The author ✍🏼 of this blog are very well researched…

And you’ll find a lot of great articles and solutions of how to deal with companies: council’s, utility companies. Gas, water, electricity etc…

Read this article to get an appreciation.

(Excerpt)
We often assume that a company claiming to be a supplier of electricity and/or gas is actually legally recognised and authorised as such.

But is your electricity supplier actually a legal supplier of electricity?

Schedule 6 of The Electricity Act 1989, gives ‘suppliers’ a lot of scary rights over the legal entity or person of “Mr E Smith”.

However, if we do our research we may find that our supplier isn’t a legal supplier after all… and they have been misleading us with false information.

https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/10/12/octopus-not-a-supplier-and-trading-insolvent

'actus servi in iis quibus opera ejus comminiter adhibita est actus domini habetur' means:

'the act of a servant, in those things in which he is usually employed, is considered the act of his master'.

This is a ‘legal maxim’ that expresses the principle of ‘Vicarious Liability’; which holds that, a master is responsible for the actions of his servant, and or agent, within the scope of his employment¹².

This maxim can be traced back to the Roman law, where it was applied to cases of delicts (or torts) at common law, committed by slaves or freedmen³.

(1) adhibita est, actus domini habetur - Academic Dictionaries and .... https://bing.com/search?q=actus+servi+in+iis+quibus+opera+ejus+comminiter+adhibita+est+actus+domini+habetur+meaning.

(2) Agency – Basilikos Nomos Institute. https://basilikosnomos.institute/resources/maxims-of-law/agency/.

(3) Definition of Actus Servi In Iis Quibus Opera Ejus Communiter Adhibita .... https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary/actus-servi-in-iis-quibus-opera-ejus-communiter-adhibita-est-actus-domini-habetur.

(4) Actus servi in iis quibus opera ejus communiter adhibita est, actus .... https://openjurist.org/law-dictionary-ballentines/actus-servi-in-iis-quibus-opera-ejus-communiter-adhibita-est-actus-domini-habetur.

The ‘Legal Maxim’ of: ‘Respondeat superior’ ~ ‘respondeat superior’..!

The Latin phrase that means "let the superior answer".

It is a legal doctrine that makes an employer or principal liable for the actions of their employee and or agent, if the employee or agent was acting within the scope of their employment or agency¹.

For example, if a delivery driver causes an accident while delivering a package for a company, the corporation; may be held responsible for the damages under ‘respondeat superior’...

This doctrine dates back to 17th century England, and is based on the principle that the superior party has control over or benefits from the actions of the inferior party².

‘Respondeat superior’… is one of the bases for:

‘Vicarious liability’; which is a broader concept that applies to various kinds of relationships³.

(1) Respondeat Superior - Definition, Examples, Cases - Legal Dictionary. https://legaldictionary.net/respondeat-superior/.

(2) https://bing.com/search?q=respondeat+superior+meaning.

(3) Respondeat Superior Definition & Meaning | Merriam-Webster Legal. https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/respondeat%20superior.

(4) Respondeat Superior. https://www.britannica.com/topic/respondeat-superior.

(5) Respondeat Superior. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/respondeat_superior.

(6) Respondeat Superior. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior.

The rationale behind ‘respondeat superior’: is that the employer or the principal has control over or benefits from the actions of the employee or the agent, and therefore should bear some responsibility for the consequences of those actions.

It is also based on the idea that the employer or the principal, is in a better position to pay for the damages or to prevent the harm than the employee or the agent¹.

‘respondeat superior’: is a way of ensuring that victims of wrongful acts can obtain compensation from parties; who have more resources or insurance than the actual ‘wrongdoers’.

It is also a way of encouraging employers or principals to exercise due care and supervision over their employees or agents, and to adopt policies and practices that minimise the risk of harm².

‘respondeat superior’: is a legal doctrine, that underpins ‘vicarious liability’ in many cases, but it is not the only basis for ‘vicarious liability’.

There may be other factors that can establish ‘vicarious liability’; such as agency, partnership, or joint enterprise³.

(1) ‘‘respondeat superior’: - Definition, Examples, Cases - Legal Dictionary. https://legaldictionary.net/respondeat-superior/.

Understanding the theory of ‘respondeat superior’: liability. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/understanding-the-theory-of-respondeat-superior-liability.

