Unlawful Charging Order Defense

please merge both these witness statements, rewrite with maximum impact using all caselaw and any other you find relevant to stop this witness statement being rebutted by the council: **WITNESS STATEMENT** *. **Introduction** I, Gary John Taylor, of The Moorings, High Street, Barnby Dun, Doncaster, DN3 1DY, make this Statement of Claim Against The City of Doncaster Council and Its Representatives: Scot Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen (in their personal capacities). **Core Issues**: - Unlawful Interim Charging Order - Procedural Breaches - Discrimination - Void Orders - Misrepresentation of LGFA * *. **Interim Charging Order**: I contend that the notice I received regarding a charging order on my property is not only incorrect but fundamentally unlawful. *. **Dwelling vs. Dwelling-House**: The distinction between a "Dwelling" and a "Dwelling-House" is pivotal to this case. A "Dwelling" refers to any place where people reside, emphasizing its functional aspect. In contrast, a "Dwelling-House," as defined in *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **, conveys a specific legal status as a home equipped with essential living facilities. *. **Relevance**: My property is rightfully classified as a "Dwelling-House," which inherently carries legal protections that the council's charging order blatantly disregards. The authoritative rulings in *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* delineate the significance of this classification, impacting council tax liabilities and the validity of charging orders. Legally, "Dwelling-Houses" are shielded under *Halsbury's Laws of England*, which mandates stringent standards for enforcement actions against such properties. *. **Key Points**: - **Legal Definition**: A "Dwelling-House," as articulated in *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **, is a residence with comprehensive living facilities, extending beyond the general scope of a "Dwelling." **Special Protections**: *Halsbury's Laws of England* stipulates specific protections for "Dwelling-Houses," requiring that enforcement measures, including interim charging orders, comply with elevated legal standards. - **Stringent Protocols**: Enforcement actions against "Dwelling-Houses" must: - Comply with higher legal standards. - Ensure proper procedural steps Next are followed. - Provide adequate notice to property owners. - Allow for a fair hearing and individualized judicial scrutiny. - Uphold the rights and protections afforded under the law. *. **Council's Non-Compliance**: The City of Doncaster Council's actions in issuing an interim charging order are egregiously negligent of the legal protections afforded to "Dwelling-Houses." This disregard renders the order procedurally flawed and legally untenable, violating established law and principles of fairness. *. **Anticipated Rebuttals and Responses**: - **Broad Interpretation**: The council might argue that the term "domestic property" in the * Local Government Finance Act is intended to cover all residential properties, including "Dwelling-Houses." However, *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** establishes that "Dwelling-Houses" have a distinct legal status with specific protections. - **Legislative Intent**: They may claim that the legislative intent behind the Act was to create a uniform approach for all residential properties regarding council tax. However, this argument fails to consider the elevated legal standards and protections mandated for "Dwelling-Houses" under *Halsbury's Laws of England* - **Case Law Limitation**: The council could argue that the case law distinctions apply only in specific contexts and do not universally exempt "Dwelling-Houses" from the broader definitions in the Local Government Finance Act. Yet, the rulings in *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* emphasize the necessity of individual judicial scrutiny and compliance with higher standards for "DwellingHouses." - **Procedural Compliance**: They might insist that their actions comply with procedural requirements outlined in the Act, regardless of the "Dwelling-House" classification. However, the failure to adhere to the stringent protocols required for "Dwelling-Houses" renders their actions procedurally deficient. - **Precedent Cases**: The council may present previous cases where similar arguments were unsuccessful, aiming to undermine your position. Nonetheless, the specific legal context and protections highlighted in *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* are highly relevant to this case, reaffirming the necessity for adherence to elevated legal standards for "Dwelling-Houses." *. **Violation of Individual Case Assessment**: - The blanket processing of liability orders, lacking individual court case reference numbers for each defendant, undermines the essential requirement for individualized judicial scrutiny. This systematic oversight blatantly contravenes the legal principles established in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Misapplication of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: - The use of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP)—designed for minor infractions—within the context of intricate council tax disputes is entirely inappropriate. Such matters demand thorough judicial examination rather than cursory treatment under SJP, as emphasized in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Lack of Lawful Court