Transfer Interim Charging Order

yes

application content

carry on from, *. **Procedural Errors**:

no unique court reference number or records

can i incorporate this with the n244 as a witness statement to rebut the SJP.. **Witness Statement of [Name]** "I am making this witness statement to address significant issues concerning council tax obligations. This statement highlights complex legal matters, including a thorough examination of relevant legislation, exposing potential procedural improprieties and legal breaches. Specific statutory instruments, such as the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations and Valuation Office Agency manuals, inform the asserted authority's position. Through the application of case law and comprehensive legal analysis, this examination has identified inconsistencies and potential breaches in the validation of council tax 'Dwellings' under the Local Government Finance Act *. These findings warrant serious attention and immediate rectification." *. -**Introduction and Legislative Framework** I am a long-standing council tax payer who received a notice regarding unpaid council tax. Despite my disability and significant health issues causing financial difficulties, I have consistently paid arrears when possible and settled all previous years' council tax, albeit sometimes late due to health challenges. Doncaster Council has frequently disregarded my documented health conditions, denied me financial assistance, and imposed fines and additional costs at every opportunity, further exacerbating my financial hardship and negatively impacting my mental health. Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably over many years, as evidenced by the Data Subject Access Request (DSAR), the Council has unfairly target me as easy pickings adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity. From my research, I submit that I am not legally obligated to pay council tax on my principal home under the **Definition of Dwelling**. *. - **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)** - Designed for minor offences like traffic violations. - Allows a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing *. - **Improper Use in Council Tax Cases** - Council tax matters are generally not minor offences. - SJP should not be applied unless explicitly allowed by law. *. - **Relevant Case Law** - **Northern Trains Ltd v Mark Ballington & Jade Wylie** [*] EWHC - **Northern Trains Ltd v Sarah Cooke** [*] EWHC - **Greater Anglian v Joshua Baggaley, Paul Jenkins & Sarah McKenzie** [*] EWHC *. - **Legal Precedent** - **Lord Chief Justice Widgery’s Principles (*)** - Issuance of a summons is a judicial act. - Rubber stamp signatures need proper judicial oversight. - Summonses without magistrate review are invalid. *. Key Points: - **Definition of "Dwelling"** Under the Local Government Finance Act *, a "dwelling" is defined as any building or part of a building fit for habitation. *. - **Broad Application** It is crucial to underscore that this does not if fact inherently correspond to in law, ‘Principle and only Home’, 'domestic property', 'living accommodation', 'private domestic property', or 'private domestic living accommodation'. The term 'dwelling' is employed without an explicit reference to the 'lawful definition' of one's principle home. *. -**Legal Grounds**: I uphold that under English law, specifically referencing the Local Government Finance Act *, a 'dwelling' for Council Tax implications is perceived as any construction or portion thereof, operational or fit for habitation. - **. Does not in fact explicitly define 'dwelling'; refers to VOA technical manual Part *. *. - **Definition of Dwelling VOA Technical Manual Part *, *.*, sub bullet point *** “If a property is removed from the council tax list because it has become a non-domestic property, it is no longer considered a ‘dwelling’ for council tax purposes”. *. "It is imperative to highlight that this does not qualify as 'domestic property,' which is my primary residence. The term 'dwelling' is used without a clear reference to the legal definition of a home." *. "It is a fact that only when the domestic property is reclassified under the non-domestic list and meets the 'Dwelling' criteria, it is then and only then considered a 'dwelling' or 'new dwelling' for the purposes of Council Liability Charges." *. **Key Legal Points** *. *Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations**: Potential procedural improprieties have been identified. *. **Local Government Finance Act ***: Examination reveals inconsistencies in the validation of "dwellings". *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**: Improper application in council tax cases. *. **Relevant Case Law**: Cited cases demonstrate judicial precedent against non-judicial summons issuance. *. **Legal Precedent** *. **Lord Chief Justice Widgery’s Principles (*)**: Summons issuance is a judicial act requiring proper oversight. Summonses issued without magistrate review. *. **Human Rights Act ***: Potential breaches of my human rights, the right to respect for private and family life. *. **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." *. **Breach**: Treating me less favourably than others due to my disability. *. **Indirect Discrimination**: "Imposed fines and additional costs...further exacerbating my financial hardship." *. **Breach**: Applying a policy (imposing fines and costs) 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." *. **Breach**: Not adjusting their approach or offering 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 as easy pickings adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity over the years." *. **Breach**: Creating an intimidating, hostile **Statement of Truth** I, [Name], state that the facts set out in the attached document are true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I draw your attention to a pivotal legal precedent concerning the issuance of summonses. In **All England Law Reports [*] * All ER QBD p206-***, Lord Chief Justice Widgery established the following principles: - The issuance of a summons is a judicial act, not merely administrative. - The use of a rubber stamp for a signature is permissible only with proper judicial oversight. - Summonses issued without magistrate review are improper and constitute maladministration. This precedent unequivocally indicates that council tax summonses generated by computer systems without judicial oversight are legally invalid.

