY "ACT" NEEDS CONSENT PEOPLE , HAVE A WONDERFUL DAY .
Those types of commenters aren’t interested in the truth
Indeed - but some people listen to them 🤷♂️
Their general approach isn't to discover the facts and allow those facts to lead to a conclusion rather to decide on the desired conclusion then scurry round to find facts which rarely fit but which they panel beat and otherwise distort, borrow facts from other jurisdictions and make up any missing ones.
At the the same time it's perfectly reasonable and legal to challange the system and the status quo.
The law changes, its not static, and it can only change through challange and reflection.
@BlackBeltBarrister has the law ever changed??
@legalweasel73 irs doesn't help anyone to simply ignore facts or make them up, however nor is it right that everyone simply does as rhey are told by an authority , an authority that's proven to be unjust and arbitrary.
The Council Tax is a charge for a service foisted upon us.
It has no legal basis.
It's a contract enforced against one parties will and is and always will be a void contract enforced at the barrel of a gun.
We have a home in Wales. Mortgaged. Councils are allowed to tax up to treble. What is obscene is that we use less local council services but pay more than locals and the rented properties trash the areas and abuse refuse disposal. It is actually a joke and with remote working we can spend time between homes! Council tax should be for services provided . They have no financial interest in our property and we PAY to maintain them including structural such as roof repairs! 😠
No, what's wrong is people having second homes. There's a housing shortage, it's selfish. No need to build new ones, just more efficient use of the ones we have.
In principle you make a fair point, in practice it’s totally ridiculous. How do you propose to relieve people who have second homes of those second homes…..send in the bailiffs and just repossess them. People who are lucky enough or who have worked hard enough are entitled to keep the spoils of their hard work. Anything else is just madness.
Well, tax means , really you don't have much say in how it's spent, or how often you go to the Welsh house .Like Income Tax , the gov't spends , without directly asking you
Key words : Mr,child, when dealing with corporations, it's contract law. Liability orders have to name the "person" and court stamp so you know who has "authorised " this "order" "against ""you" . Who is Liable for "your""suffering " in the case of "misjudgement" by way of false allegations for gain?.
Again, 'person' is the word here. Only companies and organizations are liable for Council Tax according to Legislation. Also, there are no liability orders, and hasn't been since the forms were removed from Legislation in 2003. Finally, the Local Government Finance Act 1992 is NOT proof of a debt or liability to pay Council tax, as proved in the Marc Horn v Liverpool City Council case. Anybody can verify all the points i made by simply looking at the Regulations themselves and doing some research.
Only if you misread the legislation, give some words your own bizarre meaning and pretend bits of legislation aren't there. Then you're golden 😂
@@50somethinglawyer Funny that you should mention misread. As Dan said in his recent video on tv license, words are important.If you can find one Legislation that says a legal person is NOT a company or organization, i will happily donate a thousand pounds to a charity of your choice. Take your time, and good luck.
@ukinvasion2012 I never said a company is not a person. Persons are not exclusively limited to companies though. Read and construe IA 78 properly. Cancer Research is fine. Send me a copy of the receipt please.
@@ukinvasion2012 You made the donation yet?
@@50somethinglawyer You mean this Legislation, where it states under definition " Person " includes a body of persons corporate or unincorporate. [1889]? I'm not sure what you are reading, because it says the exact same thing as the original and even quotes it. So i'm afraid Cancer research are going to be waiting a lot longer. Please feel free to keep looking however, i'll still be here.
I phoned up the court for details of the liability order at the court and the court doesn't even have any details of it
I am glad that all those objecting to the Council tax no longer have to pay the "Church" tax as well. whilst Council tax can be considered "Morally" bad the "Church tax is pure criminal extortion.
Church tax? Never heard of it
@@phil2544 Church tax and thithes were abolished a long time ago but Chancel repair liability is still enforceable where the Church can force some house owners to stump up the costs of repairing their local churches.
time point 4:20 further to 'the other case' you talk about (L v B&S), So when an a local authority issues an Attachment of Earnings Order in paper form to an employer based on a LO that cannot be evidence, can the L v B&S judgement be used. Does the employer have to have evidence of the LO before they action an AOE order and make deductions?