Orders**: - The obvious absence of lawful liability court orders and unique court case numbers for the * defendants represents a serious violation of established legal principles. This fundamental procedural error contradicts the tenets Next outlined in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Ramifications for Defendants**: The indiscriminate mass processing of cases, devoid of unique court identifiers, poses a grave risk of errors and egregious injustices for defendants. This method systematically strips individuals of their fundamental right to personalized legal scrutiny and fair hearing, infringing upon their legal, lawful, and human rights. *. **Petition for Judicial Review**: - I earnestly implore the court to critically examine the procedural missteps and the erroneous application of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). It is imperative that each defendant's case undergoes thorough individual evaluation, ensuring adherence to correct legal protocols, equitable treatment, and the overarching tenets of justice. *. **Evidence Presented by the Claimant**: - The Claimant's documentation presents an unlawful schedule of Liability Orders dated * July *, encompassing *,* defendants. The extract utilized by the Claimant, found on the reverse side of this Order, also documents an impermissible liability order. Moreover, a subsequent schedule extract, dated * July *, involving Next *,* defendants, reinforces the existence of illegitimate liability orders. *. **Dispute Regarding the Liability Order**: - I have made formal requests for detailed substantiating evidence from the Claimants about the alleged debt. To date, these requests remain unaddressed, blatantly contravening the findings in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **, which asserts that mere demands do not equate to definitive proof of debt. *. **Reassessment of Property Classification in Light of Case Law**: - **Dwelling**: Defined for council tax purposes as properties intended or viable for residential use, delineated by the Local Government Finance Act * and supported by the ruling in *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*. This classification includes council tax liability based on general residential suitability. - **Dwelling-House**: More narrowly defined as a 'home' equipped for day-to-day living, clarified in *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **. The implications influence council tax duties based on actual residential occupancy and available amenities. *. **Misapplication of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) in Council Tax Matters**: The SJP is primarily designed for minor offences and is fundamentally ill-suited for complex council tax matters, which necessitate extensive judicial scrutiny. The precedent set in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** reaffirms that rigorous judicial oversight is essential in council tax cases due to their nuanced nature. *. **Violation of the Human Rights Act ***: - The Council's actions constitute a direct infringement of my rights under Article * of the Human Rights Act *, which safeguards an individual’s right to respect for private and family life. *. **Breach of the Disability Discrimination Act ***: - The actions taken by Doncaster Council may represent unlawful discrimination against me based on my health conditions, directly violating the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act *. This Act mandates reasonable adjustments and unequivocally prohibits unfavourable treatment rooted in disability. Specific instances illustrate the council's failure to accommodate my health conditions, thereby breaching its obligations. *. **Contravention of the Equality Act ***: - **Indirect Discrimination**: The Council's imposition of fines and additional financial Next burdens disproportionately impacts individuals with disabilities, breaching the principle of equal treatment. - **Neglect of Reasonable Adjustments**: Despite my ongoing health issues that significantly compromise my financial standing, I have persistently made arrears payments when feasible. The Council has failed to adapt their approach or offer necessary support in light of my circumstances, violating their duty to implement reasonable adjustments. - **Harassment**: The Council has systematically targeted me by levying unnecessary costs at every turn over the years, even as I have attempted to resolve these issues amicably. This behaviour cultivates an environment of intimidation and hostility, amounting to harassment. *. **Void Court Orders**: - As articulated by **Shirley Lewald**, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), an 'ORDER' issued by the court is rendered void if made without jurisdiction, in violation of the law, or in defiance of due process. This principle is bolstered by a wealth of case law: *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: Asserts that a plaintiff cannot obtain a valid judgment if the proceedings are fundamentally void. - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: Holds that an order void Next ab initio lacks the essential elements of a valid court order. - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: Establishes entitlement to set aside orders described as nullities. - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: Affirms that a void order is irrevocably void, rendering all proceedings founded on it void. *. **Claim for Damages and Remedies**: - I seek the following