Reformatted Witness Statement

The Doncaster County Court Claim Number: L01YY935 Date of Hearing: require confirmation BETWEEN Gary John Taylor The Moorings, High Street, Barnby Dun, Doncaster, DN3 1DY Claimant/Defendant AND The City of Doncaster Council Defendant/Claimant ________________________________________ ADDITIONAL WITNESS STATEMENT OF GARY JOHN TAYLOR ________________________________________ I, Gary John Taylor, residing at The Moorings, High Street, Barnby Dun, Doncaster, DN3 1DY, hereby submit this additional witness statement in relation to the council tax charge imposed by The City of Doncaster Council on MR GJ TAYLOR. I believe that the charge is unlawfully applied, and I seek to have it overturned on several grounds, including the misapplication of the name on the bill, as well as the council’s failure to make reasonable adjustments for my disability. ________________________________________ *. Introduction *.* I am a natural person, and the council tax demand issued to "MR GJ TAYLOR" is addressed to a legal entity, not to me as a living individual. *.* The use of my name in all capital letters represents a legal fiction or corporate entity, rather than me as a natural person. The legal fiction doctrine, established in case law, suggests that the use of an all-caps name refers to a corporate body, not a living individual. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd [*] AC * – This case confirms the legal distinction between a natural person and a corporate entity, establishing that corporations and individuals are separate legal entities. The use of all capital letters in the name on the council tax bill may imply a corporate entity, not a living person, thus invalidating the charge. ________________________________________ *. The Use of the All-Caps Name as a Legal Entity *.* The practice of writing names in all capital letters signifies a legal entity, not a natural person. Although this practice is not universally recognized in courts, it is consistent with the legal fiction theory under Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd [*] AC *, which established the distinction between natural persons and corporate entities. *.* The bill addressed to "MR GJ TAYLOR" does not indicate that I Gary John Taylor am the liable party as a natural person but rather as a legal entity. This misapplication of identity could affect the validity of the council tax charge. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • R v. Brentwood Borough Council, ex parte O’Toole [*] * WLR * – The use of an all-caps name could suggest that the charge is directed at a legal entity rather than an individual, and this can be a fundamental procedural flaw affecting the legitimacy of the charge. ________________________________________ *. Legal Fiction and Corporate Personhood *.* The principle of corporate personhood, affirmed in Salomon v. A. Salomon & Co. Ltd [*] AC *, establishes that legal entities and natural persons are separate and distinct. Therefore, the bill addressed to a corporate entity rather than me as an individual cannot create a legitimate contractual obligation. *.* The case of R (on the application of East London Boroughs Partnership) v. Local Government Ombudsman [*] EWCA Civ * emphasizes the need for public authorities to ensure transparency and accuracy in their actions, particularly in relation to identifying liable parties. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • R (on the application of East London Boroughs Partnership) v. Local Government Ombudsman [*] EWCA Civ * – The Court held that transparency and accuracy in public authority actions are crucial, particularly in identifying the correct liable party, further undermining the validity of a bill addressed to a corporate entity rather than an individual. ________________________________________ *. Necessity of a Contractual Obligation for Tax Liability *.* For council tax to be validly imposed, there must be a clear and enforceable contract between the local authority and the liable party. Local Government Finance Act *, Section *(*) states that council tax is a personal liability that attaches to the individual resident, not a corporate entity. *.* As the bill was issued to a legal entity and not me as a natural person, there is no clear evidence that a valid contractual relationship exists between myself and the council, and the charge may therefore be unlawful. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • Local Government Finance Act *, Section *(*) – The provision makes it clear that council tax liability is personal and attaches to the individual resident, not to a corporate entity. ________________________________________ *. Reasonable Adjustments under the Equality Act * *.* Under Section * of the Equality Act *, public authorities, including local councils, must make reasonable adjustments for individuals with disabilities. Despite informing the council of my disability, they failed to accommodate my needs, causing significant distress. *.* The case of R (on the application of London Borough of Camden v. V) [*] UKSC * demonstrates that public authorities have a duty to consider the needs of disabled persons and to make reasonable adjustments. The council's failure to do so has caused me financial and emotional hardship. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • R (on the application of London Borough of Camden v. V [*] UKSC * – The Supreme Court clarified that public authorities must make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities to avoid discrimination, which the council has failed to do in this case. ________________________________________ *. Legal Basis for Council Tax Liability *.* Local Government Finance Act *, Section *(*) states that council tax liability attaches to the resident of the property. The bill addressed to a legal entity rather than me as a natural person is inconsistent with this statutory requirement. *.* The council has not provided evidence demonstrating that I am the liable party, as required by Section * of the Local Government Finance Act *. Additionally, the council has failed to provide documentation showing the lawful application of the tax banding, as required by Section * of the same Act. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • Local Government Finance Act *, Section *(*) – Clarifies that council tax is charged to the individual resident, not a corporate entity. • Section * of the Local Government Finance Act * – Governs the lawful application of property banding for council tax purposes. ________________________________________ *. Procedural Irregularities and Due Process *.* Magistrates' Courts Act *, Section * requires that hearings be conducted fairly and transparently. The council’s actions in issuing the liability order without clear evidence of my liability violate these principles. *.* The case of R (on the application of East London Boroughs Partnership) v. Local Government Ombudsman [*] EWCA Civ * highlights the need for fairness and transparency in council tax matters. The failure to provide proper notice or individualized consideration of my case constitutes a breach of procedural fairness. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • Magistrates' Courts Act *, Section * – Ensures that all proceedings are fair and transparent. • R (on the application of East London Boroughs Partnership) v. Local Government Ombudsman [*] EWCA Civ * – Reinforces the need for transparency and individual consideration in council tax proceedings. ________________________________________ *. Human Rights Act Violations *.* Under Article * of the Human Rights Act *, I am guaranteed the right to a fair trial. The failure of the council to properly identify me as the liable party and to provide clear evidence regarding the tax banding infringes upon this right. *.* In R (on the application of G) v. The Lord Chancellor [*] EWCA Civ *, the Court emphasized that individuals are entitled to a fair hearing when contesting financial liabilities. The failure to follow due process in my case is a violation of my right to a fair hearing under the Human Rights Act. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • R (on the application of G) v. The Lord Chancellor [*] EWCA Civ * – Reinforces that individuals have a right to a fair hearing regarding financial obligations, including council tax disputes. ________________________________________ *. Addressing Court Tactics: Returning Case File *.* I wish to draw the Court’s attention to a letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service dated * January *, in which it was stated that my papers were returned with the reason: "This case is currently with the District Judge/a court-appointed Legal Advisor, and we are unable to accept any further applications at this stage." This tactic of returning the case file appears to be an attempt to prevent the judge from fully considering my defense and the facts laid out in my witness statement. *.* The Council’s actions, compounded by these tactics from the court, have created a significant barrier to ensuring the judge sees the full scope of my defense and the legal principles upon which I rely. I assert that this is a deliberate attempt to thwart my right to a fair hearing, as guaranteed under Article * of the Human Rights Act *. ________________________________________ Case Law Reference: • R (on the application of R) v. Secretary of State for Justice [*] EWCA Civ * – This case emphasized that procedural fairness includes ensuring that all relevant evidence is presented to the judge. Any action designed to prevent the judge from considering my defense directly violates this principle. ________________________________________ *. Request for Full Disclosure of Evidence *.* I request that the Court direct the council to provide the following documents for full transparency and to assess the validity of the liability order: • The original application for the liability order. • Documents submitted to the court to secure the liability order. • Proof that I am the correct liable party under Section * of the Local Government Finance Act *. • Evidence that the council tax banding has been lawfully assessed in accordance with Section * of the Local Government Finance Act *. • Confirmation that my case was considered individually and not part of a bulk listing. • Evidence that the liability order was lawfully obtained. ________________________________________ *. Request for Suspension of Liability and Return of Payments *.* In light of the serious concerns raised regarding the validity of the council tax charge and the lack of reasonable adjustments, I respectfully request that the Court: • Suspend the liability for council tax payments pending full disclosure of the requested documents. • Order the return of any payments made in relation to this liability order if the council fails to provide the required evidence or comply with Court orders. ________________________________________ *. Discriminatory Impact and Harassment *.* The council’s failure to provide reasonable adjustments for my disability, as required by Section * of the Equality Act *, has caused significant financial hardship and emotional distress. This discriminatory action is further exacerbated by the ongoing harassment through enforcement action. *.