Council Tax Misclassification Challenge

continue , **Legal Precedent and Classification**: - According to *Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment* [*] * P&CR *, a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities. My property meets these criteria and should have been classified as such. - The Local Government Finance Act * (LGFA *) should include clear provisions for this classification of property, but it does not. - **Implication**: Without explicit provisions for "Dwelling-House" in the LGFA *, the council's basis for billing and imposing charges on my property is legally questionable. This lack of clarity undermines the lawfulness of the council tax charges applied to my property. - **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LGFA * creates ambiguity in how properties like mine should be classified and billed, leading to potential misclassification and unlawful charges. - **Judicial Precedent**: Cases such as *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [* continue, and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [* Certainly! Here is the continuation:

this is jumbled up, please rewrite with maximum impact, *. **Continual Mistake and Classification Error**: - **Continual Mistake**: The overpayment of council tax due to the continual misclassification of my property as a "Dwelling" rather than a "Dwelling-House" constitutes a continual mistake. This mistake has resulted in incorrect council tax charges for 28 years, contrary to the proper legal classification. **Legal Precedent and Classification**: - According to *Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment* [*] * P&CR *, a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities. My property meets these criteria and should have been classified as such. - The Local Government Finance Act * (LGFA *) should include clear provisions for this classification of property, but it does not. - **Implication**: Without explicit provisions for "Dwelling-House" in the LGFA *, the council's basis for billing and imposing charges on my property is legally questionable. This lack of clarity undermines the lawfulness of the council tax charges applied to my property. - **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LGFA * creates ambiguity in how properties like mine should be classified and billed, leading to potential misclassification and unlawful charges. - **Judicial Precedent**: Cases such as *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [* continue, and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [* - **Judicial Precedent**: Cases such as *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* emphasize the distinction between "Dwelling" and "Dwelling-House" and the legal protections afforded to properties correctly classified as "Dwelling-Houses." - **Council’s Billing Authority**: The council's authority to bill and impose charges is legally questionable without clear statutory provisions for "Dwelling-Houses" in the LGFA *. Any billing based on misclassification may be deemed unlawful. - **Request for Reassessment**: I seek a reassessment of my property’s classification to ensure it aligns with legal precedents and proper billing standards. Consequently, I request a full refund of overpaid council tax based on the continual misclassification over the past 28 years. Certainly! Here is the continuation: *. **Continual Mistake and Classification Error**: - **Continual Mistake**: The overpayment of council tax due to the continual misclassification of my property as a "Dwelling" rather than a "Dwelling-House" constitutes a continual mistake. This mistake has resulted in incorrect council tax charges for 28 years, contrary to the proper legal classification. - **Legal Precedent**: According to *Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment* [*] * P&CR *, a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities. My property meets these criteria and should have been classified as such. - **Claim for Overpaid Tax**: I request a refund for all overpaid council tax due to this continual mistake, as the misclassification has caused significant financial harm and undermines the fair application of tax laws.

continue, - **Judicial Precedent**: Cases such as

continue, potential misclassification and unlawful charges. - **Judicial

please check rewrite in strong format with impact, *. **Continual Mistake and Classification Error**: - **Continual Mistake**: The overpayment of council tax due to the continual misclassification of my property as a "Dwelling" rather than a "Dwelling-House" constitutes a continual mistake. This mistake has resulted in incorrect council tax charges for 28 years, contrary to the proper legal classification. - **Legal Precedent**: According to *Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment* [*] * P&CR *, a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities. My property meets these criteria and should have been classified as such. - **Implication**: Without explicit provisions for "Dwelling-House" in the Local Government Finance Act * (LGFA *), the council's basis for billing and imposing charges on my property is legally questionable. This lack of clarity undermines the lawfulness of the council tax charges applied to my property. - **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LGFA * creates ambiguity in how properties like mine should be classified and billed, leading to potential misclassification and unlawful charges. - **Judicial Precedent**: Cases such as *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* emphasize the distinction between "Dwelling" and "Dwelling-House" and the legal protections afforded to properties correctly classified as "Dwelling-Houses." - **Council’s Billing Authority**: The council's authority to bill and impose charges is legally questionable without clear statutory provisions for "Dwelling-Houses" in the LGFA *. Any billing based on misclassification may be deemed unlawful. - **Request for Reassessment**: I seek a reassessment of my property’s classification to ensure it aligns with legal precedents and proper billing standards. Consequently, I request a full refund of overpaid council tax based on the continual misclassification over the past 28 years.*. **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 ** (Exhibit GJT33). Furthermore, their disregard for my health conditions and financial predicaments constitutes a violation of both the *Equality Act ** and the *Disability Discrimination Act ** (Exhibit GJT34). These legal frameworks mandate the consideration of individual circumstances and the provision of reasonable adjustments to avert discrimination.

carry on from, **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LG

please check these paragraphs to confirm they are correct, condense if posible, *. **Continual Mistake and Classification Error**: - **Continual Mistake**: The overpayment of council tax due to the continual misclassification of my property as a "Dwelling" rather than a "Dwelling-House" constitutes a continual mistake. This mistake has resulted in incorrect council tax charges for 28 years, contrary to the proper legal classification. - **Legal Precedent**: According to *Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment* [*] * P&CR *, a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities. My property meets these criteria and should have been classified as such. The Local Government Finance Act * (LGFA *) should include clear provisions for this classification of property, but it does not. - **Implication**: Without explicit provisions for "Dwelling-House" in the LGFA *, the council's basis for billing and imposing charges on my property is legally questionable. This lack of clarity undermines the lawfulness of the council tax charges applied to my property. **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LGFA * creates ambiguity in how properties like mine should be classified and billed, leading to potential misclassification and unlawful charges. - **Judicial Precedent**: Cases such as *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* emphasize the distinction between "Dwelling" and "Dwelling-House" and the legal protections afforded to properties correctly classified as "Dwelling-Houses." - **Council’s Billing Authority**: The council's authority to bill and impose charges is legally questionable without clear statutory provisions for "Dwelling-Houses" in the LGFA *. Any billing based on misclassification may be deemed unlawful. - **Request for Reassessment**: I seek a reassessment of my property’s classification to ensure it aligns with legal precedents and proper billing standards. Consequently, I request a full refund of overpaid council tax based on the continual misclassification over the past 28 years.

