Another approach to Council Tax

Income Tax, Council Tax, National Insurance and VAT issues.

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby dmurphy25 » Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:47 pm

Absolutely matey :D
...one group of apes left the safety of the trees and stood upright in the tall savannah grass, some of these apes began to evolve, but most were hit by cars!
User avatar
dmurphy25
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 am
Location: Maidenhead

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby dmurphy25 » Tue Aug 17, 2010 7:32 pm

Ok, this is the final draft that was sent out to the Council on Monday:


Dave: of the Murphy family
c/o STREET,
TOWN
COUNTY [POSTCODE]
16th August 2010


Notice of Conditional Acceptance and Request for Clarification


Ref: XXXXXXXXX

Dear Elaine: of the Henderson family,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
The reason why you need to read carefully is that I am offering conditional agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate.
For this reason it is important that you consider and respond in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter. For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance, which means actually addressing the points raised herein.

I received a Notice of Liability Order dated 09/08/2010 claiming that a liability order has been issued against MR DAVID MURPHY for the sum of £1484.23 allegedly by MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT, BRIDGE ROAD, MAIDENHEAD on 30/07/2010.
Unfortunately, I have to view this notice with suspicion as a summons was not received for this hearing in direct contravention of Section 51 and Section 55 paragraph 3 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980.

I am happy to pay what I may lawfully owe upon receipt of the following proofs of claim:

    • Proof that a summons was issued to MR DAVID MURPHY by MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT according to 51 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, with a valid HMCS case number and bearing a wet ink signature of a magistrate or qualified officer of the court.

    • Proof that the magistrates were given, and read, all correspondence relating to this case.

    • The Liability Order, bearing the name of MR DAVID MURPHY, the court seal and wet ink signature of a Justice of the Peace or qualified officer of the court.

    • The HMCS case number for this hearing

Until such proofs are received, this Notice of Liability Order can only be considered as a fraudulent and deceptive offer to contract and not a legitimate notice of a properly convened, procedurally correct court action.

If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that the Notice of Liability Order is in fact a deceptive offer to contract and that I am under no obligation to accept this offer.

As you have once again decided to communicate with me without my consent, my fee schedule, as detailed in the NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE is activated and I enclose an invoice for £1000.00 (ONE THOUSAND AND ZERO PENCE GREAT BRITISH POUNDS STERLING) payable on receipt. Please ensure that all invoices are passed immediately to your accounts department.
Please note that THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES already has an outstanding debt of £4000.00 in unauthorised communication and response letter fees, if you have genuine difficulty in making this payment you should contact me immediately to discuss the possibility of an alternative payment arrangement. I hereby authorise communications of this nature.

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 - 0000005
Original paperwork



I also took the step of sending a version of this letter to the Justices' Clerk of East Berkshire Magistrates' Courts


Dave: of the Murphy family
c/o STREET,
TOWN
COUNTY [POSTCODE]
16th August 2010


Notice of Request for Clarification


Dear Miss Andrews,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
I received a Notice of Liability Order dated 09/08/2010 claiming that a liability order has been issued against Mr. DAVID MURPHY for the sum of £1484.23 allegedly by MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT, BRIDGE ROAD, MAIDENHEAD on 30/07/2010.

I would like to draw your attention to the procedural anomalies regarding this particular hearing:

    1. There was no matter for the court to adjudicate on in MR DAVID MURPHY’s case. THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES have been informed in my Notice of Request for Clarification and Conditional Acceptance dated 03/03/2010 that MR DAVID MURPHY conditionally agreed to pay the tax subject to a number of questions being answered. These questions were not answered and remain unanswered to this day.

    2. A summons was not received for this hearing, in contravention of contravention of Section 51 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980.

    3. The hearing apparently continued in the absence of MR DAVID MURPHY or the agent for MR DAVID MURPHY in contravention of Section 55 paragraph 3 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980. As the summons was not received, the proof, if any, that the summons was served, supplied under oath as stipulated by this paragraph was at best a breach of court procedure and at worst perjury.

    4. After speaking to Mrs. Elaine Henderson, Revenues Manager for ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD and several Court Officers, I have learned that summonses are in fact issued by the corporation THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES and not by the court. This is in direct contravention of Section 51 and the Courts Act 2003 Chapter 39, subsection 47 paragraph 1, and also contrary to the statement issued by Bridget Prentice, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice on 22 October 2009 (enclosed)

    5. The document I received was a Notice of Liability Order, not the Liability Order itself nor was enclosed the Liability Order, bearing the name of Mr DAVID MURPHY, the court seal and wet ink signature of a Justice of the Peace or qualified officer of the court.

