Liability And Damages Assessment

using unlawful liability orders to secure interim charging order, extracts for bulk schedules not actual liability orders, prolonged harrassment

what is reasonable then as you stated the *,* in this statement

caryy on

anxiety, depression, worry, charging orders, refusing to reply on lawful points, using fake court documents council have printed

so what is a reasonable claim amount in the circumstances

does this seem more reasonable and dose this apply to each of the named, can the judge decide what he thinks regardles of the claim: **WITNESS STATEMENT** *. I am Gary John Taylor – MR GJ TAYLOR, of xxxxxxxxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter. I make this statement in support of my claim against The City of Doncaster Council and specifically against representatives Scot Robert Fawcus, Services Director - Legal and Democratic Services, Miss Emily Lewin, Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services, Alan Stoves, Head of Revenues and Benefits and Chief Executive Damian Francis Allen, in their personal capacity. **Events and Personal Impact** *. On * November *, I received notice of an interim charging order dated * October * issued by the council, based on a bulk list extract of liability enclosed in a letter dated * October * and received on * November *. *. I oppose the Claimant's application for an unlawful interim charging order on my personal property where I reside. My property is legally defined as a Dwelling-House under Halsbury's Laws, not the broad term "dwelling" as used in the Local Government Finance Act *. *. The case relies on the Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability Court Orders or individual unique Court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed below. This lack of individual case numbers contravenes the principles established in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **, which mandates individual consideration and proper documentation for each case. **Claimant's Evidence** *. The Claimant's evidence includes an Order dated * July *, with a schedule of * defendants. *. An order issued on * July * included * defendants. *. An order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed *. The total number of defendants across *, *, and * amounts to *, all without unique individual Court Case reference numbers. This bulk processing approach violates the requirement for individual case assessment as highlighted in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin **. **Individual Consideration**: - The case emphasizes the necessity for each defendant to receive individual assessment and documentation. - Proper Documentation: Each defendant should have a unique court case reference number for legal proceedings to be valid. **Challenge to the Liability Order** *. I have requested detailed evidence laid with the Magistrates Court from the Claimants to substantiate the debt claimed, which has not been provided satisfactorily. This lack of evidence contravenes the principles set out in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **, wherein demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt. **Property Classification and Reassessment Based on Case Law** *. Key points distinguishing "dwelling" and "dwelling-house": - **Dwelling**: - Defined for council tax purposes as properties used or suitable for use as residences. - Broad term encompassing any property that can be lived in. - Governed by the Local Government Finance Act *. - Supported by case law such as: - *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Highlights the importance of considering a property's physical characteristics, current use, and suitability for residence. - *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **: Stresses the need to evaluate a property's actual use and suitability for habitation. - *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Emphasizes reassessment based on accurate property classification. - **Dwelling-house**: - Defined more specifically as a ‘home’ where one resides with all essential facilities for day-to-day living. - *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **: Clarifies the meaning of "dwelling-house" in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living. These distinctions between a "dwelling" and a "dwelling-house" support the reassessment of property classification for council tax purposes, highlighting that my property should be evaluated under the more precise definition of "dwelling-house" as set out in the relevant case law and Halsbury's Laws of England. **Legislative Framework** *. I am a long-standing council tax payer who received a notice regarding unpaid council tax. Despite my debilitating disability causing mental disorders and financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible and settled all previous years' council tax, albeit sometimes late due to my health challenges. Doncaster Council has repeatedly ignored my documented health impairment conditions, denied and refused me financial assistance when requested, and imposed fines and additional costs whenever possible, further worsening my financial hardship and adversely affecting my mental health. Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably over many years, as evidenced by Data Subject Access Requests (DSAR) and my correspondences, the Council has unfairly targeted me, adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity. Alan Stoves, Head of Revenues and Benefits, stated on * June *: “No further response will be given on these same issues” when I questioned the lawfulness of the liability orders and property classification. **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Council Tax Cases** *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: - Designed for minor offences like traffic violations. - Allows a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. **Relevant Case Law**: - *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **: - Highlights the need for proper judicial consideration in council tax cases. - Mandates that council tax matters should not be dealt with under SJP due to the complexity and necessity for judicial oversight. **Legal Precedent**: *. **Lord Chief Justice Widgery’s Principles (*)** state that the issuance of a summons is a judicial act requiring proper oversight. Summonses issued without magistrate review are invalid, as supported by the rulings in **R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** and *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ***. **Human Rights Act ***: *. The actions of Doncaster Council may constitute potential breaches of my human rights, specifically the right to respect for private and family life as outlined in Article * of the Human Rights Act *. **Disability Discrimination Act ***: *. Doncaster Council's actions may constitute discrimination due to my health conditions. **Equality Act ***: *. **Direct Discrimination**: Doncaster Council has frequently disregarded my documented health conditions, denied me financial assistance, and imposed fines and additional costs at every opportunity. *. **Indirect Discrimination**: By imposing fines and additional costs, the Council has applied a policy that disproportionately affects individuals with disabilities. *. **Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments**: Despite my disability and significant health issues causing financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible. The Council has not adjusted their approach or offered aid to accommodate my health issues and financial difficulties. *. **Harassment**: Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably, the Council has unfairly targeted me by adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity over the years, creating an intimidating and hostile environment. **Void Orders**: *. According to *Shirley Lewald*, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), an 'ORDER' in court is void if made without jurisdiction, breaks the law, or ignores due process. Anything done after such an ultra vires act is void ab initio, meaning it didn't happen. This principle is supported by various case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all if the proceedings are void. - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: If an order is void ab initio, there is no real order of the Court. - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: An order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside. - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. **Potential Damages and Remedies** *. I seek the following remedies and compensation for the damages caused by the actions of the City of Doncaster Council and its representatives, in their personal capacity: - Compensation for financial losses incurred due to fines and additional costs, estimated at £*,*. - Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact, estimated at £*,*, taking into account the prolonged nature of the distress caused. - Reimbursement of legal costs incurred due to defending against the interim charging order, estimated at £*,*. - Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, estimated from May * to *, estimated but to be confirmed by the council at £*,*. **References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions** *. The council's actions contravene the principles established in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and the procedural requirements outlined in the *Local Government Finance Act **. *. Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties breaches the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act **. **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure** *. The improper application of the Single Justice Procedure is highlighted in the cases of *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC*, *Northern Trains Ltd v. Sarah Cooke [*] EWHC*, and *Greater Anglian v. Joshua Baggaley, Paul Jenkins & Sarah McKenzie [*] EWHC*. **Conclusion** *. Based on the procedural improprieties, discriminatory actions, and the improper application of the Single Justice Procedure, I respectfully request that the court: - Dismiss the application for an interim charging order. - Award compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and legal costs as detailed above. - Consider the legal precedents and the evidence provided in support of my claims. **Statement of Truth** I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________________ Date: * November *