What elements must be present for ‘respondeat superior’ ? https://legalknowledgebase.com/what-elements-must-be-present-for-respondeat-superior.

‘respondeat superior’: ~ https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/respondeat-superior.

‘respondeat superior’: https://www.britannica.com/topic/respondeat-superior.

‘respondeat superior’: https://academic.oup.com/book/44146/chapter/372326106.

‘Vicarious Liability’:

When an employer is held responsible for the actions of an employee and or agent; who causes harm to someone else while performing his or her job / duties.

For instance, if a delivery driver crashes into another car while delivering a package, the delivery company may be liable for the damages¹.

- When a parent is held responsible for the actions of a child who causes harm to someone else. For instance, if a child throws a rock at a neighbor's window and breaks it, the parent may be liable for the cost of repair².

- When a corporation is held responsible for the actions of its directors, officers or agents, who act on its behalf.

For instance, if a CEO makes a fraudulent statement that causes investors to lose money, the corporation may be liable for the losses³.

‘Vicarious liability’: is a legal concept that assigns liability to an individual or entity who did not actually cause the harm, but who has a specific superior legal relationship to the person who did cause the harm⁴.

It is based on the principle that the superior party has control over or benefits from the actions of the inferior party⁵.

‘Vicarious liability’: can help victims obtain compensation from parties who have more resources or insurance than the actual wrongdoers.

However, there may be defenses to ‘vicarious liability’; such as proving that the act was not within the scope of employment or duty, or that the act was intentional or malicious¹.

Vicarious Liability - Definition, Meaning, Examples, and Cases. https://legaldictionary.net/vicarious-liability/.

‘Vicarious Liability’ & the ‘Legal Maxim of ‘respondeat superior’..! What is the difference..?

‘Vicarious liability’; and the Latin Legal Maxim of Law; ‘respondeat superior’… are related legal concepts that involve holding one party liable for the actions of another party.

However, they are not exactly the same. Here is the difference:

- ‘Vicarious liability’: is a general term that refers to any situation where one party is held legally responsible for the wrongful acts of another party, based on their relationship or connection.

For example, a parent may be vicariously liable for the damages caused by their child, or, a corporation may be ‘vicariously liable’ for the fraud committed by its CEO.

- ‘Respondeat superior’: is a specific type of ‘vicarious liability’ that applies to the employer-employee / agent relationship. It is a Latin phrase that means "let the superior answer"..!

It means that an employer can be held liable for the negligence or misconduct of an employee and or agent, if the employee or agent was acting within the scope of their employment / contract.

For example, a delivery company may be liable for the injuries caused by its driver who crashes into another car while delivering a package.

The main difference between ‘vicarious liability’ and ‘respondeat superior’:

Is that ‘vicarious liability’ can apply to various kinds of relationships, whereas; ‘respondeat superior’ only applies to the employer-employee / agent relationship.

‘Respondeat superior’: is a doctrine that underpins ‘vicarious liability’ in many cases, but it is not the only basis for ‘vicarious liability’.

There may be other factors that can establish ‘vicarious liability’; such as agency, partnership, or joint enterprise.

The Latin Legal Maxim of; "assignatus utitur jure autoris" means:

"an assignee is clothed with the rights of his/her principal" or "that which is assigned takes with it for its use the rights of the assignor".

It is a legal maxim that applies to the relationship between principals and agents.

It means that when a man or woman; assigns their rights to another man or woman; the assignee inherits not only the rights, but also the legal actions that can enforce those rights.

However, the value of the assigned rights cannot exceed the value of the original rights.

For example, if A assigns their right to receive £100 from B to C, then C can sue B for £100, but not more. This phrase is often used in contract law and bankruptcy law.

"assignatus utitur jure autoris" Law & Legal Definition. https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assignatus-utitur-jure-auctoris

“Legal Maxims”… & their Latin phrases in brief; a short and concise compilation…

When writing ✍🏼‘Notice’s: 📝

Maxims of Law: The Maxim; “maxime ita dicta quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxim omnibus probetur” ~ “A maxim is so called because it’s dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all”.