* The continued enforcement without proper regard for my personal circumstances constitutes unlawful harassment under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act *, which governs enforcement actions by local authorities. *. Medical Condition and Disability: o The claimant suffers from four spinal disc herniations (L1 to L4) and a torn, leaking disc in the back, resulting in frequent and severe pain. o The pain fluctuates in intensity, often rendering the claimant incapacitated and unable to walk, sit, or stand for extended periods, despite strong prescribed medication. o This condition severely limits the claimant's ability to engage in full-time employment, leading to financial hardship and reliance on irregular part-time self-employment. *. Impact on Ability to Work: a. Chronic medical condition prevents the claimant from maintaining regular, consistent employment due to the physical limitations of sitting, standing, and walking. b. The claimant's mental health has been affected by the constant pain and financial instability, contributing to significant anxiety and depression. *. Pain Management and Medication: a. The claimant is prescribed Tramadol, Naproxen, Fluoxetine, and Amitriptyline to manage the pain, but these medications do not fully alleviate the symptoms. b. Despite following the prescribed medication regimen, the claimant faces continued severe physical limitations, further exacerbating financial vulnerability. *. Notification to the Council: a. The claimant has notified The City of Doncaster Council of their disability and the significant impact it has on their ability to work full-time. b. The council has failed to provide reasonable accommodations, which is a violation of their duties under the Equality Act *. *. Discrimination Under the Equality Act *: a. The council's failure to consider the claimant’s disability when imposing council tax constitutes discrimination under Sections * (discrimination in service provision) and * (disability-related discrimination) of the Equality Act *. b. Case law, including R v. London Borough of Hillingdon (*), supports the requirement for local authorities to consider the circumstances of individuals with disabilities in policy application, especially regarding essential services like council tax. *. Council Tax System and Personal Liability: a. Council tax is a personal liability, linked to the individual resident rather than the property itself. b. The council’s failure to account for the claimant’s individual circumstances and medical condition in the council tax assessment has caused unjust financial hardship. c. Section * of the Local Government Finance Act * highlights the need for council tax discounts or reductions based on individual circumstances, which was not properly applied in the claimant’s case. *. Failure to Provide Reasonable Adjustments: a. The claimant has explored modified work options, but the severity of their condition makes it impossible to engage in regular employment or meet financial obligations. b. This failure to accommodate the claimant’s disability exacerbates the financial and emotional strain. *. Legal Irregularities in Council Tax Enforcement: a. There are multiple legal and procedural irregularities in the council's handling of this case, including: i. Failure to provide a clear chain of authority and inadequate use of the Single Justice Procedure. ii. Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for the claimant as required under disability discrimination law. *. Discriminatory Nature of Council Tax System: a. The council tax system, as currently applied, does not sufficiently account for individual circumstances, such as disability or financial hardship. b. The imposition of council tax without consideration of the claimant’s medical condition and financial difficulties perpetuates discrimination, in violation of Equality Act *. *. Accountability of Council Representatives: a. Specific council representatives, including Scot Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen, are challenged for their roles in imposing the council tax charge without considering the claimant’s disability. b. These actions are seen as discriminatory and unlawful, violating the claimant's rights under the Human Rights Act *, particularly Articles * (prohibition of discrimination) and Article * of Protocol * (protection of property). *. Invalidity of Council Tax Liability Order: a. The council tax liability order may be deemed void due to the failure to consider legal rights, jurisdiction, and the claimant’s disability. b. Case law supports the argument that orders issued without proper jurisdiction or legal authority are void (e.g., Anlaby v. Praetorius [*]). *. Legal Distinction Between Natural Persons and Legal Entities: a. The demand for council tax was issued in the name of a corporate legal entity, represented by an ALL CAPS name, which is distinct from the natural person (the claimant). b. Legal precedents, such as Liversidge v. Anderson (*), affirm the distinction between corporate entities and natural persons. c. The claimant rejects the presumption of liability for tax obligations tied to the ALL CAPS name, as they have not consented to this responsibility. *. Request for Relief and Reform: a. The claimant seeks the quashing of the council tax demand, and a review of the system to ensure that it accommodates individuals with disabilities. b. The claimant requests the court to dismiss the liability imposed, ensure fair and reasonable adjustments, and hold accountable those responsible for the unlawful and discriminatory actions. ________________________________________ *. Request for Judgment in My Favour *.* Given the absence of clear evidence supporting the council’s tax charge and the violation of my rights under the Equality Act * and the Human Rights Act *, I respectfully request the following: • That the Court declare the council tax charge and liability order invalid. • That the Court order the full disclosure of evidence supporting the council tax charge. • That the Court suspend any further enforcement actions pending resolution of these issues. • That the Court order the council to reassess the charges in light of my personal circumstances and failure to make reasonable adjustments. ________________________________________ *. Medical Condition and Disability: c. The claimant suffers from four spinal disc herniations (L1 to L4) and a torn, leaking disc in the back, resulting in frequent and severe pain. d. The pain fluctuates in intensity, often rendering the claimant incapacitated and unable to walk, sit, or stand for extended periods, despite strong prescribed medication. e. This condition severely limits the claimant's ability to engage in full-time employment, leading to financial hardship and reliance on irregular part-time self-employment. *. Impact on Ability to Work: *. Chronic medical