does my witness statement above require any other points adding

I sent the above witness statement to the council and they did not reply but went straight to the interim charging order

council state i must file with court and serve upon us your objection in writing within 28 days, also do i need to send any information to northampton bussiness center

dose any of this need adding to the witness statement, Please check and rewrite with impact adding any required information: Rebuttal Document for Bulk Liability Hearing **Introduction** The issuance of summonses by a council's computer for non-payment of council tax lacks proper judicial oversight. This practice contradicts the requirement for a judicial decision as established in **R v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin [*] QB ***. **Key Points** - **Judicial Decision Requirement**: Magistrates must review and apply their minds to the information before issuing a summons, ensuring it is a judicial, not administrative, function. - **Rubber Stamp Signatures**: Lord Chief Justice Widgery affirmed that while a signature via rubber stamp is acceptable, it must follow a justice's review of the information (see **All England Law Reports [*] * All ER QBD p206- ***). - **Dereliction of Duty**: Issuing summonses without judicial review constitutes a dereliction of duty and serious maladministration. **Argument** *. **Automated Summonses**: Council tax summonses are typically issued by a council’s computer, implying no magistrate has reviewed the information beforehand. *. **Lack of Judicial Oversight**: The bulk handling of cases suggests an administrative process without the required judicial scrutiny. *. **Invalid Summonses**: Without judicial oversight, these summonses do not meet legal standards. The judicial process must be adhered to, as per established case law, ensuring each summons is reviewed by a magistrate. Bulk issuance by a council's computer undermines this requirement, rendering the summonses invalid. **Conclusion** The practice of issuing council tax summonses via automated systems fails to comply with the judicial requirement established in **R v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin [*] QB ***. Such procedures result in invalid summonses due to the lack of proper judicial review. I contesting the validity of the summonses at the hearing, citing the lack of judicial oversight and the precedent set by **R v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin [*] QB ***. **Effectively Presenting Your Argument at the Hearing** *. **Preparation**: Bring all relevant documents, including a copy of the case law **R v Brentford Justices ex parte Catlin [*] QB ***. *. **Opening Statement**: Clearly state that the summonses issued lack proper judicial oversight. *. **Cite Case Law**: Reference the specific points from the case law that support your argument. *. **Highlight Key Points**: Emphasize the lack of judicial review and the automated nature of the summons issuance. *. **Conclude**: Reiterate that the summonses are nul and void due to the absence of judicial scrutiny and requestthe court to dismiss them. **Additional Considerations** - **Anticipate Counterarguments**: Be prepared to address potential counterarguments, such as the efficiency of automated systems. Emphasize that efficiency should not compromise legal standards. - **Legal Representation**: If possible, seek legal representation or advice to strengthen your case. - **Supporting Evidence**: Include any supporting documents or evidence that demonstrate the automated nature of the summons issuance. - **Witness Statements**: If available, incorporate witness statements that corroborate your argument about the lack of judicial oversight. - **Summarize Key Points**: At the end of your presentation, recap your main arguments to reinforce your points to the court. **Additional Considerations** - **Anticipate Counterarguments**: Be prepared to address potential counterarguments, such as the efficiency of automated systems. Emphasize that efficiency should not compromise legal standards. - **Supporting Evidence**: Include any documents or evidence that demonstrate the automated nature of the summons issuance. - **Witness Statements**: If available, incorporate witness statements to support your argument about the lack of judicial oversight. - **Summarize Key Points**: Recap your main arguments at the end of your presentation to reinforce your points to the court. Sure, I can help with that. Here's a refined and impactful version of your document: --- **Rebuttal Document for Bulk Liability Hearing** **Introduction**