Also what if the AEO the local authority send out is missing the Regulations that are meant to be included at the end of the order, and what if the very same SEO aka statutroy instrument Schedule 3 of TCTAER92 the 'order' is not signed by a 'proper Officer of he Authority' as it is mean to be according to the statue or even officially endorsed with a stamp of the authority? So missing guidance Regulation amounting to 5 pages and no signature. Is it a defective instrument and void?
Would love to hear your thoughts on that. Thanks
The working British person is taxed to death and for what? Sending money abroad and then back into the corporations purse and ridiculous things like 2 aircraft carriers 😡
Yes without any planes
No one can order a man, without due just compensation
Common lore
Correct way to write Common law
@user-xj2im1ep3o
These authorities take your money and spend it as they see fit I call that theft but the law doesn't deal with authority that's because it's the authorities that make the law. Accountability and justification is what the law lacks.
We vote. You can stand for election. You will lose, but at least you will see how the system operates in a democracy.
The Monster Raving Loony Party is currently looking for candidates in your area. Lucky you.
@@timg1246 Not sure we have a democracy anymore as for the looney party they will probably do a better job if they get in couldn't be any worse that's for sure
Well, for 1000 years it's been called tax. No one likes it.
Here is what a JUDGE says - please download before it is deleted - richardvobes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/retired-judge-spills-the-beans-1.pdf
How can the do 1000s in one day and change court fee to every one that’s unlawful ?
As far as I understand it, the council rents a room, and charges every defendant the price of the rental.
They don't divvy the rent out, every one gets to pay the hire charge. Money for old rope.
Exactly, it's fraud
"As far as I understand it" Which isn't very far apparently as everything you just said is wrong.
@@SpeekYoureBranes OK... So some one gets their summons order. On the order is their bill for the hire of the premises. If 100 people are summonsed to appear that is 100 x £££ the cost of the hire. Thats how I understand it, as explained to me by some one who did get a summons. .
@fredericksaxton3991 You show me a single council tax summons that has "hire costs" itemised on it and I'll pay your Council Tax bill for 2024/25.
The phrase " they're all heard...".
They are neither "heard" nor even looked at. There is only a paper with "smith, et al" (or something similar) which could represent 500 separate people - some (or all) of which, havent even been informed of the date or place of this procedure and therefore cannot defend themselves.
Once this procedure has taken place, everything else is rubber-stamped "on assumption" that correct procedure has been followed, and CCJ's are handed out automatically.
Would love to see you debate this with one of Vobes guests.
But i guess you won't 🤬
This is simple law - nothing to debate. Someone saying, _"Oh, yea, prove it"_ isn't a debate.
By 'Vobes' guests' I assume you are referring to barrack-room lawyers?
@BlackBeltBarrister There is a lot to debate.
Most of your claims to start with.
According to the British Constitution, Acts are only ever given the power of law, they are never law.
You should know that because on charge sheets, the charge will read "the law" where there is a living victim. They use "Contrary to Statute...." where it is an act of Parliament.
The consent of the governed, which is required under the Constitution, to give an Act the power of Law, is only achieved when the legislation is tried by a genuine Trial by Jury, as opposed to a Jury Consultation trial which is what they try to convince us is the same as trial by a Jury of your peers.
In a true Trial by Jury, the judge only acts as a referee to ensure decorum and procedures are followed.
Only those with personal knowledge are allowed to testify, under oath of truthfulness and punishment for perjury.
No lawyers allowed to speak on anyone's behalf, and where every juror knows their duty is to cure the statute as law. Or through Jury Nulification, they strike the statute as unlawful.
Funny how all BAR members refuse to admit this.
Parliament has never lawfully revoked or reversed the Magna Carta nor the Bill of Rights, as they don't have the authority except as a special Parliament specifically elected and convened to do so, after having g receivec the plebiscite of the people
@@rfxtuber don’t be naive. Blocking you
@@redrooster5444 you have no idea what you’re talking about.
No government or parliament has the authority to tax the human right to private and family life and home. The act and process of collecting property tax does not conform to the absolute right of a person in Art 8 ECHR. To demand a tax for your home is to be held in slavery and servitude. No wonder the government wants to get rid of human rights. And has already taken you out of the EU. And this so-called barrister comes here and tells you nonsense.
