Unlawful Interim Charging Order

please ad the relevant case description for the exhibit list: 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: Scott Robert Fawcus, Miss Emily Lewin, Alan Stoves, and Damian Francis Allen (in their personal capacities). This Statement of Claim seeks to highlight and rectify the numerous legal violations committed by The City of Doncaster Council and its representatives in issuing an interim charging order against my property. *. **Core Issues**: - Unlawful Interim Charging Order - Procedural Breaches - Discrimination - Void Orders - Misrepresentation under LGFA * *. ***. Definition and Classification** - According to and based on the definition and classification provided by the The Town and Country Planning - General Permitted Development England Order *, and the actual use of my property, I assert that my property is a "dwelling-house" under Class C3.GPDO, a "dwelling-house" is a building containing the facilities required for day-to-day private domestic living (*Gravesham Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment* [*] * P&CR *). - My property falls under Class C3, defined as: - Occupied by a single person, - People living together as a family unit, or - Not more than six residents living as a single household. *. **Facilities for Day-to-Day Living** - My property has all essential facilities for private domestic living, such as a bedroom, kitchen, bathroom, and living area. *. **Actual Use of the Property** - **Daily Activities**: I use the property for daily activities like cooking, sleeping, and personal hygiene, no business use. - **Personal Belongings**: The property contains personal items and furnishings such as a bed, kitchen appliances, and a wardrobe. - **Services and Utilities**: The property is serviced with utilities including water, electricity, which are used for domestic purposes. - **Consistency**: I have consistently used the property for these domestic activities over the past 28 years.   *. **Interim Charging Order**: I contend that the notice I received regarding a charging order on my property is not only incorrect but fundamentally unlawful. The interim charging order issued against my property is procedurally flawed due to lack of individual assessment and legal basis, rendering it void ab initio. *. **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. This distinction impacts council tax liabilities and the validity of charging orders. *. **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-House" are shielded under *Halsbury's Laws of England*, which mandates stringent standards for enforcement actions against such properties. *. **Legal Recognition**: In law, a dwelling-house is recognized not just as a physical structure, but also as a legal entity with specific protections. *. **Enhanced Protections Through Legislation**: - Certain laws and regulations, such as the Protection from Eviction Act * and the Housing Act *, address the treatment of ‘Dwelling-House’, prohibiting unfair eviction practices and enforcing reasonable enforcement standards. *. **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-House," requiring that enforcement measures, including interim charging orders, comply with elevated legal standards. - **Compliance Requirements**: The issuance of interim charging orders against "Dwelling-House" necessitates adherence to these robust protections, ensuring equity and acknowledgment of the property’s residential rights. *. **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 GJT1). - I vehemently reject the Claimant's unlawful attempt to impose a charging order on my personal residence. My property is legally classified as a "Dwelling-House" under Halsbury's Laws, providing it with strong legal protections that sharply differentiate it from the term "dwelling" used in the Local Government Finance Act * (Exhibit GJT2). This crucial distinction significantly impacts the legitimacy and enforcement of the charging order based on established legal definitions. *. **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 ** (Exhibit GJT3). *. **Single Justice Procedure (SJP) Misapplication**: - 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 a cursory treatment under SJP, as emphasized in *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin ** (Exhibit GJT16). *. **Lack of Lawful Court Orders**: - The absence of lawful liability court orders and unique court case numbers for the * defendants is a serious violation of established legal principles. This procedural error contradicts the tenets outlined in *R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin ** (Exhibit GJT3). *. **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 (Exhibit GJT4). The extract utilized by the Claimant, found on the reverse side of this Order, also documents an impermissible liability order (Exhibit GJT5). Moreover, a subsequent schedule extract, dated * July *, involving *,* defendants (Exhibit GJT6), reinforces the existence of illegitimate liability orders. *. **Dispute Regarding the Liability Order**: I have formally requested substantiating evidence from the Claimants regarding the alleged debts and proof of lawful liability orders, including court-laid documentation, court reference numbers, and hearing dates in the Magistrates Court. These requests remain unfulfilled. This blatant deficiency in evidence and adherence to lawful court procedure contravenes *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **, which establishes that mere demands do not constitute definitive proof of debt (Exhibit GJT9). *. **Reassessment of Property Classification in Light of Case Law**: - Distinctive factors elucidating the terms "dwelling" and "dwelling-house": - **Dwelling**: Defined for council tax purposes as properties intended or viable for residential use. This classification is delineated by the Local Government Finance Act * (Exhibit GJT10) and supported by the ruling in *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)* (Exhibit GJT11). The implications include council tax