Council Tax And Saying No Update 1.

Firstly, to the trolls from the David Icke forums, thank you for your very dubious comments.

For the open minded ones from the David Icke forums and those that come from anywhere else, welcome.

A few people have asked for proof of what I stated on a previous post here and I firmly believe that they were completely correct in asking for proof, I would do the same.

The problem that I had in providing this proof was that I had moved house and many things were still in boxes, but now I have been able to find documents and transcripts I hope that it will allay any fears regarding my own truth or a means that has worked regarding this immoral tax.

The battle is always ongoing and I believe that all that any of us can hope for is not a win but, instead a draw whereby both sides just back off. This has been my stance for years.

If council tax was really about paying for services then I would not have an issue at all and I would pay my fair share. But it is not about that when at least 50% is paid on pensions and investments.

Some words and a few files for those that want clarification.

Pete

28^th October 2009

Mr Gareth Evans

 

FORMAL COMPLAINT

Dear Sirs,

I write in regard to your letter and council tax statement dated 15/10/09 and I have to state that I am astounded by the contents of the council tax bill.

I completely dispute that I am liable to your council for council tax bill and the bailiff costs included in the summary of liability.

I am in dispute with Rossendales Ltd regarding the charges that they have invoiced against me. This is a civil matter between myself and a private limited company. There is absolutely no justification in including the disputed amount between myself and Rossendales Ltd as a liability contained within the council tax bill you have issued to me.

If they wish to pursue me for part of the disputed charges then this is of course their prerogative. I have reason to doubt the legality of Rossendales Ltd charges having looked at the law in reference to exactly what fees a bailiff can charge in relation to collection of council tax arrears, I believe that Rossendales are no more than interlopers on an alleged debt.

Rossendales Ltd did not gain a walking possession agreement/order, they levied on a car which I proved was leased and not owned by myself this was therefore an incorrect levy and not chargeable. They charged for “reasonable costs” for attending my property with a view to removing goods and chattels, since they had no walking possession it was immaterial which type of vehicle they attended with.  I refer you to Culligan -v- Marston Group Ltd et-al, no. 8CL51015.

Distress was not served:

The process of distress consists of three stages;
· the entry into the premises,
· the seizure of the goods
· the subsequent securing of the goods.

 

Your employee Mrs C Saunders is well aware of the dispute on these charges and yet has chosen to ignore my response that I am in dispute with Rossendales Ltd regarding the charges and continues to state the charges are due.

I will refer you to the following:

Under the Fraud Act 2006. Section 2 of the Act specifically states:

2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and

(b) intends, by making the representation—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if—

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and

(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

(3) “Representation” means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of—

(a) the person making the representation, or

(b) any other person.

(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

3 Fraud by failing to disclose information

A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and

(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

4 Fraud by abuse of position

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—

(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and

(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—

(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.

Your council gained a liability order against me for outstanding council tax for which I fully accept liability. A liability order cannot be amended in any way unless a new liability order is obtained from the Magistrates Court. I have never been notified of any updated liability order being issued.

I now refuse to enter into any verbal conversation with Mrs C Saunders due her belligerent approach to the matter of Council Tax arrears.  While I have attempted to find a resolution to this matter Mrs Saunders continually attempts to escalate matters in stating, “We will apply to court for a custodial sentence since you refuse to pay your council tax”. I have never refused nor wilfully neglected to pay this tax, there is a massive difference between refusing to pay and being financially unable to pay. I explained to Mrs Saunders that if the council chose to apply to court for a custodial sentence then I would defend it, she then stated “Yes, but it is going to cost you another £240 to see my face in court”. Once again you will see that instead of looking for a resolution Mrs Saunders looks to escalate matters with threats of financial loss and my loss of liberty. Mrs Saunders continually spoke over me as I tried to explain the situation and would not allow me to be heard, I ended up having to hang up the telephone as I refused to listen to the barrage being inflicted by your employee. Your own customer care standards have definitely not been met, you state on your Website:

We will:

• Be polite, and treat you with courtesy, fairness, honesty and respect.  This did not happen at all. Your employee was using both express and implied threats regarding imprisonment and further financial loss.
• Make sure that services are accessible to everyone.
• Listen to you carefully and use Plain English when we speak or write to you. I was not listened to at all as I was not allowed to speak; I could hardly complete one sentence without being spoken over.
• Explain our decisions and the reasons for them.
• Respect confidentiality. This did not happen as Mrs Saunders telephoned and explained why she was calling, in detail, stating she “had to resolve the outstanding arrears on my council tax bill”, she did not identify the person with whom she was speaking, and it was not me she was speaking with! This in itself is a clear breach of the data protection act.

My comments are in red font. If you use a voice recording facility then I suggest you go and listen to the call.

I now formally request that you investigate the matters above.

 

Regards,

 

Pete

 

Your ref:

Our ref: GE/

Please ask for: Gareth Evans

Direct dial: (01553) 616218

Direct fax: (01553) 767332

	Gareth Evans Executive Director Revenues and Customer Services

 

 

Mr Pete

 

Dear Mr Pete

Customer Complaint

 

I refer to your customer complaint letter dated 28 October, your subsequent e-mail and my response to you. As promised this letter formally details my response to you.

As you are aware, your account was passed to our external Bailiffs, Rossedales, however your account was returned to the Council “nulla bona” as they were unable to collect the account and stated that you refused to pay.

Your account was then passed to my Assistant Revenues Manager, Mrs Cassie Saunders with a view to commencing committal action against you for non payment if no satisfactory arrangement could be agreed. Initial notes by Mrs Saunders indicate that she advised you to claim Housing Benefit which you declined stating that you claim no benefits. Mrs Saunders again tried to contact you and I can see that when she did speak with you neither party seems to have gained a satisfactory outcome. You have quoted our customer care standards in your letter and I would have expected Mrs Saunders to act in a manner appropriate to those standards. If she did not, and we do not record telephone conversations I apologise although I hope that you would acknowledge that at this stage in the Council Tax recovery process it is more difficult to achieve.

You raise the issue of the Council Tax account sent to you including the Bailiff costs. This bill was a statement of your account which at that time legitimately included the costs that had been incurred by Rossendales. Had the matter proceeded through to a committal hearing we would have been asking the magistrates to include the costs incurred in any order that they may have made. I do accept your point that the costs do not form part of your actual Council Tax due.

As you stated in your e-mail to the Council on 3 November you have now received a letter from Mrs Saunders dated 30 October in which she has as a gesture of goodwill and in the hope of making an arrangement with you removed the disputed bailiff levy fee of £163. This is not undertaken lightly since our Bailiffs will in effect now have to write off their sum due. The facts of whether the levy was correct or not are a matter between yourself and the Bailiffs. Clearly now that we have agreed that they should be cancelled it is a matter for you if you continue to pursue with Rossendales.

No payment has been made at all on your account for a considerable period. I appreciate that you are now on a limited income and I would be happy to agree an arrangement with you which I hope could amicably conclude this matter.

My contact details are on this letter however I am away all of next week. I have placed a hold on your account pending our agreement.

Yours sincerely

(Gareth Evans)

 

And then the response:

 

 

Some have said that these letters have been invented, some have said that these letters have been photoshopped and some have said that I am as fake as the letters. To those people I say fuck you, stay asleep and challenge nothing whatsoever.

There is more to follow as I did not want to make this a huge article.