remedies and compensation for the considerable damages incurred as a result of actions taken by the City of Doncaster Council and its officials in their personal capacity: - Compensation for financial losses stemming from fines and additional costs, approximated at £*,*. - Compensation for emotional distress and the severe impact on my mental health, estimated at £*,*, reflecting the chronic nature of the distress endured. - Reimbursement of legal expenses incurred in defence against the interim charging order, estimated at £*,*. - Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, projected at £*,*, pending confirmation from the Council. *. **Citations of Case Law and Statutory Provisions**: - The council's actions unequivocally breach established principles illustrated in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and neglect procedural mandates outlined in the *Local Government Finance Act **. Furthermore, their disregard for my health conditions and financial predicaments constitutes a violation of both the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act **. These legal frameworks mandate the consideration of individual circumstances and the provision of reasonable adjustments to avert discrimination. *. **Misuse of the Single Justice Procedure**: The inappropriate application of the SJP has been elucidated in recent judgments, such as *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*. These rulings underscore the SJP's inadequacy for complex issues requiring meticulous judicial examination and personalized case assessment. *. **Comparative Case Studies**: into a new statement - **Case *: *Smith v. Northumberland County Council* [*] EWHC * (Admin)**: - The court confirmed Smith's property, with essential living facilities, as a 'Dwelling-House,' granting it specific legal protections under housing laws. - **Case *: *Brown v. Southwark Borough Council* [*] EWCA Civ ***: - The court ruled in Brown's favour, recognizing the property met 'Dwelling-House' criteria due to essential living facilities, distinguishing it from a general 'dwelling' under the LGFA *. - **Case *: *Taylor v. Leeds City Council* [*] EWCA Civ ***: - Taylor successfully argued for 'Dwelling-House' classification based on essential living facilities, with the court acknowledging the legal protections of this classification under housing laws. This evidence collectively reinforces my assertion, demonstrating the council's legal compliance. *. **Successful Challenges and Refunds**: - **Case *: *Williams v. Horsham District Council* [*] EWCA Civ *:** - Williams successfully argued that his property was misclassified, leading to a refund of the overpaid council tax. - **Case *: *Jones v. Liverpool City Council* [*] EWHC * (Admin):** - Jones received a council tax refund after proving that his property was incorrectly classified as a 'dwelling' rather than a 'Dwelling-House'. - **Case *: *Smith v. Northumberland County Council* [*] EWHC * (Admin):** - Smith received a full refund of council tax payments due to incorrect property classification. These cases demonstrate that upon proving property was incorrectly classified, it is possible to receive a council tax refund *. **Conclusion**: Given the multitude of procedural violations, discriminatory practices, breaches of the Equality Act *, improper application of the Single Justice Procedure, the presence of unlawfully issued liability orders **Statement of Truth** I, Gary John Taylor, believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________ Date: * November * WITNESS STATEMENT OF GARY JOHN TAYLOR** *. **Introduction**: - I, Gary John Taylor, of The Moorings, High Street, Barnby Dun, Doncaster, DN3 1DY, make this Statement of Claim Against The City of Doncaster Council and Its Representatives: Scot Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen (in their personal capacities). *. **Core Issues**: - Unlawful Interim Charging Order - Procedural Breaches - Discrimination - Void Orders - Misrepresentation of LGFA * *. **Dwelling-House Definition and Classification**: - A "Dwelling-House" is a legally recognized home with essential living facilities. This classification provides legal protections that the council's charging order disregards. The cases *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* highlight this importance, further safeguarded under *Halsbury's Laws of England*. *. **Events and Personal Impact**: - On * November *, I was distressed to receive a notification regarding an interim charging order, retroactively dated * October *, issued by the council. This order was based on a bulk liability list included in a letter sent on * October * - I avidly reject the Claimant's unlawful attempt to impose a charging order on my personal residence formally classified as a “Dwelling-House” under *Halsbury's Laws*, affording it formidable legal protections that sharply differentiate it from the vague term "dwelling" used in the Local Government Finance Act *. This vital distinction profoundly influences the legitimacy and enforcement of the charging order in accordance with established legal definitions. *. **Violation of Individual Case Assessment**: - The processing of liability orders without individual court case reference numbers for each defendant undermines the need for individualized judicial scrutiny. This oversight contravenes the legal principles established in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP) Misapplication**: - Utilizing the Single Justice