Please substantiate the claim that a properly convened and procedurally correct court hearing pursuant to the Magistrates Court Act 1980 took place on 30/07/2010 at MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT, BRIDGE ROAD, MAIDENHEAD by providing the following proofs of claim:

    • Proof that a summons was issued to Mr DAVID MURPHY by MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT according to 51 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, with a valid H.M.C.S. case number and bearing a wet ink signature of a magistrate or qualified officer of the court.

    • The proof provided to the court, under oath, that the summons was served upon MR DAVID MURPHY pursuant to Section 55, Paragraph (3) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980

    • Proof that the magistrates were given, and read, all correspondence relating to this case.

    • The Liability Order, bearing the name of Mr DAVID MURPHY, the court seal and wet ink signature of a Justice of the Peace or qualified officer of the court.

    • The HMCS case number for this hearing.

I am also requesting the names and Bar numbers of the Magistrates, Clerk of the Court and the counsel for the plaintiff in attendance as I feel that the above may be sufficient grounds for a common law injury claim upon these individuals.

If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that a properly convened and procedurally correct court hearing pursuant to the Magistrates Court Act 1980 did not take place on 30/07/2010 at MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT, BRIDGE ROAD, MAIDENHEAD and that any subsequent rulings or orders are therefore null and void.

Sincerely without malice, ill will, vexation or frivolity


By: Dave: of the Murphy family
...one group of apes left the safety of the trees and stood upright in the tall savannah grass, some of these apes began to evolve, but most were hit by cars!
User avatar
dmurphy25
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 am
Location: Maidenhead

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby dmurphy25 » Tue Aug 17, 2010 8:42 pm

Ok, this maybe overkill and I might be getting paranoid in my old age but I received a local council newspaper today and in the centre pages there appeared to be a public notice of the disbursement of Council Tax receipts in the form of an Annual Report.

21. Adhesion Contract.jpg


It struck me that this notice might well be an offer to enter into an adhesion contract, that we accept by our tacit acquiescence and forms the basis of their claim upon us.

I might be wrong but I guess it doesn't hurt to explicitly declare that I don't consent :giggle:


Dave: of the Murphy family
c/o STREET,
TOWN
COUNTY [POSTCODE]
18th August 2010


Notice of Non Consent


Dear Elaine: of the Henderson family,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
On 17/08/2010 I received the Summer 2010 issue of the council publication known as "Around the Royal Borough".

I note that pages 17 to 20 contained what appeared to be public notice of an Annual Report apparently detailing the disbursement of Council Tax receipts.
Intimately aware, as I am, of the fraudulent and duplicitous nature of the corporation known as THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES, I feel that I must view this notice as a deceptive offer to contract.

Rather than tacitly acquiesce to this adhesion contract, I take this opportunity to declare that I DO NOT CONSENT!
I furthermore reserve all my inalienable rights and waive none of them for any cause or reason, including the right not to perform upon a contract that I did not enter into knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.

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
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
...one group of apes left the safety of the trees and stood upright in the tall savannah grass, some of these apes began to evolve, but most were hit by cars!
User avatar
dmurphy25
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 am
Location: Maidenhead

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby Zaniwhoop » Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:37 pm

Just thought I'd say nicely done there Dave, keep up the good work :grin: . Also I don't know if it's something to do with my laptop, but I'm not able to see your avatar or some of the links to scans or photos or what have you.
Shaw's principle.
"A government which robs Peter
to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"

Sublato fundamento cadit opus The foundation being removed, the superstructure falls.
User avatar
Zaniwhoop
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: South West Wales

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby dmurphy25 » Mon Aug 23, 2010 9:26 pm

Just received a reply from the council, along with a computer listing of a complaint list, a liability order extract (computer printout, unnamed, no signature), an invoice to a printing company and another copy of the Notice of Liability Order :yawn:

Dave: of the Murphy family
c/o STREET,
TOWN
COUNTY [POSTCODE]

19th August 2010

Dear Mr Murphy,

Council Tax A/C XXXXXXXX

Thank you for your letter dated 16th August.
You have asked for various proofs of claim and I enclose the following:

    1. A copy of the summons dated 28th June. This signature on this summons is printed on
    the summons with the permission of Gill Andrews, Clerk to the Justices. The
    summons contains the case number which is 42222.