carry on from, *.

can you help with para *

i dont have the finace for solicitor to represent

carry on, *. **Lack of Judicial

carry on: Em

is it relevant to include this document: THE VOID ORDER by Shirley Lewald Solicitor Advocate Higher Rights (Civil and Criminal Courts), MSc (Psych), PGDip (SocSc), PGCPSE, LLB (Hons) If an 'ORDER' in court was made because the Judge or any party to the judgment had no jurisdiction, broke the law or ignored due process, that order is VOID. Anything AFTER the point when the person acted ultra vires is void AB INITIO - ie IT DIDN"T HAPPEN. You can apply to have that VOID ORDER nullified. The interesting and important nature of a ‘void’ order of a Court is not fully understood and appreciated in England and this article is written to assist the understanding of a ‘void’ order and to assist legal professionals in any concerns they may have in submitting to a Court that its order is void, if indeed it is void. In Anlaby v. Praetorius (*) * Q.B.D. * at * Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that: “A plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all”. A void order does not have to be obeyed because, for example, in Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [*] it was stated that if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court. In Fry v. Moore (*), * Q.B.D. * Lindley, L.J. said of void and irregular proceedings that it may be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If a procedure is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null it cannot be waived and all that is done afterwards is void; in general, one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls. A void order results from a ‘fundamental defect’ in proceedings (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [*] * Ch * and Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [*] * WLR *) or from a ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act of a public body or judicial office holder (Lord Denning in Pearlman v Governors of Harrow School [*] * WLR *). A ‘fundamental defect’ includes a failure to serve process where service of process is required (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen Craig v Kanssen [*] * KB *); or where service of proceedings never came to the notice of the defendant at all (e.g. he was abroad and was unaware of the service of proceedings); or where there is a fundamental defect in the issuing of proceedings so that in effect the proceedings have never started; or where proceedings appear to be duly issued but fail to comply with a statutory requirement (Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard [*]). Failure to comply with a statutory requirement includes rules made pursuant to a statute (Smurthwaite v Hannay [*] A.C. *). A ‘without jurisdiction’/ultra vires act is any act which a Court did not have power to do (Lord Denning in Firman v Ellis [*]). In Peacock v Bell and Kendal [*] * E.R. *, pp.*:* it was held that nothing shall be intended to be out of the jurisdiction of a Superior Court, but that which specially appears to be so; and nothing shall be intended to be within the jurisdiction of an Inferior Court but that which is so expressly stated. It is important to note therefore that in the case of orders of Courts with unlimited jurisdiction, an order can never be void unless the ‘unlimited jurisdiction’ is ‘limited’ in situations where it is expressly shown to be so. In the case of orders of the Courts of unlimited jurisdiction where the jurisdiction is not expressly shown to be limited, the orders are either irregular or regular. If irregular, it can be set aside by the Court that made it upon application to that Court and a person affected by the irregular order has a right –ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside. If it is regular, it can only be set aside by an appellate Court upon appeal if there is one to which an appeal lies (Lord Diplock in Isaacs v Robertson (*) * W.I.R. PC at *-*). However, where the Court’s unlimited jurisdiction is shown to be limited (for example: a restriction on the Court’s power by an Act of Parliament or Civil or Criminal Procedure Rule) (Peacock v Bell and Kendal [*]; Halsbury’s Laws of England) then the doctrine of nullity will apply. Similarly, if the higher Court’s order is founded on a lower Court’s void act or invalid claim then the higher Court’s decision will also be void (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [*] * All ER). The main differences between a ‘void’ and ‘voidable’ order or claim is that: (i) a ‘void’ order or claim has no legal effect ab initio (from the beginning/outset) and therefore does not need to be