Page 6 of 10

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:33 pm
by Veronica
That letter is so chock-a-block with complete bollox it's hard to know where to start.

Return the Invoice to them, and follow up with a Statement of Account. Point out that, if they don't rebut this Statement IN SUBSTANCE, then you'll go through the process (Notice of Fault, Default, Final Notice) to a Statutory Demand.

Tell them that a Court would need just a little bit more than "We don't feel like paying it", for the simple reason that creating Notice of it, and implementing it, is a perfectly LAWFUL thing to do.

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 10:58 pm
by dmurphy25
Ok I finished my response, sorry I didnt get to read your comments before I wrote this but I will read through them and make changes as appropriate... as always any further comments greatly appreciated :sun:

Thanks Veronica for snipping the address, I missed that one... Dopey Dave :blush:

Dave: of the Murphy family
c/o Address,
TOWN
County
[POSTCODE]
10th May 2010

Ref: XXXXXXXXX

Dear Elaine: of the Henderson family,

Thank you for your letter dated 30 April 2010, while it was kind of you to return the Reminder Notice and my invoice, you need not have concerned yourself as I keep copies of all our correspondence so I am returning both these items to you. In future, please ensure that all invoices are passed to your accounts department.

I understand that you believe that you have provided me with sufficient responses to my questions; however, I can assure you that you have not responded with substance to any of them as clearly stated in my NOTICE OF NON ACCEPTANCE DUE TO LACK OF SUBSTANCE AND CLARIFICATION.

It seems that you are finding it difficult to grasp the concept of responding with substance, so as an example I offer this analogy regarding the question of whether or not I am a liable person.
Let's imagine you are trying to enforce the dog leash 'law' you might say that “As a dog owner, the law says that I must keep my dog on a leash at all times”, but my position is that I have looked up the legal definition of a dog and it says “a four legged animal with a tail” and while that description may appear to fit, my pet is actually a cat and so I am not a dog owner and that 'law' does not apply to me. Once apprised of this fact, you cannot respond with "The law says that all dogs must be on a leash at all times" and consider yourself having responded with substance as the onus is now on you to prove that my cat is a dog and that the law does indeed apply to me.

The legal definition of a ‘Person’ according to Black’s Law Dictionary is “a legal fiction or corporation” and I am neither. As soon as you were made aware of the distinction between myself and a ‘Person’, the onus was on you to prove otherwise and I am afraid that quoting the Local Government Finance Act cannot be considered a response with substance. As all your responses were of this nature, you have therefore failed in your legal and moral duty to answer in full all questions and points raised and so you are in dishonour.

I trust that this clarifies the situation.

Thank you for your attempt at coercion with the threat of a summons against Mr. DAVID MURPHY, I would be happy to attend as agent for MR. DAVID MURPHY a properly convened court of Her Majesty’s Court Service; in which case I shall expect a summons which displays the court seal, a valid case number and a wet signature by a magistrate, clerk of the court or suitably qualified officer of the court.

Due to the fraudulent and duplicitous nature of THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES, I expect to receive a document that purports to be a court summons but does not comply with the above conditions of a valid court summons pursuant to the Magistrates Court Act 1980 Part II, Section 51. If this is indeed the case it will be considered as fraud by THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES and I will pursue additional commercial remedies which may result in a claim for substantial criminal damages.

I also apologise for not thanking you for your offer to contact you if I feel that I am entitled to a discount, I declined your offer because I do not feel that way at all, I believe that because of the content of our correspondence and because of the legally binding nature of the subsequent estoppel by tacit acquiescence, I am not liable for Council Tax and that you have lost any right you may feel you have to make any demands upon me. Thanks for the offer anyway.

Regarding my unauthorised communication and response letter fees, your agreement was not required. As agent for THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES, you were granted plenty of opportunities to cure your dishonour by answering my reasonable questions with substance, however because of your failure to address in full all questions and points raised and your tacit acquiescence we now have a legally binding agreement and permanent and irrevocable estoppel, forevermore barring all parties from making further demands upon me and as such I am free to attach such terms and conditions as I see fit, as a penalty for violating that agreement.

I’m sorry if you feel that my charges are unreasonable, I do admit to being quite expensive, but since you are unable to prove this liability and in light of the foregoing estoppel, you do have a choice whether you incur them or not.

Once again, you have dishonoured my NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE by communicating with me without my consent and so I have enclosed an invoice for £1000.00 (ONE THOUSAND AND ZERO PENCE GREAT BRITISH POUNDS STERLING) payable on receipt. Please ensure that all invoices are passed to your accounts department.

Sincerely without malice, ill will, vexation or frivolity


By: Dave: of the Murphy family
All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

Enc:
Fee Schedule Invoice - 0000002
Fee Schedule Invoice - 0000004
Original paperwork


[EDIT: cleaned up some glaring grammatical errors]

Boy am I having fun with all this, I can't wait to go to court, especially having spent this evening trawling through the Magistrates Court Act 1980... I cant wait to pull out Section 121 Subsection 6:

"the justices composing the court before which any proceedings take place shall be present during the whole of the proceedings; but, if during the course of the proceedings any justice absents himself, he shall cease to act further therein"


Let them try to run out of the courtroom I'm gonna say "You'd better have three more Magistrates back there because otherwise you step through that door and this case is over" :giggle:

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 11:04 pm
by dmurphy25
Veronica wrote:That letter is so chock-a-block with complete bollox it's hard to know where to start.

Return the Invoice to them, and follow up with a Statement of Account. Point out that, if they don't rebut this Statement IN SUBSTANCE, then you'll go through the process (Notice of Fault, Default, Final Notice) to a Statutory Demand.

Tell them that a Court would need just a little bit more than "We don't feel like paying it", for the simple reason that creating Notice of it, and implementing it, is a perfectly LAWFUL thing to do.


Uh oh, Ignorance Alert! Statement of Account? Statutory Demand Process?? I'd better do some more reading... Any pointers to where I should start looking? :blush:

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2010 11:14 pm
by Zaniwhoop
dmurphy25 wrote:Boy am I having fun with all this, I can't wait to go to court, especially having spent this evening trawling through the Magistrates Court Act 1980... I cant wait to pull out Section 121 Subsection 6:
A nice bit of ammo there, lovin' it :apple:

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 9:10 am
by huntingross
Hi Dave

An excellent reply to them sending your stuff back.....silly them, of course you keep copies.

Stat Demand

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/legal_issues_explained/statutory_demand.php#WhatIsAStatutoryDemand

This is an example of one filled in

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=986&p=18919&hilit=statutory#p18919

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Sun May 09, 2010 9:22 am
by dmurphy25
huntingross wrote:Hi Dave

An excellent reply to them sending your stuff back.....silly them, of course you keep copies.

Stat Demand

http://www.insolvencyhelpline.co.uk/legal_issues_explained/statutory_demand.php#WhatIsAStatutoryDemand

This is an example of one filled in

viewtopic.php?f=29&t=986&p=18919&hilit=statutory#p18919


Thanks HG, that's high praise indeed coming from you, I've followed your posts for a long time now and gained an enormous amount of respect for you :cheer:

Much obliged for the links, no need to guess what I'll be doing tonight :sun:

Dave.

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:22 pm
by koekemoer
Zaniwhoop wrote:
dmurphy25 wrote:Boy am I having fun with all this, I can't wait to go to court, especially having spent this evening trawling through the Magistrates Court Act 1980... I cant wait to pull out Section 121 Subsection 6:
A nice bit of ammo there, lovin' it :apple:


um why do they need 3 more magistrates? the section refers to 1 magistrate. ie if one goes sick then then he/she is replaced.

and it does not mean your case will be dismissed, adjourned is more likely

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 3:07 pm
by dmurphy25
koekemoer wrote:
Zaniwhoop wrote:
dmurphy25 wrote:Boy am I having fun with all this, I can't wait to go to court, especially having spent this evening trawling through the Magistrates Court Act 1980... I cant wait to pull out Section 121 Subsection 6:
A nice bit of ammo there, lovin' it :apple:


um why do they need 3 more magistrates? the section refers to 1 magistrate. ie if one goes sick then then he/she is replaced.

and it does not mean your case will be dismissed, adjourned is more likely


Well, if they only have one Magistrate then the Magistrates Court Act 1980 says that the maximum order that one Magistrate can impose is for £1.00 :D

They can adjourn the case if they want but this is not what they are doing, they are leaving the court for 10 or so minutes but the Act states that if they leave at any point they may no longer act in the case so if they leave, they can't come back and you can order the case dismissed :D

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 4:33 pm
by koekemoer
you do not order, you request.
they order :police:

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 5:13 pm
by strawmansarah
koekemoer wrote:you do not order, you request.
they order :police:
'they' have NO power once they's left. Therefore WE ORDER!

You seem to like the sheeple collar around your neck. Please don't assume that we all do, though...