It is prudent and astute of the Author of any ‘Notice’, to apply a liberal sprinkling throughout the ‘Notice’ being written with poignant ‘Legal Maxim’s relevant to the subject matter being dealt with…

The insertion and application of ‘Maxims’ from both ‘Law & Commerce’ demonstrates to the addressed party and whomever else, it may eventually concern…

That the Author is well researched and by adding the relevant ’Maxims’ adds a great deal of weight, credibility and veracity to your ‘Notice’… and subject matter..!

“It abides i: a man or woman; to have to comprehension how to use and apply their own ‘Legal Corrupt System’ against them; thereby enabling, we the “living men & women”; to hold these criminals feet to the flames..! 🦶🏻🔥

‘Official Oppression’; the concealing facts by way of ‘Abrogation’ and non-disclosure of ‘Affidavits’ and supporting documentary evidence, which is an abuse of one’s power’ and ‘fraud’…

Constitutes ‘Official Misconduct’; ‘maladministration’; ‘malfeasance’; ‘nonfeasance; and ‘misfeasance’ in a ‘Public Office’…

“A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null”.

“in odium spolitoris” ~ "in hatred of a destroyer".

And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding that any evidence to the contrary exists and furthermore;

Case Law:

a) In Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868, the Court of Appeal held, that a public official who dishonestly abuses his position of trust, by failing to disclose information, that he is under a legal duty to disclose, is guilty of misconduct in public office, which is a common law offence…

The court said that; "the essence of the offence is breach of duty by the public officer, where the motive is irrelevant, provided that the act or omission was wilful and without reasonable excuse or justification" (para 61).

The court also said that; "the duty must be a duty of a public nature, and the act or omission must be calculated to injure the public interest, so as to call for condemnation and punishment" (para 62).*

b) In R v Bowden [1996] 1 WLR 98, the House of Lords affirmed that; a judge who deliberately conceals from the parties a personal interest in the outcome of a case is guilty of perverting the course of justice, which is also a common law offence.

The court said that; "a judge who has such an interest in the outcome of a case, as might reasonably be thought likely to influence his decision, ought not to sit on it. If he does so, knowing of his interest, he commits a grave breach of his judicial oath. If he conceals his interest from the parties he adds to his breach of duty an element of deception which makes his conduct criminal" (p. 105).*

c) In Attorney General v De Winton [1906] 2 Ch 106, the Court of Appeal held that; a public official who holds a public office in trust for the public, is bound by fiduciary obligations and must not use his office for private gain. The court said that; "a person who accepts an office under the Crown, whether it be judicial or ministerial, accepts it subject to this condition, that he will not make use of his office for his own private purposes. He holds it in trust for the public; and if he uses it for his own private purposes he is guilty of a breach of trust" (p. 113).*

(Author’s) comment:

Please note in paragraph c); the use of the term ‘Trust’.

IMHO… this denotes that the individual referenced is a ‘Trustee’… 🤔

‘Maxim’:

"actor qui contra regulam quid aduxit, non estaudiendus"…

"the party who has brought something contrary to the rule, is not to be heard".

It is a legal maxim that states that a man or woman; who violates a rule or principle of law, should not be allowed to benefit from it.

It is also known as the “clean hands doctrine” or the “dirty hands doctrine”…

Depending on your point of view…

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands

“AI” ~ Artificial Intelligence…

Many are aware of the potential misuse of AI and the consequences mankind may face should AI go rogue…

However; that said AI has some phenomenal fringe benefits, that can be mind blowing and extremely helpful, if the use of this phenomenal technology is used and applied correctly…

Here’s a ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ for a ‘Fixed Penalty Notice’ generated by ‘Claude AI’… (free) below ⬇️

Everything depends on what’s known as the prompt; meaning you only get out what you put in.

The description (prompt) of what you input into the chat of what’s needed or required, sets the parameters that AI will work to…

It’s pretty amazing check it out for yourself. A link can be found below… 👇🏼

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Here is a draft ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ that you can use in response to a fixed penalty charge offer. Of course it goes without saying that it will need to be edited to each individuals needs…

To: [Name and address of recipient]

Date: [Insert date]

RE: Fixed Penalty Charge Notice Number [insert notice number]

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in receipt of your offer dated [insert date] relating to fixed penalty charge number [insert number] alleging that [insert alleged offence].