appealed, although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [*] and Firman v Ellis [*]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order or claim has legal effect unless and until it is set aside. Therefore, while a void order or claim does not have to be obeyed and can be ignored and its nullity can be relied on as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [*] A.C. *), a voidable order or claim has to be obeyed and cannot be ignored unless and until it is set aside; and (ii) a ‘void’ order can be set aside by the Court which made the order because the Court has inherent jurisdiction to set aside its own void order (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [*]) whereas a ‘voidable’ order can only be set aside by appeal to an appellate Court. A person affected by both a void or voidable order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have the order set aside (which means that the Court does not have discretion to refuse to set aside the order or to go into the merits of the case) (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [*]) The procedure for setting aside a void order is by application to the Court which made the void order, although it can also be set aside by appeal although an appeal is not necessary (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [*]) or it can quashed or declared invalid by Judicial Review (where available) and where damages may also be claimed. Although an appeal is not necessary to set aside a void order, if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the order is void and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside (Lord Greene in Craig v Kanssen [*]. A void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the invalid claim or void act are also void. Even a decision of the higher Courts (High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) will be void if the decision is founded on an invalid claim or void act, because something cannot be founded on nothing (Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]) A void order is void even if it results in a failure of natural justice or injustice to an innocent third party (Lord Denning in Wiseman v Wiseman [*] * All ER *). It is never too late to raise the issue of nullity and a person can ignore the void order or claim and raise it as a defence when necessary (Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [*] A.C. *; Smurthwaite v Hannay [*] A.C. *; Upjohn LJ in Re Pritchard (deceased) [*]; Lord Denning in MacFoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]). In R v. Clarke and McDaid [*] UKHL8 the House of Lords confirmed that there is no valid trial if the bill/Indictment has not been signed by an appropriate officer of the Court because Parliament intended that the Indictment be signed by a proper officer of the Court. In Bellinger v Bellinger [*] UKHL * the House of Lords confirmed that a void act is void from the outset and no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) – has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem, because doing so would mean reforming the law which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform or create it. It is important to note that if a claim is invalid the plaintiff can start all over again unless he is prevented from doing so due to limitation as in the case of Re Pritchard (deceased) [*] or estoppel – for example; where the Claimant applied to the Court for permission to correct/amend the claim and permission was refused; or the plaintiff or his solicitor had been negligent in ignoring a material fact when filing the invalid claim so that the plaintiff is estopped by the principle that he should not be allowed a ‘second bite at the cherry’; and in the case of a criminal trial if there has been a fundamental technical defect the Court can order a new trial (venire de novo – may you cause to come anew). Chronology of some case laws relating to void orders: *: In Anlaby v. Praetorius (*) Fry L.J. stated on the issue of void proceedings that: (i) a plaintiff has no right to obtain any judgement at all. *: In Fry v. Moore (*) Lindley, L.J. said that: (i) it might be difficult to draw the exact line between nullity and irregularity. If an order is irregular it can be waived by the defendant but if it is null then it renders all that is done afterwards void. In general one can easily see on which side of the line the particular case falls. *: Crane v Director of Public Prosecutions [*]: (i) if an order is void ab initio (from the beginning) then there is no real order of the Court. *: In Craig v Kanssen [*] Lord Greene confirmed that: (i) 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; (ii) so far as procedure is concerned the Court