    2. A copy of the relevant parts of the 'complaint list' dated 25th June 2010, which is the
    document listing the cases to be summonses and requesting the authority of the
    Magistrates Court to issue the summonses. This is signed. I have not provided the
    full list as it contains names of other people.

    3. A copy of the invoice from the council's printers for the posting of the summonses.

    4. A copy of the relevant parts the Liability Order paperwork including the signature of
    the Justice who signed it. I have not provided the full list as it contains names of other
    people.

    5. Your copy of the Notice of Liability Order.

    6. Your invoice.

I have not enclosed proof that the Magistrates were given and read all correspondence relating to this case. The Liability Order was awarded because the amount had fallen due and was not paid.

I have mentioned in a previous letter that you have the right to appeal to a Valuation Tribunal if you do not agree with the Council Tax bills that have been sent to you. I would still suggest this course of action of you still feel that the Council Tax is unlawful.

I am again returning your invoice for unauthorised communication. The Council has only ever sent documents to you when either required to do so by law, or in response to your own letters. I do not consider that either of these can be classed as 'unauthorised communication'.

Yours sincerely,


Elaine Henderson
Debt Recovery Team Leader
...one group of apes left the safety of the trees and stood upright in the tall savannah grass, some of these apes began to evolve, but most were hit by cars!
User avatar
dmurphy25
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 am
Location: Maidenhead

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby dmurphy25 » Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:50 pm

So here is my response to the council, its my first draft so it's bit ragged and probably needs tightening up, any suggestions are, as always, welcome:


Dave: of the Murphy family
c/o STREET,
TOWN
COUNTY [POSTCODE]
31st August 2010


Notice of Non Acceptance Due to Lack of Substance and Clarification


Ref: XXXXXXXXXX

Dear Elaine: of the Henderson family,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
I write in response to your letter dated 19th August 2010.
In my letter dated 16th August 2010 I requested:

1. Proof that a summons was issued to MR DAVID MURPHY by MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT according to 51 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, with a valid HMCS case number and bearing a wet ink signature of a magistrate or qualified officer of the court.

    You provided me with a copy of a document that was clearly not issued by MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT and according to an officer of East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court identified as ‘Claire’ who was contacted by telephone on 25th August 2010, the case number is not a case number issued by Her Majesty’s Courts Service and that they hold no details of this ‘hearing’ whatsoever. This document did not bear a signature of a magistrate or qualified officer of the court, but rather a badly printed photocopy which indicates that Miss Gill Andrews is neither aware of or a party to this action.

    Since it has been established that this document was not issued by East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court or any other court of Her Majesty’s Courts Service but yet is fashioned to appear as such, THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES has committed an offence under the Administration of Justice Act 1985 Chapter 61. Part I, Section 10.
    Please take careful note of Paragraph (3) which describes how you personally, Ms. Henderson, are also guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
    In addition, you, on behalf of THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES, have also committed offences under the Perjury Act 1911 Chapter 6. Section 2(1) and/or Section 5(a).

    You also provided a copy of an invoice from FINANCIAL DATA MANAGEMENT LTD was also supplied showing that this company printed and mailed 280 Summonses on the 29th June 2010 and presumably this was to imply that one of the 280 aforementioned summonses was addressed to MR DAVID MURPHY, however, an employee of FINANCIAL DATA MANAGEMENT LTD who was also contacted by telephone on 25th August 2010, confirmed that they do not send the summonses recorded delivery, so no evidence exists that a summons was issued or received.
    The fact of the matter is that no summons, valid or otherwise, was received at the above address, the opportunity to challenge was denied and there is still no evidence to suggest otherwise.

2. Proof that the magistrates were given, and read, all correspondence relating to this case.

    No proof was supplied, so it appears that if there was a hearing, then evidence pertinent to this case was withheld from the magistrates.

3. The Liability Order, bearing the name of MR DAVID MURPHY, the court seal and wet ink signature of a Justice of the Peace or qualified officer of the court.

    You provided a Council Tax Liability Extract – Liability Order Listing, a photocopy of a computer printout apparently produced at 4:56am on 30/06/2010

    I refer you to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs manual IDG45150 - Dealing with Courts of Law (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/idgmanual/idg45150.htm) which gives the following advice for identifying a valid court order:

      • Any order issued by a court should be clearly marked as such. Orders should be stamped with the court’s official seal and signed by the presiding judge.