I conditionally accept your offer on proof of claim that:

1. You have the authority, right and jurisdiction to make this offer. Please provide evidence of your alleged authority.

2. This matter is governed by common law and not admiralty or statute law. Please confirm or provide alleged evidence.

3. There is an actual claimant who has suffered an alleged direct physical or financial injury as a result of my actions. Please provide details and evidence of the alleged injury suffered.

4. I am legally obliged to make payment against this offer. Please provide details and evidence of any alleged obligations.

5. This payment relates to a lawfully binding contract involving equitable consideration and full disclosure. Please provide details and evidence of the alleged contractual obligations.

I conditionally accept your offer to discuss the matter in further good faith on receipt of your proofs of claim relating to points 1-5 above.

However, failure to provide such proofs of claim within 28 (twenty-eight) Calendar days of this notice will constitute your ‘Tacit Agreement’ that no further action is warranted and that this matter is now settled in full and perpetuity…

Sincerely,

[Your name]

cc: [Include name of any relevant third parties]

NOTE: We must remain in honour at all times. Therefore the offer of 28 (twenty-eight) calendar day’s in which to respond, is a more honourable and equitable option when writing ✍🏼’Notice’s 📝

Should a case ever end up in a ‘de jure court’.

You are able to demonstrate to the court, that you remained in equity and honour at all times.

https://claude.ai

Disclaimer: This channel does not provide or offer any ‘Legal’ advice whatsoever; the posts are for informational and educational purposes only.

Please use the information provided at your own risk..!

IS THIS THE END OF INCOME TAX..?

Very interesting, informative and important article,
a must read..!

(Excerpts) Below 👇🏼

New Zealand and Australia are facing what could escalate into their biggest constitutional crisis ever – an income tax revolt by ordinary taxpayers with the potential to bring down the current system of government.

Already two thousand New Zealanders and a similar number of Australians are understood to have joined the movement, and organisers are expecting thousands more as news of their activities spreads.

Ian Wishart continues his special investigation.

"If they could have written the [Canadian] Income Tax Act so as to include natural persons, it would never have been written that way in the beginning or rewritten that way in subsequent amendments.

The Government wouldn’t have had to resort to manipulating contract law and to implementing other elaborate means to play upon the legalese ignorance of the Canadian people…

But, further, the basis of this detax system is the fact that the Government cannot make statutes, rules or regulations requiring a natural person to either make, or not to make, a contract. It would be an interference in the property right."

CONSTITUTION

Constitutional experts in New Zealand claim the Crown has absolute control in this country because there is no written constitution guaranteeing the individual sovereignty of NZ citizens.

"The Government doesn’t want it that way, because adopting a Constitution as the fundamental law of the nation could remove a Government’s right to introduce reforms or policy initiatives that were in conflict with the Constitution," remarked one constitutional lawyer privately…

For all here in Great Britain 🇬🇧 England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Ireland 🇮🇪 Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 and Wales 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 and the Commonwealths Australia 🇦🇺 New Zealand 🇳🇿 & Canada..! 🇨🇦 and USA 🇺🇸

Please share far and wide… so everyone can stop 🛑 ✋ paying Tax..! 💰

Maxims of Law & Commerce

“A Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are determined by common law” ~ “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur.” Loft.479.

The Maxim “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur” means…

“the admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are decided by the common law”.

It is a principle that limits the scope of the admiralty or maritime law, which is the body of law that governs the activities and disputes on the seas or other navigable waters.

The principle states that the admiralty law does not apply to those matters that are already settled by the common law, which is the body of law that derives from the customs and traditions of the people, and is usually administered by the courts of the land.

For example, the admiralty law does not cover the crimes, contracts, torts, or property rights that are not related to the maritime affairs, but are governed by the common law.

The phrase “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur”… is derived from a longer Latin expression by the English jurist and historian Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), who wrote: “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur, nisi forte quatenus in mari vel in portubus maris, vel in fluminibus navigabilibus, vel in locis infra fluxum et refluxum maris, vel in locis infra corpora comitatum, quae infra fluxum et refluxum maris sunt, aliter quam in locis extra corpora comitatum, quae infra fluxum et refluxum maris sunt, dirimuntur.”

This means: “The admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are decided by the common law, unless perhaps insofar as they are decided in the sea or in the ports of the sea, or in navigable rivers, or in places within the flow and ebb of the sea, or in places within the bodies of the counties, which are within the flow and ebb of the sea, differently than in places outside the bodies of the counties, which are within the flow and ebb of the sea.”