prolonged medication for depression and anxiety, skin issues caused by stress what other records are required

so what do you class the damages at in general for persuing me with unlawful documents, them impersonating a magistrates court in documentation

the only medial records will show prolonged medication for depression and anxiety

is the statement written correctly to hold each named person liable, please rewrite the statement in the correct format so it holds each named person liable for for disgarding my medical issues caused, and adjust the amounts claimed to what the caselaw supports as reasonable amounts for such actions

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

please check this statement is now correct in law for the court claims to each named person: **WITNESS STATEMENT** *. I am Gary John Taylor – MR GJ TAYLOR, of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter. I make this statement in support of my claim against The City of Doncaster Council and specifically against representatives Scot Robert Fawcus, Services Director - Legal and Democratic Services, Miss Emily Lewin, Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services, Alan Stoves, Head of Revenues and Benefits and Chief Executive Damian Francis Allen, in their personal capacity. **Events and Personal Impact** *. On * November *, I received notice of an interim charging order dated * October * issued by the council, based on a bulk list extract of liability enclosed in a letter dated * October * and received on * November *. *. I oppose the Claimant's application for an unlawful interim charging order on my personal property where I reside. My property is legally defined as a Dwelling-House under Halsbury's Laws, not the broad term "dwelling" as used in the Local Government Finance Act *. *. The case relies on the Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability Court Orders or individual unique Court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed below. This lack of individual case numbers contravenes the principles established in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **, which mandates individual consideration and proper documentation for each case. **Claimant's Evidence** *. The Claimant's evidence includes an Order dated * July *, with a schedule of * defendants. *. An order issued on * July * included * defendants. *. An order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed *. The total number of defendants across *, *, and * amounts to *, all without unique individual Court Case reference numbers. This bulk processing approach violates the requirement for individual case assessment as highlighted in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin **. **Individual Consideration**: - The case emphasizes the necessity for each defendant to receive individual assessment and documentation. - Proper Documentation: Each defendant should have a unique court case reference number for legal proceedings to be valid. **Challenge to the Liability Order** *. I have requested detailed evidence laid with the Magistrates Court from the Claimants to substantiate the debt claimed, which has not been provided satisfactorily. This lack of evidence contravenes the principles set out in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **, wherein demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt. **Property Classification and Reassessment Based on Case Law** *. Key points distinguishing "dwelling" and "dwelling-house": - **Dwelling**: - Defined for council tax purposes as properties used or suitable for use as residences. - Broad term encompassing any property that can be lived in. - Governed by the Local Government Finance Act *. - Supported by case law such as: - *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Highlights the importance of considering a property's physical characteristics, current use, and suitability for residence. - *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **: Stresses the need to evaluate a property's actual use and suitability for habitation. - *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Emphasizes reassessment based on accurate property classification. - **Dwelling-house**: - Defined more specifically as a ‘home’ where one resides with all essential facilities for day-to-day living. - *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **: Clarifies the meaning of "dwelling-house" in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living. These distinctions between a "dwelling" and a "dwelling-house" support the reassessment of property classification for council tax purposes, highlighting that my property should be evaluated under the more precise definition of "dwelling-house" as set out in the relevant case law and Halsbury's Laws of England. **Legislative Framework** *. I am a long-standing council tax payer who received a notice regarding unpaid council tax. Despite my debilitating disability causing mental disorders and financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible and settled all previous years' council tax, albeit sometimes late due to my health challenges. Doncaster Council has repeatedly ignored my documented health impairment conditions, denied and refused me financial assistance when requested, and imposed fines and additional costs whenever possible, further worsening my financial hardship and adversely affecting my mental health. Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably over many years, as evidenced by Data Subject Access Requests (DSAR) and my correspondences, the Council has unfairly targeted me, adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity. Alan Stoves, Head of Revenues and Benefits, stated on * June *: “No further response will be given on these same issues” when I questioned the lawfulness of the liability orders and property classification. **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Council Tax Cases** *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: - Designed for minor offences like traffic violations. - Allows a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. **Relevant Case Law**: - *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **: - Highlights the need for proper judicial consideration in council tax cases. - Mandates that council tax matters should not be dealt with under SJP due to the complexity and necessity for judicial oversight. **Legal Precedent**: *. **Lord Chief Justice Widgery’s Principles (*)** state that the issuance of a summons is a judicial act requiring proper oversight. Summonses issued without magistrate review are invalid, as supported by the rulings in **R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** and *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ***. **Human Rights Act ***: *. The actions of Doncaster Council may constitute potential breaches of my human rights, specifically the right to respect for private and family life as outlined in Article * of the Human Rights Act *. **Disability Discrimination Act ***: *. Doncaster Council's actions may constitute discrimination due to my health conditions. **Equality Act ***: *. **Direct Discrimination**: Doncaster Council has frequently disregarded my documented health conditions, denied me financial assistance, and imposed fines and additional costs at every opportunity. *. **Indirect Discrimination**: By imposing fines and additional costs, the Council has applied a policy that disproportionately affects individuals with disabilities. *. **Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments**: Despite my disability and significant health issues causing financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible. The Council has not adjusted their approach or offered aid to accommodate my health issues and financial difficulties. *. **Harassment**: Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably, the Council has unfairly targeted me by adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity over the years, creating an intimidating and hostile environment. **Void Orders**: *. According to *Shirley Lewald*, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), an 'ORDER' in court is void if made without jurisdiction, breaks the law, or ignores due process. Anything done after such an ultra vires act is void ab initio, meaning it didn't happen. This principle is supported by various case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all if the proceedings are void. - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: If an order is void ab initio, there is no real order of the Court. - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: An order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside. - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. **Potential Damages and Remedies** *. I seek the following remedies and compensation for the damages caused by the actions of the City of Doncaster Council and its representatives, in their personal capacity: - Compensation for financial losses incurred due to fines and additional costs, estimated at £*,*. - Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact, estimated at £*,*, taking into account the prolonged nature of the distress caused. - Reimbursement of legal costs incurred due to defending against the interim charging order, estimated at £*,*. - Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, estimated from May * to *, estimated but to be confirmed by the council at £*,*. **References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions** *. The council's actions contravene the principles established in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and the procedural requirements outlined in the *Local Government Finance Act **. *. Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties breaches the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act **. **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure** *. The improper application of the Single Justice Procedure is highlighted in the cases of *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC*, *Northern Trains Ltd v. Sarah Cooke [*] EWHC*, and *Greater Anglian v. Joshua Baggaley, Paul Jenkins & Sarah McKenzie [*] EWHC*. **Conclusion** *. Based on the procedural improprieties, discriminatory actions, and the improper application of the Single Justice Procedure, I respectfully request that the court: - Dismiss the application for an interim charging order. - Award compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and legal costs as detailed above. - Consider the legal precedents and the evidence provided in support of my claims. **Statement of Truth** I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________________ Date: * November *