      • If you are uncertain about whether a particular document constitutes a signed and sealed order, you should clarify the matter by telephoning the court. Contact details for the court will normally be given on the order.

      • You must see the actual order. A draft order will not have been signed or stamped and will not provide you with lawful authority to disclose information. If you are provided with a copy of an order you must ask that the original is posted without delay.

    The Council Tax Liability Extract – Liability Order Listing you provided is merely an anonymous computer printout. It is not stamped with the court’s official seal nor is it signed by the presiding judge (The cover sheet is illegibly signed by someone who could be “Brian Acmaeold” who is apparently a “Junta j Ch Peace”)

    As stated above, I contacted East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court and was told by an officer that they hold no details of such an order. If you hold the actual signed and stamped liability order please post it to me immediately.

4. The HMCS case number for this hearing

    Once again the officer of East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court identified as ‘Claire’ informed me that the case number provided (42222) is a case number issued by THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES and that East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court have no record of this case number nor do they have a record or any information pertaining to a hearing on 30th July 2010.

    For your information, I have noticed Miss Gillian Andrews, Clerk to the Justices, East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court to provide proof that a properly convened and procedurally correct court hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Magistrates Court Act 1980 actually took place on 30th July 2010 and I hope to have a resolution on this point shortly.

I declare that you are in default as you have failed to prove that a summons was sent to MR DAVID MURPHY, and that a properly convened and procedurally correct court hearing took place or that a valid liability order exists for MR DAVID MURPHY.

It is my understanding that because the summons that was allegedly issued would not have been issued by the court (as evidenced by the copy you provided) then it is not a court matter; furthermore there can be no Liability Order because there was no court to issue one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice has stated that the process [of using magistrates’ courts] begins with a complaint, and I note from the complaint list provided that the complainant in this case is one “Sarah Sneyd“.
Can you confirm that this is in fact the human being who has complained about me?
If so, can you further confirm that should MR DAVID MURPHY be summoned to a properly convened and procedurally correct court hearing in the future that Miss Sneyd will be available to attend court in order to explain the nature of the tort or transgression against her or her property under penalty of perjury and upon her full commercial liability?
Also, could you provide me with the full name and job title of the designated officer of the court who co-signed the complaint list? Obviously I would like to cross check this person with East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court as this individual may also be complicit.


Regarding my invoice for unauthorised communication, your feelings in this matter are irrelevant, there is a legally binding agreement in effect between MR DAVID MURPHY and THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES procured by tacit agreement by your acquiescence and the terms and conditions of that agreement are clearly stated in the NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OF ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE dated 30th March 2010 Royal Mail Tracking number AG461460457GB delivered 31st March 2010. At no time have you been invoiced for a solicited communication nor any subsequent responses, however, your internal commercial requirements are subject to this agreement and will be billed accordingly.
I am therefore returning invoice number 0000005 to you; please ensure that this invoice is passed to your accounts department.

Please note that at this time THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES has an outstanding debt of £5000.00 in unauthorised communication and response letter fees. If this debt is not paid within seven (7) days from Wednesday 1st, September, 2010 then further steps will be made to recover this debt which may result in bankruptcy proceedings against THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR AND MAIDENHEAD trading as WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD SOCIAL SERVICES.


Due to the lack of substance in your responses to the queries posed, I still see the matter as unresolved. In a lawful attempt to solve this matter I offer you a final opportunity to cure this default by responding in substance, actually addressing the points raised in the original notice in Affidavit format sworn under oath or attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability, and that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading within seven (7) days from Wednesday 1st, September, 2010.
If you fail to do so in good faith, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that the Notice of Liability Order is in fact a deceptive offer to contract and that I am under no obligation to accept this offer.