The maxim “A Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are determined by common law” is a paraphrase of the Latin phrase “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur”, which means “the admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are decided by the common law”.

For example, the admiralty law does not cover the crimes, contracts, torts, or property rights that are not related to the maritime affairs, but are governed by the common law.

The maxim is cited from a law dictionary written by John Loftus (d. 1729), who was an English lawyer and legal writer.

The full title of the dictionary is “A New Law Dictionary, Containing the Interpretation and Definition of Words and Terms Used in the Law; and also the Whole Law and Practice Thereof, Under All the Heads and Titles of the Same. Together with Such Informations Relating Thereto, as Explain the History and Antiquity of the Law, and our Manners, Customs, and Original Government”.

The dictionary was first published in 1717, and was reprinted several times in the 18th century. The maxim is found in the entry for “Admiralty” in the dictionary, where Loftus quotes the Latin expression by the Roman jurist Ulpian, and then gives his own English translation of it.

The citation “Loft.479” refers to the page number of the dictionary where the maxim is located.

‘Rule of law’

A core principle of the ‘Rule of law’ is equality i.e.

We are all equal in the eyes of the Creator and/or God…

And all are equal under God's laws…

Therefore we are all equal under the ‘Rule of law’ and no one is above the law..!

Whereas; the following are eternal unchanged principles and are fundamental, non-derogable, natural and spiritual, individual, indefeasible, inherent ‘God-given’ non-negotiable, unalienable, inviolable, divine rights, entitlements, dominion and liberties.

And are enshrined in the ‘Rule of law’ and are binding upon the ‘Crown’, it’s Heirs; Successors; Nominees and Assigns and all the ‘Crowns’, Office(s); Officer(s); Government(s); Governmental Agent(s); and or Agencies and or their Employee(s); and all Non-Governmental Agent(s); and or Agency(s); and their Employee(s); in
perpetuity… and cannot be derogated from, other than by or in lawful acts of war.

These ‘Rights’ are enshrined in the following Acts:

The Charter of Liberties 1100; the Magna Carta 1215 (Clauses 39, 40 & 61); the Confirmation of the Charters 1297 (Clauses 39, 40) ~ (25 Edw. 1 cc 1 6); the Statute the Fifth 1351; the Observance of Due Process of Law 1368 ~ (Section 3); the Liberty of the Subject Act 1354; the Confirmation of the Charters & Statutes 1416; the Confirmation of Liberties 1423; the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 ~ (Article IV Chapter 11 18 & 19 Cha 2); the Statute of Frauds 1677; the Habeus Corpus Act 1679; the Declaration of Rights 1688; the Bill of Rights 1689 (1 Will. & Mar. Sec. 2 c. 2); the Cestui Que Vie Act 1707; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (paragraph 58); the International Covenant on Cultural, Social and Economic Rights 1966; the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 ~ (Sections 1, 2 and 5); the State Immunities Act 1978 ~ (Part 1, Sections 1-10); the British Nationality Act 1981 - (Section 50: 1); the International Criminal Court Act 2001) including, but not limited to, the Siracusa Principles; the War Conventions; the Oviedo Convention 1997; the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Acts that continue to sit on the ‘United Kingdom’ (Inc) Statute books and have not been lawfully repealed.

Whereby in part, collectively together, form the unwritten ‘Supreme Constitution’ on the land mass known as ‘Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ legally known as the ‘United Kingdom’ (Inc).

“The Law of God and the natural Law on the Land and the Common Law are one and the same”.

“The Laws of God cannot be affected, degraded, amended, voided.” (Deut 12:32).

‘Alfred the Great’ Anglo-Saxon King… in the 9th century, reformed the law of his kingdom and assembled a law code “The Doomsday Book” which he grounded on biblical commandments.

He held that the same law had to be applied to all men and women, whether rich or poor, friends or enemies…

This was likely inspired by the passage from the bible; Leviticus 19:15

"You shall do no iniquity in judgment. You shall not favour the wretched and you shall not defer to the rich. In righteousness you are to judge your fellow.”