Procedure (SJP) for complex council tax disputes is inappropriate. These cases require detailed judicial scrutiny rather than summary handling under SJP, as highlighted in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** *. **Lack of Lawful Court Orders**: - The absence of lawful liability court orders and unique court case numbers for each of the * defendants constitutes a serious breach of legal principles. This procedural error contravenes the tenets established in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Ramifications for Defendants**: - The mass processing of cases, lacking individual unique court claim identifiers and thorough judicial scrutiny of documents, leads to significant errors and injustices for defendants. This method strips individuals of their right to personalized legal scrutiny and a fair hearing, blatantly violating their legal, lawful, and human rights. *. **Petition for Judicial Review**: - I urge the court to scrutinize the procedural errors and misapplication of the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). Each defendant's case must receive thorough individual evaluation to ensure adherence to legal protocols, equitable treatment, and justice. *. **Evidence Presented by the Claimant**: - The Claimant's documentation includes an unlawful schedule of a Liability Order dated * July * for *,* defendants. The extract on the reverse side also shows an impermissible liability order Additionally, a schedule dated * July * for *,* defendants confirms illegitimate liability orders *. **Dispute Regarding the Liability Order**: - I have made formal requests for detailed substantiating evidence from the Claimants about the alleged debts. To date, these requests remain unaddressed. This deficiency in evidence blatantly contravenes the findings in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** which asserts that mere demands do not equate to definitive proof of debt. *. **Violation of the Human Rights Act ***: - The Council's actions constitute a direct infringement of my rights under Article * of the Human Rights Act *, which safeguards an individual’s right to respect for private and family life. - The improper classification of my property disregards my legal protections as a "Dwelling-House," undermining my right to a secure home environment. - The enforcement measures taken without recognizing these protections violate the principles of fairness and justice, further infringing upon my human rights. *. **Breach of the Disability Discrimination Act ***: - Doncaster Council's actions may constitute unlawful discrimination against me due to my health conditions, violating the *Disability Discrimination Act ** - The Act requires reasonable adjustments and prohibits unfavourable treatment based on disability. - Specific instances demonstrate the council's failure to accommodate my health conditions, breaching its legal obligations. *. **Contravention of the Equality Act ***: - **Indirect Discrimination**: The Council's imposition of fines and additional financial burdens disproportionately impacts individuals with disabilities, violating the principle of equal treatment. - **Neglect of Reasonable Adjustments**: Despite my ongoing health issues that significantly compromise my financial standing, I have persistently made arrears payments when feasible. The Council has failed to adapt their approach or offer necessary support in light of my circumstances, violating their duty to implement reasonable adjustments . - **Harassment**: The Council has systematically targeted me by levying unnecessary costs at every turn over the years, even as I have attempted to resolve these issues amicably. This behaviour cultivates an environment of intimidation and hostility, amounting to harassment. *. **Void Court Orders**: - As stated by **Shirley Lewald**, a Solicitor Advocate with Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), a court 'ORDER' is void if issued without jurisdiction, in violation of the law, or in defiance of due process. This principle is supported by several case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius* (*): A plaintiff cannot obtain a valid judgment if the proceedings are fundamentally void . - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions* [*]: An order void ab initio lacks the essential elements of a valid court order. *Craig v. Kanssen* [*]: Entitles the setting aside of orders described as nullities - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd.* [*]: A void order is irrevocably void, rendering all proceedings founded on it void. *. **Claim for Damages and Remedies**: - "I claim substantial remedies and compensation for the significant damages caused by the actions of the City of Doncaster Council and its officials, specifically Scot Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen (in their personal capacities)." - **Financial Losses**: Compensation for fines and additional costs, totalling approximately £*,* - **Emotional Distress**: I seek £*,* in compensation for severe emotional distress and mental health impact, reflecting the chronic nature of the distress endured. - **Layman's Fees**: As a litigant in person, I claim reimbursement for layman's services rendered in defending against the interim charging order and extensive correspondence over several years. This is calculated at £* per hour, totalling an estimated £*,*. - **Council Tax Reimbursement**: **: Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property over the past 28 years, projected at £*,*, pending Council confirmation notwithstanding the typical six-year limit. *. **Continual Mistake and Classification Error**: - **Continual Mistake**: Overpayment of council tax due to the continual misclassification of my property as a "Dwelling" rather than a "Dwelling-House" has resulted in incorrect charges for 28 years. - **Legal Precedent**: *Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment* [*] * P&CR * establishes that a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities My property meets these criteria and should have been classified accordingly. The LGFA * lacks clear provisions for this classification. - **Implication**: The absence of provisions for "Dwelling-House" in the LGFA * makes the council's billing legally questionable, undermining the lawfulness of the charges on my property. - **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LGFA * creates ambiguity, leading to potential misclassification and unlawful charges on my property - **Judicial Precedent**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins* [*] UKHL * emphasizes the legal distinction and protections afforded to properties correctly classified as "Dwelling-Houses." *. **Request for Evidence and Procedural Review**: - **Transparency and Fair Hearing**: Liability orders must be issued in open court to ensure transparency and accountability. Closed hearings ("star chambers") may undermine procedural fairness, violating Article * of the Human Rights Act *. This could result in the invalidation of the orders due to the lack of transparency. *R (on the application of Mackay) v. Newham London Borough Council* [*] EWHC * (Admin) highlights the importance of open hearings to uphold procedural fairness. - **Legal Requirements**: The issuance of liability orders must comply with the Local Government Finance Act * and other relevant regulations, proving my property is indeed a 'Dwelling-House,' lawfully liable for council tax under the LGFA *. - **Request for Information**: I request the court to demand: *. Evidence of the venue used for issuing the alleged lawful liability orders. *. Evidence of the documentation laid before the court. *. Evidence of the individual court and case numbers. *. Evidence that the Civil Business Centre is a lawful venue to issue an Interim Charging Order. - **Challenge Process**: If closed hearings were used, I challenge the validity of these orders based on the right to a fair and public hearing. *. **Comparative Case Studies**: - **Case *: *Smith v. Northumberland County Council* [*] EWHC * (Admin)**: - The court confirmed Smith's property, with essential living facilities, as a 'Dwelling-House,' granting it specific legal protections under housing laws. - **Case *: *Brown v. Southwark Borough Council* [*] EWCA Civ ***: - The court ruled in Brown's favour, recognizing the property met 'Dwelling-House' criteria due to essential living facilities, distinguishing it from a general 'dwelling' under the LGFA *. - **Case *: *Taylor v. Leeds City Council* [*] EWCA Civ ***: - Taylor successfully argued for 'Dwelling-House' classification based on essential living facilities, with the court acknowledging the legal protections of this classification under housing laws. This evidence collectively reinforces my assertion, demonstrating the council's legal compliance. *. **Successful Challenges and Refunds**: - **Case *: *Williams v. Horsham District Council* [*] EWCA Civ *:** - Williams successfully argued that his property was misclassified, leading to a refund of the overpaid council tax. - **Case *: *Jones v. Liverpool City Council* [*] EWHC * (Admin):** - Jones received a council tax refund after proving that his property was incorrectly classified as a 'dwelling' rather than a 'Dwelling-House'. - **Case *: *Smith v. Northumberland County Council* [*] EWHC * (Admin):** - Smith received a full refund of council tax payments due to incorrect property classification. These cases demonstrate that upon proving property was incorrectly classified, it is possible to receive a council tax refund *. **Conclusion**: - Given the multitude of procedural violations, discriminatory practices, breaches of the Equality Act *, improper application of the Single Justice Procedure, the presence of unlawfully issued liability orders from bulk listings, and the unjust issuance of the interim charging order by the Civil National Business Centre, I respectfully implore the court to: - Nullify the interim charging order. - Reimburse legal expenses and council tax payments. - Acknowledge and rectify procedural violations and instances of harassment. - Provide adequate compensation for financial losses and emotional distress caused.

continue, *. **Events and Personal Impact**: - On * November *

continue, Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin

continue, - Mass processing of cases without unique

continue, health conditions, violating the *Disability Discrimination Act

continue, - Misclassification as a "Dwelling" rather than a "Dwelling-House." - Legal

continue, *. **Events and Personal Impact**:

continue, - Mass processing of cases without unique court identifiers leads to significant errors and injustices

continue, - The Council's actions may constitute unlawful discrimination against me due to my health conditions, violating the *Disability Discrimination Act **. The Act mandates reasonable adjustments

continue, *. **Continual Mistake and Classification Error**: - Misclassification as a "