liability based on general residential suitability. - **Dwelling-house**: More narrowly defined as a 'home' that is fully equipped for day-to-day living, as clarified in *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL ** (Exhibit GJT14). The implications here may influence council tax duties, determined by 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 (Exhibit GJT16). *. **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 GJT18). *. **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 * (Exhibit GJT19). This Act mandates reasonable adjustments and unequivocally prohibits unfavourable treatment rooted in disability. *. **Contravention of the Equality Act ***: - **Indirect Discrimination**: The Council's imposition of fines and additional financial burdens disproportionately impacts individuals with disabilities, breaching the principle of equal treatment (Exhibit GJT21). *. **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 GJT22). *. **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 GJT23). *. **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 (Exhibit GJT24). 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 (Exhibit GJT25). - *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*: Holds that an order void ab initio lacks the essential elements of a valid court order (Exhibit GJT26). - *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*: Establishes entitlement to set aside orders described as nullities (Exhibit GJT27). - *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*: Affirms that a void order is irrevocably void, rendering all proceedings founded on it void (Exhibit GJT28). *. **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 £*,* (Exhibit GJT29). - Compensation for emotional distress and the severe impact on my mental health, estimated at £*,*, reflecting the chronic nature of the distress endured (Exhibit GJT30). - Reimbursement of expenses incurred in defence against the interim charging order, estimated at £*,* (Exhibit GJT31). - Full reimbursement of all council tax payments made under the incorrect classification of my property, projected at £*,*, pending confirmation from the Council (Exhibit GJT32). *. **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. *. **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* (Exhibit GJT35). These rulings underscore the SJP's inadequacy for complex issues requiring meticulous judicial examination and personalized case assessment. *. **Conclusion**: - In light of numerous procedural violations, discriminatory practices, breaches of the Equality Act *, misapplication of the Single Justice Procedure, issuance of unlawful liability orders, and the unjust interim charging order under Civil National Business Centre claim no. L01YY935, which inconsistently cites Doncaster Magistrates Court and CNBC without a lawful court claim number, I urgently request the court to: - Nullify the interim charging order. - Reimburse legal expenses and council tax payments. - Acknowledge and rectify procedural violations and harassment. - Provide compensation for financial losses and emotional distress. *. **Exhibit List**: *. **Exhibit GJT1**: Notice of interim charging order dated * October *. *. **Exhibit GJT2**: Definition of "Dwelling-House" under Halsbury's Laws and the Local Government Finance Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT3**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Exhibit GJT4**: Schedule liability Order dated * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT5**: Extract on the reverse side of the Schedule Liability Order dated * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT6**: Schedule extract of liability from * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT7**: Schedule liability order extract issued on * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT8**: Unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT9**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **. *. **Exhibit GJT10**: Local Government Finance Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT11**: *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*. *. **Exhibit GJT12**: *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **. *. **Exhibit GJT13 **: *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*. *. **Exhibit GJT14**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **. *. **Exhibit GJT15**: Evidence of consistent council tax payments despite health challenges. *. **Exhibit GJT16**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Exhibit GJT17**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **. *. **Exhibit GJT18**: Article * of the Human Rights Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT19**: Disability Discrimination Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT20**: Equality Act * - Direct Discrimination. *. **Exhibit GJT21**: Equality Act * - Indirect Discrimination. *. **Exhibit GJT22 Equality Act * - Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments. **Exhibit GJT23**: Equality Act * - Harassment. **Exhibit GJT24**: Statement by Shirley Lewald, Solicitor Advocate. **Exhibit GJT25**: *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*. **Exhibit GJT26**: *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*. **Exhibit GJT27**: *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*. **Exhibit GJT28**: *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*. **Exhibit GJT29**: Compensation for financial losses. **Exhibit GJT30**: Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact. **Exhibit GJT31**: Reimbursement of legal costs. **Exhibit GJT32**: Full reimbursement of council tax payments. **Exhibit GJT33**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and Local Government Finance Act *. **Exhibit GJT34**: Equality Act * and Disability Discrimination Act *. **Exhibit GJT35**: *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*. **Statement of Truth** I, Gary John Taylor, believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. Signed: __________ Date: * November *

continue

continue

please add to the caselaw list an Extract of the points that support my case

continue

continue

please list all caselaw in the statement

continue

do you decription how this supports *. **R v. Swindon Borough Council ex parte Roberts [*] EWHC Admin ***: -

do the above descriptions support all the caselaw cited in the witness statement

continue *. **R v. Swindon

Please check in detail and add all cited caselaw in a new list with the descriptions: **Exhibit List**: *. **Exhibit GJT1**: Notice of interim charging order dated * October *. *. **Exhibit GJT2**: Definition of "Dwelling-House" under Halsbury's Laws and the Local Government Finance Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT3**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Exhibit GJT4**: Schedule liability Order dated * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT5**: Extract on the reverse side of the Schedule Liability Order dated * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT6**: Schedule extract of liability from * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT7**: Schedule liability order extract issued on * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT8**: Unlawful schedule liability order issued on * July *. *. **Exhibit GJT9**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **. *. **Exhibit GJT10**: Local Government Finance Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT11**: *R (on the application of Wilson) v. Coventry City Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*. *. **Exhibit GJT12**: *R (on the application of East Sussex County Council) v. Roberts [*] EWCA Civ **. *. **Exhibit GJT13 **: *R (on the application of Williams) v. Horsham District Council [*] EWHC * (Admin)*. *. **Exhibit GJT14**: *Uratemp Ventures Ltd v. Collins [*] UKHL **. *. **Exhibit GJT15**: Evidence of consistent council tax payments despite health challenges. *. **Exhibit GJT16**: *R v. Birmingham Magistrates' Court ex parte Ahmed [*] EWHC Admin **. *. **Exhibit GJT17**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC **. *. **Exhibit GJT18**: Article * of the Human Rights Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT19**: Disability Discrimination Act *. *. **Exhibit GJT20**: Equality Act * - Direct Discrimination. *. **Exhibit GJT21**: Equality Act * - Indirect Discrimination. *. **Exhibit GJT22 Equality Act * - Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments. **Exhibit GJT23**: Equality Act * - Harassment. **Exhibit GJT24**: Statement by Shirley Lewald, Solicitor Advocate. **Exhibit GJT25**: *Anlaby v. Praetorius (*)*. **Exhibit GJT26**: *Crane v. Director of Public Prosecutions [*]*. **Exhibit GJT27**: *Craig v. Kanssen [*]*. **Exhibit GJT28**: *MacFoy v. United Africa Co. Ltd. [*]*. **Exhibit GJT29**: Compensation for financial losses. **Exhibit GJT30**: Compensation for emotional distress and mental health impact. **Exhibit GJT31**: Reimbursement of legal costs. **Exhibit GJT32**: Full reimbursement of council tax payments. **Exhibit GJT33**: *Steel v. NRAM Ltd [*] UKSC ** and Local Government Finance Act *. **Exhibit GJT34**: Equality Act * and Disability Discrimination Act *. **Exhibit GJT35**: please:

continue

continue