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 - 0000005
Original paperwork
...one group of apes left the safety of the trees and stood upright in the tall savannah grass, some of these apes began to evolve, but most were hit by cars!
User avatar
dmurphy25
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 am
Location: Maidenhead

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby bustachemtrails » Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:14 pm

Another 'sturdy' notice there Dave, always a joy to read them, seems very thorough to me. :8-):
bustachemtrails
 
Posts: 370
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:19 pm
Location: Devizes, wiltshire

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby Zaniwhoop » Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:20 pm

Hi Dave,

Possible tightening suggestions:-
a badly printed photocopy which indicates that Miss Gill Andrews is neither aware of or a party to this action.
grammatically, neither needs to be followed by nor, not or.

dmurphy25 wrote:You also provided a copy of an invoice from FINANCIAL DATA MANAGEMENT LTD was also supplied
too many also supplieds.

dmurphy25 wrote:I refer you to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs manual IDG45150 - Dealing with Courts of Law (http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/idgmanual/idg45150.htm) which gives the following advice for identifying a valid court order:

    • Any order issued by a court should be clearly marked as such. Orders should be stamped with the court’s official seal and signed by the presiding judge.

    • If you are uncertain about whether a particular document constitutes a signed and sealed order, you should clarify the matter by telephoning the court. Contact details for the court will normally be given on the order.

    • You must see the actual order. A draft order will not have been signed or stamped and will not provide you with lawful authority to disclose information. If you are provided with a copy of an order you must ask that the original is posted without delay.
Very nice indeed :grin:

dmurphy25 wrote:Also, could you provide me with the full name and job title of the designated officer of the court who co-signed the complaint list? Obviously I would like to cross check this person with East Berkshire Magistrates’ Court as this individual may also be complicit.
Oooh! nice one, you'd have me worried if I was the receiver of this.

Good stuff dude :yes:
Shaw's principle.
"A government which robs Peter
to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"

Sublato fundamento cadit opus The foundation being removed, the superstructure falls.
User avatar
Zaniwhoop
Administrator
Administrator
 
Posts: 624
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: South West Wales

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby dmurphy25 » Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:49 pm

Thanks for the support Dave, and well spotted Si, much obliged :sun:

Corrections have been made and the notice will be winging its way to the council robots in the morning, thanks again chaps :D
...one group of apes left the safety of the trees and stood upright in the tall savannah grass, some of these apes began to evolve, but most were hit by cars!
User avatar
dmurphy25
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 am
Location: Maidenhead

Re: Another approach to Council Tax

Postby dmurphy25 » Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:54 am

Just to keep this record complete, here is the Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure to the clerk to the justices of the court since she failed to respond to my last notice:

Dave: of the Murphy family
c/o STREET,
TOWN
COUNTY [POSTCODE]
6th September 2010


Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure


Dear Miss Andrews,

On 16th August 2010 I served upon you a Notice of Request for Clarification Royal Mail Tracking number AH002202439GB delivered 17th August 2010.
Due to your failure to provide the reasonably requested information within the specified time limit, I grant you a further opportunity to remedy this fault in good faith. For this reason any response must be relevant and substantive must be received in writing under the penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability within SEVEN (7) days from receipt of this Notice.

Please provide the following information:

    1. Proof that a summons was issued to MR DAVID MURPHY by MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT according to 51 of the Magistrates Court Act 1980, with a valid H.M.C.S. case number and bearing a wet ink signature of a magistrate or qualified officer of the court.

    2. The proof provided to the court, under oath, that the summons was served upon MR DAVID MURPHY pursuant to Section 55, Paragraph (3) of the Magistrates Court Act 1980.

    3. Proof that the magistrates were given, and read, all correspondence relating to this case.

    4. The Liability Order, bearing the name of MR DAVID MURPHY, the court seal and wet ink signature of a Justice of the Peace or qualified officer of the court.

    5. The HMCS case number for this hearing.

    6. The names and Bar numbers of the Magistrates, Clerk of the Court and the counsel for the plaintiff in attendance.

I demand that all of the above conditions be met and presented in Affidavit format sworn under oath or attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon your full commercial liability, and that the facts contained therein are true, correct, complete and not misleading.
If I do not receive such a response conforming to the above criteria within seven (7) days of the date of this letter, it will be deemed a tacit agreement by your acquiescence that a properly convened and procedurally correct court hearing pursuant to the Magistrates Court Act 1980 did not take place on 30/07/2010 at MAIDENHEAD MAGISTRATES COURT, BRIDGE ROAD, MAIDENHEAD and that any subsequent rulings or orders are therefore null and void.

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
...one group of apes left the safety of the trees and stood upright in the tall savannah grass, some of these apes began to evolve, but most were hit by cars!
User avatar
dmurphy25
 
Posts: 132
Joined: Mon Nov 30, 2009 11:40 am
Location: Maidenhead

PreviousNext

Return to Taxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests