Bailiff Visit Limitations

**Events and Personal Impact**
*. The case relies on the Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability orders or individual unique court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed. 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 case 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 ***.
**Challenge to the Liability Order**
*. I have requested detailed evidence from the Claimant

**Challenge to the Liability Order**
*. I have requested detailed evidence from the Claimant 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.
*. The Claimant’s demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt as per the ruling in **Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ***.
**Property Classification**
*. The term "dwelling" for council tax purposes refers to properties used or suitable for use as residences, as defined in the Local Government Finance Act *. My property’s classification and the applicability of council tax should be reassessed based on the criteria established in **R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)** and **R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ ***. These cases emphasize that the classification of a property must consider its physical characteristics, its use, and its suitability for habitation.
Would you like me to continue?

**Property Classification**
*. The term "dwelling" for council tax purposes refers to properties used or suitable for use as residences, as defined in the Local Government Finance Act *. My property’s classification and the applicability of council tax should be reassessed based on the criteria established in **R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)** and **R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ ***. These cases emphasize that the classification of a property must consider its physical characteristics, its use, and its suitability for habitation.
**Hereditament**
*. A hereditament is a unit of property liable to local taxes, including both domestic and non-domestic properties. My property does not meet the criteria for a "dwelling" as defined under council tax regulations and should be reassessed as per the principles established in **R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)**.
**Dwelling-House Definition**
*. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a "Dwelling-House" is distinct from the

**Dwelling-House Definition**
*. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a "Dwelling-House" is distinct from the broader term "dwelling" used in the Local Government Finance Act *. A Dwelling-House must be clearly defined and specifically used as a residence with all necessary facilities for day-to-day living. This nuanced definition supports my argument that my property does not fall under the council tax regulations as broadly interpreted by the Claimant.
**Reassessment Based on Case Law**
*. My property’s classification and the applicability of council tax should be reassessed based on:
- **R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)**: This case highlights the necessity of a detailed examination of a property’s characteristics and its actual use to determine its classification for council tax purposes.
- **R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ ***: This case underscores the importance of considering the property's suitability for habitation and its actual use, rather than a broad categorization.
- **R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*]

**Reassessment Based on Case Law**
*. My property’s classification and the applicability of council tax should be reassessed based on:
- **R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)**: This case supports the need for a thorough assessment to determine if a property qualifies as a hereditament liable for council tax.
- **Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ***: This case clarifies the meaning of "dwelling-house" in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living.
**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

**Legislative Framework**
*. Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably over many years, as evidenced by the 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 on the * June * stated: “No further response will be given on these same issues despite my requests” questioning the lawfulness of the liability orders that were produced by the council and not the court and definition ‘Dwellings’ and the * Local Government Finance Act.
**Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**
*. The SJP is designed for minor offences like traffic violations, allowing a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. Its application in council tax matters is inappropriate and lacks the necessary judicial oversight as highlighted in **R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ***, which mandates proper judicial consideration.
**Improper Use in Council Tax Cases**
*. Council tax matters are generally not minor offences and the SJP should not be applied unless explicitly allowed by law. The improper application of SJP in this context is supported by **

**Improper Use in Council Tax Cases**
*. Council tax matters are generally not minor offences and the SJP should not be applied unless explicitly allowed by law. The improper application of SJP in this context is supported by **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**.
**Relevant Case Law**
*. 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** illustrate judicial precedents against the improper application of SJP in similar contexts.
**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

**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

**Equality Act ***
*. **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 Pro

**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

**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 ***.
*. The

**References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions**
*. 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 *

**WITNESS STATEMENT**
*. I am Gary John Taylor – MR GJ TAYLOR, 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, 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 orders or individual unique court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed. This lack of individual case numbers

The case relies on the Single Justice Procedure and Bulk liability order extracts, with no lawful liability orders or individual unique court case reference numbers provided for the * defendants listed. 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 case 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 ***.
**Challenge to the Liability Order**
*. I have requested detailed evidence from the Claimant to substantiate the debt claimed, which

**Challenge to the Liability Order**
*. I have requested detailed evidence from the Claimant 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.
*. The Claimant’s demands alone do not constitute definitive proof of debt as per the ruling in **Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ***.
**Property Classification**
*. The term "dwelling" for council tax purposes refers to properties used or suitable for use as residences, as defined in the Local Government Finance Act *. My property’s classification and the applicability of council tax should be reassessed based on the criteria established in **R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)** and **R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ ***. These cases emphasize that the classification of a property must consider its physical characteristics, its use, and its suitability for habitation.