It's demanding money with menaces, except the council seem to think they are acting legally. I don't need any of their "services", so why should I be forced to pay? I don't pay a TV licence, so I don't watch any live TV.
Everyone uses most services .Everyone .
@@normanpearson8753 Speak for yourself, lefty.
No it isnt. We all pay for services that people in the community need, that's the point.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu Are you happy paying for council pensions?
@@Sonya_Makepeace All employees are entitled to pension and all employers are required by law to provide pensions schemes into which they make contributions. If you are employed YOU have a pension that is being paid for in part by your employer.
The court or council can't wright to you it can't speak or rent buildings as it's only a name of a corporation it can't come after you as it is only stationary on paper.
Someone that works in its office,ie a living being has typed and sent you the letter. they must have been given an order to do so by someone with lawful authority to do so.
If they rent the court on a regular basis they will be familiar with the judges and others that work there isn't that bias against the so called debtors.
How is that a fair court hearing.
Has anyone looked up the Miami state court building on Google maps. looking down on it from above.
I found it highly compelling.
Would you be stood on the deck or in the docks 😂 have a look❤
Miami federal court building.
"Eye eye go to see"😅
Whilst I don't enjoy having to pay Council Tax, I wonder if those against it would explain how they think Local Authorities would pay for services provided. However, I do think the charges are too high, mainly due to financial cuts from Central Government to LA's and preceptors, such as Police etc.
What services?? They squander our money.
@@raymondmunroe5459Education, School meals, Breakfast clubs for school children, street lighting, refuse collection, recycling, food waste disposal, Policing, social care, elderly care, meals on wheels, special needs care, special needs schools. But yeah, "what services?".
@@paulhillman400 Thank you, I was going to reply but thought it was a waste of time.
@@vern1588Use of the funds and efficiency are the arguments/discussions people should be having. The sov cit types are too lazy to address the real issues and find it easier to simply pretend it's not an obligation.
I wonder when the local authority is going to provide me with the service I paid for. The money is often spent to benefit their own political ideology and the only thing you ever get from them is herrassment, extortion and fraud.
the word shall comes up in what you speak of. what does it mean in legalese? i bet you wont reply with the actual answer here
As a cabinet member for finance in a council I can tell you that no part of the law on council tax is really in serious dispute. Some people dispute how the law applies to their particular facts but we tend to sort that out quite quickly and it doesn't need a court hearing. And followers of esoteric TH-cam channels should note that by definition, if any liability order for council tax has ever been upheld by a higher court, that would prove in and of itself that council tax is legal - and of course they have been.
So you help with the fraud then I bet your proud
it's not law you clown, it's legislation, which is nothing more than deception through legalese. There is no liability order and there is no liability - end of.
Thanks for this insteresting comment.
Do tell me which man or woman employed at the council claims to be that council? I do believe only a man or woman can make a claim against another man or woman who owes council tax. I'm kinda confused how a council is God created in order to bring any complaint to a court that displays the Crown Crest God and my right when that council is not God created.
@@mauricebarnett6951 Dunno what you're on about. I have no concept of 'god'. Local authorities are creatures of statute: Local Government Act 1972 in most of E+W, London Government Act 1963 in London, Local Government etc (Scotland) Act 1994 in Scotland.
where is the contract?
Good advice! On a similar vien water and sewerage services are charged by private limited companies who are requited by law to "make arrangements" with the owner or occupier of business premises but treat their "terms and conditions" as a done deal. As they are private companies, in my view, they must be subject to contract law where impositions undermine the "right to contract" and the offerees' right to accept, refuse or modify the offer. It would be interesting to hear BBB's views on this.
You are entering into a contract for the supply of something in exchange for a consideration (usually money). If you fail to honour your agreement, then the "terms and conditions" that bind you to pay have been broken. Trying to be smart won't save you from proceedings.
@@eattherich9215 With respect, I think you're missing the point. A bilateral contract is a voluntary agreement between the offeror and the offeree and unless accepted by the offeree there is no contract unless the offeree uses the services which then becomes a deemed contract. If you don't use the services there's no contract.
@@angusmacmillan5365You accept the deal by using the services. Not every contract has to be in writing.