“Courts whether of the King, or of the people, or of parliament, are established not by written law, but by common law”…

"rex debet esse sub lege, quia lex facist regem" ~ "The King should be subject to the law for the law makes the King”…

Council Tax: Attachment of Earnings Order

We should always decline to fill out the form the council send out after the liability order notice asking for your financial circumstances…

The Adult Court Bench Book (June 2020) states on page 78…

“These are adversarial proceedings between the council and the debtor, so the council must show a ‘prima facie’ case before the court conducts a means enquiry.”…

So the onus is on the council to prove that the debt is owed, and then it is up to the court to make enquiries about your income and expenditure etc…

So you don’t have to complete the form the Council sends you after their fake court case, despite the warning they print on it that not completing the form is a criminal offence – and so that warning in itself is illegal, quite apart from any other consideration…

However, they may get your employer’s details from HMRC and go to them directly. This is, of course, a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018…

(Excerpt): To read more, clink the link below 👇🏼 and make sure you subscribe to the regular news 📰 email… to get priceless information…

Many topics can be found in this phenomenal blog… so make sure you check through the archives..!

https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/11/16/council-tax-attachment-of-earnings-order

The Magistrate’s Court System and the ‘Birth Certificate Scam’ ~ ‘Legal Fiction Person Name’… gets exposed by… ‘Santos Bonacci’ (short 7 min video)…

Please share far and wide..!

Council Tax Debts become Unenforceable Overnight..!

Christmas seems to have Come Early… 🎄🎅 🎁

Recently, there was a court case by Wayne Leighton and Bristol & Sutor, a bailiff company acting on behalf of North Somerset Council, over a council tax debt of £1,200 that was ruled on December 21st 2023.

This case was about council tax debt enforcement…

Typically, when people do not pay their council tax, the council can obtain a court order called a "liability order" to allow bailiffs (enforcement agents) to seize possessions to pay the debt…

Bailiffs must follow certain rules under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 when doing this…

The Judge in the ‘Leighton’ case at the County Court at Bristol ruled that the document shown by the bailiffs to Mr Leighton was illegal..!

The document only showed instructions from the council to collect the debt. It did not show the liability order from the court allowing them to seize goods, as required by law…

Because of this ‘illegal’ document…

The judge awarded Mr Leighton £4,000 💷 💰 in damages for trespass, assault and false imprisonment, as well as interest and legal costs…

The Judge also declared that the liability order was invalid and quashed it…!!!

The case has been widely reported in the media and online as a landmark ruling that could affect millions of people who owe council tax debts and face bailiff action…

This now sets a ‘legal precedent’…and now means that anyone can use this ‘Case Law’ to stop bailiffs at their door ✋ 🛑 and/or even sue for damages… if the bailiffs do not show the correct paperwork with the liability order…

Normally the liability order would be a written document signed by a judge… 📝

However, courts have moved away from this, tried and lawful method in recent times, allowing oral pronouncements instead, making it harder for bailiff’s/defendants… to get written proof an order exists…

This causes problems for bailiffs trying to show proper paperwork…

The law says bailiffs must provide paperwork in advance before seizing goods…

So anyone can now put Bailiffs and Councils on ‘Notice’ 📝 about the new ruling, preventing them from even visiting…

Additionally, the Judge did not allow harassment damages because bailiffs have some right to "harass" people as part of their job duties while acting legally…

However, without proper paperwork, bailiffs lose their defence against harassment claims…

This potentially makes illegal visits… a criminal offence ⛓ of harassment…!!!

Bullet Point Summary:

- Recent court case (Leighton vs Bristol & Sutor) changes council tax enforcement rules

- Judge ruled bailiffs showed illegal paperwork to defendant

- Defendant awarded £4000 + interest/costs in damages

- Ruling means anyone can sue bailiffs for similar illegal paperwork

- Courts made it harder for defendants to get liability order proof

- So bailiffs now have trouble proving they can seize goods

- People can put councils/bailiffs on notice to prevent visits

- Visits without complete paperwork open bailiffs up to criminal harassment charges…

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

(1) How Long Can You Be Chased for a Council Tax Debt? - MoneyNerd. https://moneynerd.co.uk/how-long-can-chased-council-tax-debt/.

Bailiffs Council Tax older than 6 years - Dealing with Bailiffs. https://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/CouncilTaxNDRMoreThan6YearsOld.htm