**Property Classification**
*. The term "dwelling" for council tax purposes refers to properties used or suitable for use as residences, as defined in the Local Government Finance Act *. My property’s classification and the applicability of council tax should be reassessed based on the criteria established in **R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)** and **R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ ***. These cases emphasize that the classification of a property must consider its physical characteristics, its use, and its suitability for habitation.
**Hereditament**
*. A hereditament is a unit of property liable to local taxes, including both domestic and non-domestic properties. My property does not meet the criteria for a "dwelling" as defined under council tax regulations and should be reassessed as per the principles established in **R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)**.
**Dwelling-House Definition**
*. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a "Dwelling-House" is distinct

**Dwelling-House Definition**
*. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a "Dwelling-House" is distinct from the broader term "dwelling" used in the Local Government Finance Act *. A Dwelling-House must be clearly defined and specifically used as a residence with all necessary facilities for day-to-day living. This nuanced definition supports my argument that my property does not fall under the council tax regulations as broadly interpreted by the Claimant.
**Reassessment Based on Case Law**
*. My property’s classification and the applicability of council tax should be reassessed based on:
- **R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)**: This case highlights the necessity of a detailed examination of a property’s characteristics and its actual use to determine its classification for council tax purposes.
- **R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ ***: This case underscores the importance of considering the property's suitability for habitation and its actual use, rather than a broad categorization.
- **R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District

Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)**: This case supports the need for a thorough assessment to determine if a property qualifies as a hereditament liable for council tax.
- **Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ***: This case clarifies the meaning of "dwelling-house" in the context of residential property, emphasizing the specific use and facilities necessary for day-to-day living.
**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 Requests (DSAR) and my correspondences, the Council has unfairly targeted me, adding unnecessary costs at every opportunity. Alan Stoves, Head of Revenues and Benefits

**Legislative Framework**
*. Despite my repeated efforts to resolve these issues amicably over many years, as evidenced by the 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 on the * June * stated: “No further response will be given on these same issues despite my requests,” questioning the lawfulness of the liability orders that were produced by the council and not the court and definition ‘Dwellings’ and the * Local Government Finance Act.
**Single Justice Procedure (SJP)**
*. The SJP is designed for minor offences like traffic violations, allowing a single magistrate to handle cases without a court hearing. Its application in council tax matters is inappropriate and lacks the necessary judicial oversight as highlighted in **R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ***, which mandates proper judicial consideration.
**Improper Use in Council Tax Cases**
*. Council tax matters are generally not minor offences and the SJP should not be applied unless explicitly allowed by law. The improper application of SJP in this context is supported by **

**Improper Use in Council Tax Cases**
*. Council tax matters are generally not minor offences and the SJP should not be applied unless explicitly allowed by law. The improper application of SJP in this context is supported by **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**.
**Relevant Case Law**
*. 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** illustrate judicial precedents against the improper application of SJP in similar contexts.
**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

**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

**Equality Act ***
*. **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 [

**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

**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

**References to Case Law and Statutory Provisions**
*. Their failure to consider my health conditions and financial difficulties breaches the **Equality Act *** and the **Disability Discrimination Act ***.
*. 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 *

In England, bailiffs are required to follow strict rules. They can visit your home to collect a debt, but they must follow these regulations:
- They can only visit between * am and * pm.
- They cannot visit more than three times for the same debt.
- They must not harass or intimidate you.
If you feel harassed, you can complain to the bailiff's company or seek advice from a legal professional.

If a bailiff breaches the rule of visiting more than three times for the same debt, you can take the following actions:
- **File a Complaint:** Report the bailiff to their company and the court that issued the enforcement order.
- **Seek Legal Advice:** Contact a legal professional for guidance.
- **Contact Regulatory Bodies:** You can report the issue to the Civil Enforcement Association (CIVEA) or the Enforcement Conduct Board.
If you need further assistance, please let me know.