You are happy to use water, sewers and electricity, so pay for it. Well, let's be honest, you do pay. Then you post a load of old tosh on t'internet.
@@timg1246national grid supplies the energy not the energy companies. So what is the service ?
@@reality_pls5696Irrelevant.
You do not pay National Grid. You pay thecsupplier, who then pays National Grid.
You are trying to distract from the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.
A crime in the UK law, requires a living victim. Otherwise its not a crime, its a violation of statute, which is an entirely civil and not criminal action.
Only in your imaginary legal system.
@@andrewdavies7827 Really?
Are you too dumb to work out murder is a crime, because a LIVING PERSON IS THE VICTIM.
THAT MAKES IT A CRIME AND A VIOLATION OF STATUTE.
It literally lists both on a murder charge sheet.
Go look it up
@user-xj2im1ep3o they have deprived another of their property.
The owners of the bank, being living beings, are the victims, hence theft is a crime as well as a stature violation
I don't have to pay council tax because I cancelled my contracts with the government. Anyway my home is empty because I'm in prison 😂
Would be far easier to say
“ local authorities do not respect the court process and don’t give two hoots about legislation”
It’s not the courts fault
The thing bbb says which is true is you have to defend yourself or they’re right regardless of what is legal or illegal
If you don’t defend yourself the local authorities win by default
Its mad in this day and age ,that the council should work with the people or for the people , we understand we need to pay for services , but surely the council cant police its own policy , its true about the order , but i thought the court was not issuing those orders, so without the paper work ,its unefforcable.
Im like this ,the council should be in the service of the people , similar to the goverment , which they are not .
I think we need a brand new system because neither is working for people .
The Council Tax is a charge for a service foisted upon us.
It has no legal basis.
It's a contract enforced against one parties will and is and always will be a void contract enforced at the barrel of a gun.
And does the court have on system that a liability order is in place as the next day I rang them didn't tell them what the order was for but asked them to check both criminal and civil and they couldn't find anything 🤔
The council keep the records of CT hearings
@@StudentDad-mc3pu and whom gives them the authority to do that? STUDENTdad.. bull
These videos BBB does on council tax always draw out the crazies in the comments 😂😂
The truth hurts , so they listen to half baked loonies on the Net .
"If a wise man goes to court with a fool, there will be raving and laughing with no resolution." Proverbs 29.9
Here is what a JUDGE says - please download before it is deleted - richardvobes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/retired-judge-spills-the-beans-1.pdf
time for your booster i reckon
@@meatabolichealingUK conspiracy bingo, check! 🤣🤣🤣
Woolway vs mazer's Lord Sumption struggles to define the definition of a dwelling hereditament and concludes it's real estate, real estate is commercial
That means I could demand money from councillors??
We are ALL equal in the eyes of the law. I thought liability orders were done away with?
The Council Tax Handbook 13th Edition by Child Poverty Action Group | Page 220, Chapter 10
"In practice, the courts seldom issue individual liability orders; the judge or chair of the magistrates normally just signs a certificate attached to the list of nonpayers, but in a form that does not comply with the regulations - without the stamp or seal of the court or any form laid down in regulations since 2003.”
"However, if no proper stamped and sealed order is drawn up and issued by the court, then effectively the local authority may not be able to establish that any such order exists or existed at any stage, nor show that the magistrates were ever satisfied that the local authority had proved all the matters it is required to prove."
“The form (Form A) originally provided to draw up liability orders was removed from law from 10 July 2003 in Wales and 1 October 2003 in England and no form has been substituted in its place. Without any written record of its order or judgment being issued by the court, an order from a magistrates’ court may be invalid. This point has been raised in proceedings at various magistrates’ courts since August 2015 and has yet to be resolved, The failure by parliament to create the necessary form is a serious flaw in the legislation which potentially compromises the making of all orders and enforcement activity.
A liability order is meant to identify the aggregate amount that can be recovered, including the costs, but it is unclear how this can be achieved if a magistrates’ court does not make a liability order in writing and only purports to issue the liability order orally."
Here is what a JUDGE says - please download before it is deleted - richardvobes.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/retired-judge-spills-the-beans-1.pdf
Pure gold, thank you