in its ‘inherent jurisdiction’ can set aside its own order and an appeal from the order is not necessary; and (iii) if permission to appeal is requested and if out of time the Court should grant permission because time does not run because the point is that the order is invalid and the person affected by it has the right to have it set aside. *: In Wiseman v Wiseman [*] * All ER * – Lord Denning confirmed that: (i) The issue of natural justice does not arise in a void order because it is void whether it causes a failure of natural justice or not; (ii) a claimant or defendant should not be allowed to abuse the process of Court by failing to comply with a statutory procedure and yet keep the benefit of it and for that reason also a void act is void even if it affects the rights of an innocent third party. *: In MacFoy v United Africa Co Ltd. [*] Lord Denning confirmed that: (i) a void order is automatically void without more ado; (ii) a void order does not have to be set aside by a Court to render it void although for convenience it may sometimes be necessary to have the Court set the void order aside; (iii) a void order is incurably void and all proceedings based on the void order/invalid claim are also void *: In Re Pritchard (deceased) [*] Upjohn LJ confirmed that: (i) a fundamental defect in proceedings will make the whole proceedings a nullity; (ii) a nullity cannot be waived; (iii) it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and (iv) a person affected by a void order has the right – ex debito justitiae – to have it set aside. *: In Firman v Ellis [*] Lord Denning confirmed that: (i) a void act is void ab initio *: Lord Denning, in his book ‘The Discipline of Law’ – Butterworths * – page *, states: (i) although a void order has no legal effect from the outset it may sometimes be necessary to have it set aside because as Lord Radcliffe once said: “It bears no brand of invalidity on its forehead”. *: Wandsworth London Borough Council v. Winder [*] A.C. *: (i) a person may ignore a void claim and rely on it as a defence when necessary. *: In Bellinger v Bellinger [*] the House of Lords confirmed that: (i) a void act is void from the outset; and (ii) no Court – not even the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give legal effect to a void act no matter how unreasonable that may seem because doing so would mean reforming the laws which no Court has power to do because such power rests only with Parliament. The duty of the Court is to interpret and apply the law not reform it. Conclusion based on the case laws referred to above: (i) an application to have a void order set aside can be made to the Court which made the void order; (ii) the setting aside must be done under the Court’s inherent power to set aside its own void order; (iii) the Court does not have discretion to refuse the application because the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside; (iv) an appeal is not necessary because the order is already void; (v) if permission to appeal is sought and if sought out of time permission should be given because as the order is void time does not run; it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity; and the person affected by the void order has a right to have it set aside; (vi) a void order can be quashed or declared unlawful by Judicial Review where available and where damages may also be claimed; (vii) the whole proceedings is void if it was based on a void act; (viii) a void order does not have to be obeyed because it has no legal effect from the beginning; (ix) as it is never too late to raise the issue of nullity a person can ignore the void order and rely on nullity as a defence when necessary; (x) a void order is void even if the nullity is unjust or injustice occurs to an innocent third party; (xi) an order of a Court of unlimited jurisdiction is only void if it can be expressly be shown that the unlimited jurisdiction is limited in that situation, or the order is founded on an invalid claim or void act; (xii) no Court (not even the Supreme Court) has jurisdiction to give effect to a void act and the duty of the Court is only to interpret and apply the law not to reform or create it as such power rests only with Parliament.

carry on: - Allows a

carry on: or 'private domestic living

carry on: - **Legal Precedent**: Lord Chief Justice Widg

carry on if required: Such procedures result in invalid summonses due to the lack of proper judicial review.

carry on: - **Conclude**:

Thank you very much you been a great help and taken weight off the shoulders

i will try refine the above and then put it here for your comments or help

do i become the claimant when i get the case moved from mags to county court