continue, application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*

please check the format is now correct, list all exhibits with the citation extract to support my case: WITNESS STATEMENT 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 ** (Exhibit GJT1) and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* (Exhibit GJT2) 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 * (Exhibit GJT3). - 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 * (Exhibit GJT4). 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 ** (Exhibit GJT5). *. **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 ** (Exhibit GJT6). *. **Lack of Lawful Court Orders** - The absence of lawful liability court orders and unique case numbers for 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 ** (Exhibit GJT7). *. **Ramifications for Defendants** - The mass processing of cases without unique court identifiers risks significant errors and injustices for defendants. This approach deprives individuals of their right to personalized legal scrutiny and a fair hearing, 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 Liability Orders dated * July * for *,* defendants (Exhibit GJT8). The extract on the reverse side also shows an impermissible liability order (Exhibit GJT9). Additionally, a schedule dated * July * for *,* defendants (Exhibit GJT10) confirms 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. This deficiency in evidence blatantly contravenes the findings in *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** (Exhibit GJT11) 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 (Exhibit GJT12). - 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 * (Exhibit GJT13). - 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 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 (Exhibit GJT14). - **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 (Exhibit GJT15). - **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 (Exhibit GJT16). *. **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 (Exhibit GJT17). This principle is supported by several case laws: - *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*: A plaintiff cannot obtain a valid judgment if the proceedings are fundamentally void (Exhibit GJT17). - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: An order void ab initio lacks the essential elements of a valid court order (Exhibit GJT17). - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: Entitles the setting aside of orders described as nullities (Exhibit GJT20). - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: A void order is irrevocably void, rendering all proceedings founded on it void (Exhibit GJT17). *. **Claim for Damages and Remedies**: I seek the following substantial remedies and compensation for the significant damages caused by the actions of the City of Doncaster Council and its officials: - **Financial Losses**: Compensation for fines and additional costs, totalling approximately £*,* (Exhibit GJT18). - **Emotional Distress**: Compensation for severe emotional distress and mental health impact, estimated at £*,*, reflecting the chronic nature of the distress endured (Exhibit GJT19). - **Layman's Fees**: As a litigant in person, I seek reimbursement for layman's services provided in the defence against the interim charging order, calculated at £* per hour, estimated at £*,* (Exhibit GJT20). - **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 (Exhibit GJT21), 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 * states a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities. My property meets these criteria and should have been classified as such. The LGFA * lacks clear provisions for this classification. - **Implication**: Without provisions for "Dwelling-House" in the LGFA *, the council's billing is legally questionable, undermining the lawfulness of the charges. - **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LGFA * creates ambiguity, leading to potential misclassification and unlawful charges. - **Judicial Precedent**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **(Exhibit GJT1) and *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin) (Exhibit GJT2) emphasize the distinction between "Dwelling" and "Dwelling-House" and the legal protections afforded to properties correctly classified as "Dwelling-Houses." - **Council’s Billing Authority**: The council's authority to bill and impose charges is legally questionable without clear statutory provisions for "Dwelling-Houses" in the LGFA *. Any billing based on misclassification may be deemed unlawful. - **Request for Reassessment**: I seek a reassessment of my property’s classification to ensure it aligns with legal precedents and proper billing standards. Consequently, I request a full refund of overpaid council tax based on the continual misclassification over the past 28 years. *. **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, 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. **Statement of Truth** I, Gary John Taylor, believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________ Date: * November *

continue from, GJT2) highlight this importance, further safeguarded under *Halsbury's Laws

continue from *.

continue from, Justice Procedure (

continue from *.

continue from, equal treatment (Ex

continue from, law, or in defiance of due process (Exhibit GJT17). This principle is supported

continue from, I seek the following substantial remedies and compensation for the significant damages caused by the

continue from, misclassification of my property

continue from, and *R (on the application

continue from, - **Judicial Precedent**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** (Exhibit GJT1) and *R (on the application

something mising from thiis, *. **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 * states a "Dwelling-House" includes essential living facilities. My property meets these criteria and should have been classified as such. The LGFA * lacks clear provisions for this classification. - **Implication**: Without provisions for "Dwelling-House" in the LGFA *, the council's billing is legally questionable, undermining the lawfulness of the charges. - **Legal Uncertainty**: The absence of a clear definition in the LGFA * creates ambiguity, leading to potential misclassification and unlawful charges. - **Judicial Precedent**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** (Exhibit GJT1) and *R (on the application

continue from, - **Judicial Precedent**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** (Exhibit GJT1

continue, - **Judicial Precedent**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** (Exhibit GJT1) and *R (on

what are star chambers in magistrates court that the council use as they do not use the open magistrates court

council tax alleged lawful liability orders from bulk listing signed off in what i believe are star chambers

star chambers that local council appear to use

alleging a lawful liability order has been given by a magistrates court