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from, **Legislative Framework**

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *

is this statement complete and formatted correctly: **WITNESS STATEMENT** *. I am Gary John Taylor – MR GJ TAYLOR, of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, the Defendant in this matter. I make this statement in support of my claim against The City of Doncaster Council and specifically against representatives Scot Robert Fawcus, Services Director - Legal and Democratic Services, Miss Emily Lewin, Assistant Director of Legal and Democratic Services, Alan Stoves, Head of Revenues and Benefits and Chief Executive Damian Francis Allen, in their personal capacity. **Events and Personal Impact** *. On * November *, I received notice of an interim charging order dated * October * issued by the council, based on a bulk list extract of liability enclosed in a letter dated * October * and received on * November *. *. I oppose the Claimant's application for an unlawful interim charging order on my personal property where I reside. My property is legally defined as a Dwelling-House under Halsbury's Laws, not the broad term "dwelling" as used in the Local Government Finance Act *. *. The case relies on the Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability Court Orders or individual unique Court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed below. This lack of individual case numbers contravenes the principles established in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **, which mandates individual consideration and proper documentation for each case. **Claimant's Evidence** *. The Claimant's evidence includes an Order dated * July *, with a schedule of * defendants. *. An order issued on * July * included * defendants. *. An order issued on * July * included * defendants, but the actual order only showed *. The total number of defendants across *, *, and * amounts to *, all without unique individual Court Case reference numbers. This bulk processing approach violates the requirement for individual case assessment as highlighted in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin **. **Individual Consideration**: - The case emphasizes the necessity for each defendant to receive individual assessment and documentation. - Proper Documentation: Each defendant should have a unique court case reference number for legal proceedings to be valid. **Challenge to the Liability Order** *. I have requested detailed evidence laid with the Magistrates Court from the Claimants to substantiate the debt claimed, which has not been provided satisfactorily. This lack of evidence contravenes the principles set out in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **, wherein demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt. **Property Classification and Reassessment Based on Case Law** *. Key points distinguishing "dwelling" and "dwelling-house": - **Dwelling**: - Defined for council tax purposes as properties used or suitable for use as residences. - Broad term encompassing any property that can be lived in. - Governed by the Local Government Finance Act *. - Supported by case law such as: - *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Highlights the importance of considering a property's physical characteristics, current use, and suitability for residence. - *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **: Stresses the need to evaluate a property's actual use and suitability for habitation. - *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*: Emphasizes reassessment based on accurate property classification. - **Dwelling-house**: - Defined more specifically as a ‘home’ where one resides with all essential facilities for day-to-day living. - *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **: Clarifies the meaning of "dwelling-house" in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living. These distinctions between a "dwelling" and a "dwelling-house" support the reassessment of property classification for council tax purposes, highlighting that my property should be evaluated under the more precise definition of "dwelling-house" as set out in the relevant case law and Halsbury's Laws of England. **Legislative Framework** *. I am a long-standing council tax payer who received a notice regarding unpaid council tax. Despite my debilitating disability causing mental disorders and financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible and settled all previous years' council tax, albeit sometimes late due to my health challenges. Doncaster Council has repeatedly ignored my documented health impairment conditions, denied and refused me financial assistance when requested, and imposed fines and additional costs whenever possible, further worsening my financial hardship and adversely affecting my mental health. Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably over many years, as evidenced by Data Subject Access Requests (DSAR) and my correspondences, the Council has unfairly targeted me, adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity. Alan Stoves, Head of Revenues and Benefits, stated on * June *: “No further response will be given on these same issues” when I questioned the lawfulness of the liability orders and property classification. **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Council Tax Cases** *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: - Designed for minor offences like traffic violations. - Allows a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. **Relevant Case Law**: - *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **: - Highlights the need for proper judicial consideration in council tax cases. - Mandates that council tax matters should not be dealt with under SJP due to the complexity and necessity for judicial oversight. **Legal Precedent**: *. **Lord Chief Justice Widgery’s Principles (*)** state that the issuance of a summons is a judicial act requiring proper oversight. Summonses issued without magistrate review are invalid, as supported by the rulings in **R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** and *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ***. **Human Rights Act ***: *. The actions of Doncaster Council may constitute potential breaches of my human rights, specifically the right to respect for private and family life as outlined in Article * of the Human Rights Act *. **Disability Discrimination Act ***: *. Doncaster Council's actions may constitute discrimination due to my health conditions. **Equality Act ***: *. **Direct Discrimination**: Doncaster Council has frequently disregarded my documented health conditions, denied me financial assistance, and imposed fines and additional costs at every opportunity. *. **Indirect Discrimination**: By imposing fines and additional costs, the Council has applied a policy that disproportionately affects individuals with disabilities. *. **Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments**: Despite my disability and significant health issues causing financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible. The Council has not adjusted their approach or offered aid to accommodate my health issues and financial difficulties. *. **Harassment**: Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably, the Council has unfairly targeted me by adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity over the years, creating an intimidating and hostile environment. **Void Orders**: *. According to *Shirley Lewald*, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), an 'ORDER' in court is void if made without jurisdiction, breaks the law, or ignores due process. Anything done after such an ultra vires act is void ab initio, meaning it didn't happen. This principle is supported by various case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgment at all if the proceedings are void. - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: If an order is void ab initio, there is no real order of the Court. - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: An order which can properly be described as a nullity is something which the person affected by it is entitled ex debito justitiae to have set aside. - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. **Potential Damages and Remedies** *. I seek the following remedies and compensation for the damages caused by the actions of the City of Doncaster Council and its representatives, in their personal capacity: - Compensation for financial losses incurred due to fines and additional costs, estimated at £*,*. - Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact, estimated at £*,*, taking into account the prolonged nature of the distress caused. - Reimbursement of legal costs incurred due to defending against the interim charging order, estimated at £*,*. - Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, estimated from May * to *, estimated but to be confirmed by the council at £*,*. **References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions** *. The council's actions contravene the principles established in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and the procedural requirements outlined in the *Local Government Finance Act **. *. Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties breaches the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act **. **Improper Application of Single Justice Procedure** *. The improper application of the Single Justice Procedure is highlighted in the cases of *Northern Trains Ltd v. Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie [*] EWHC*, *Northern Trains Ltd v. Sarah Cooke [*] EWHC*, and *Greater Anglian v. Joshua Baggaley, Paul Jenkins & Sarah McKenzie [*] EWHC*. **Conclusion** *. Based on the procedural improprieties, discriminatory actions, and the improper application of the Single Justice Procedure, I respectfully request that the court: - Dismiss the application for an interim charging order. - Award compensation for financial losses, emotional distress, and legal costs as detailed above. - Consider the legal precedents and the evidence provided in support of my claims. **Statement of Truth** I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________________ Date: * November *

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.

carry on from *.