condition prevents the claimant from maintaining regular, consistent employment due to the physical limitations of sitting, standing, and walking. *. The claimant's mental health has been affected by the constant pain and financial instability, contributing to significant anxiety and depression. • Pain Management and Medication: *. The claimant is prescribed Tramadol, Naproxen, Fluoxetine, and Amitriptyline to manage the pain, but these medications do not fully alleviate the symptoms. *. Despite following the prescribed medication regimen, the claimant faces continued severe physical limitations, further exacerbating financial vulnerability. • Notification to the Council: *. The claimant has notified The City of Doncaster Council of their disability and the significant impact it has on their ability to work full-time. *. The council has failed to provide reasonable accommodations, which is a violation of their duties under the Equality Act *. • Discrimination Under the Equality Act *: *. The council's failure to consider the claimant’s disability when imposing council tax constitutes discrimination under Sections * (discrimination in service provision) and * (disability-related discrimination) of the Equality Act *. *. Case law, including R v. London Borough of Hillingdon (*), supports the requirement for local authorities to consider the circumstances of individuals with disabilities in policy application, especially regarding essential services like council tax. • Council Tax System and Personal Liability: *. Council tax is a personal liability, linked to the individual resident rather than the property itself. *. The council’s failure to account for the claimant’s individual circumstances and medical condition in the council tax assessment has caused unjust financial hardship. *. Section * of the Local Government Finance Act * highlights the need for council tax discounts or reductions based on individual circumstances, which was not properly applied in the claimant’s case. • Failure to Provide Reasonable Adjustments: *. The claimant has explored modified work options, but the severity of their condition makes it impossible to engage in regular employment or meet financial obligations. a. This failure to accommodate the claimant’s disability exacerbates the financial and emotional strain. *. Legal Irregularities in Council Tax Enforcement: a. There are multiple legal and procedural irregularities in the council's handling of this case, including: i. Failure to provide a clear chain of authority and inadequate use of the Single Justice Procedure. ii. Failure to provide reasonable adjustments for the claimant as required under disability discrimination law. *. Discriminatory Nature of Council Tax System: a. The council tax system, as currently applied, does not sufficiently account for individual circumstances, such as disability or financial hardship. b. The imposition of council tax without consideration of the claimant’s medical condition and financial difficulties perpetuates discrimination, in violation of Equality Act *. *. Accountability of Council Representatives: a. Specific council representatives, including Scot Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen, are challenged for their roles in imposing the council tax charge without considering the claimant’s disability. b. These actions are seen as discriminatory and unlawful, violating the claimant's rights under the Human Rights Act *, particularly Articles * (prohibition of discrimination) and Article * of Protocol * (protection of property). *. Invalidity of Council Tax Liability Order: a. The council tax liability order may be deemed void due to the failure to consider legal rights, jurisdiction, and the claimant’s disability. b. Case law supports the argument that orders issued without proper jurisdiction or legal authority are void (e.g., Anlaby v. Praetorius [*]). *. Legal Distinction Between Natural Persons and Legal Entities: a. The demand for council tax was issued in the name of a corporate legal entity, represented by an ALL CAPS name, which is distinct from the natural person (the claimant). b. Legal precedents, such as Liversidge v. Anderson (*), affirm the distinction between corporate entities and natural persons. c. The claimant rejects the presumption of liability for tax obligations tied to the ALL CAPS name, as they have not consented to this responsibility. *. Request for Relief and Reform: a. The claimant seeks the quashing of the council tax demand, and a review of the system to ensure that it accommodates individuals with disabilities. b. The claimant requests the court to dismiss the liability imposed, ensure fair and reasonable adjustments, and hold accountable those responsible for the unlawful and discriminatory actions. Conclusion: The claimant has experienced severe physical and mental health difficulties due to a chronic spinal condition, which has been exacerbated by the failure of The City of Doncaster Council to consider their disability in the imposition of council tax. The claimant requests a review of the council tax liability, consideration of their individual circumstances, and a reform of the council tax system to ensure fairness and equality, particularly for disabled individuals. Statement of Truth I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed: _____________________ Gary John Taylor * January *

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

re check appears you missed some key points of my original statement, please write with much more impact and attach any relevant caselaw to bolster my position

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

dose this sentence need could, - *.* The use of my name in all capital letters represents a legal fiction or corporate entity, which is distinct from me as a natural individual. This misapplication of identity could invalidate the council tax charge

surly it dose invalidate the claim

rewrite the statement with stronger assertion and unrebuttably compelling

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue

continue