Council Tax debts have now become unenforceable by Bailiffs

A new landmark ruling effectively prevents enforcement agents from seizing goods in connection with council tax and even entering anyone’s property.

A new landmark high court ruling effectively prevents enforcement agents from seizing goods in connection with council tax and even entering anyone’s property

23 DEC 2023

The High Court has just handed all Council Tax defendants a potential £4000 Christmas bonus if they sue bailiffs for attempted enforcement which has just been made illegal by a landmark ruling in the case of Leighton versus Bristow and Sutor which showed that the bailiff company didn’t have the correct paperwork when they turned up during an 8 year campaign of alleged harrassment even when they visited the defendants elderly parents house to extract money.

Thanks for reading The98thmonkey’s Newsletter! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Subscribed

Background

When a council obtain a Liability Order in court against someone that has defaulted on their council tax payments they will seek to enforce this order by way of sending in enforcement officers sometimes known as bailiffs.

The conduct of these enforcement officers is strictly controlled under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Schedule 12 details that the enforcement officer must show their identity and the proof of authority from the court that entitles them to be on the premises.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

In section 26 as follows :

The recent case of Leighton versus Bristow & Sutor was ironically published on the winter solstice ☃️ and the judge ruled that the document used by the enforcement agents was unlawful and was not in accordance with the above act because all they did was to simply showed their instructions from the council to enforce the debt rather than the actual proper signed authentic original order from the court as the law demanded. Consequently Mr Leighton was rightly awarded £4000 damages plus costs, plus interest.

Christmas parasite cleanse 🧟‍♀️🤛

This now means that anyone can use this judgement not only to fend off these parasites from their doorsteps but to actually sue them for damages unless they show the correct paperwork, and this is where the fun starts…

Collusion between the courts and councils has now led to their downfall.

In order to make it progressively easier for councils to resist requests from defendants for the council to prove a liability order was actually granted by a judge the courts were persuaded to do away with the old-fashioned written liability order signed by a judge and instead ruled that the oral pronouncement of the order was all that was required, which means the enforcement companies now have a big problem to provide written proof that any order was even granted because as we know recordings in courts are illegal! 📸🚷

Welcome to the Christmas feast of Whupass 🥫

In effect the new court ruling has mandated that enforcement companies must provide something that doesn’t exist and if they do turn up on someone’s doorstep illegally then they can be sued for £4000 or more! For not having the correct paperwork or maybe even arrested 👮🏻

How delicious it is when the universe serves up multiple cans of whupass 🌯🥫🌯🥫on these corrupt and mendacious entities that have prayed upon the vulnerable in society for too long.

The law also stipulates that the enforcement company must provide the required paperwork IN ADVANCE therefore anyone that puts the enforcement company and/or the council on notice of this can prevent them even turning up.

Watch this space…💥

It gets even better…

In the judgement the applicant was disbarred from obtaining damages under the Harassment Act 1997 on the basis that the conduct of the enforcement company naturally allowed some element of harassment due to the fact that it was their job to take peoples stuff away and were acting lawfully and in good faith when doing so, here is the kicker…

When they are put on notice of their obligations under the new ruling to provide written proof from the court of their entitlement to attempt to distress goods and they turn up without the necessary proof then they are not entitled to claim that their actions are in good faith and in accordance with the law and therefore because they are not there lawfully they have no reasonable excuse under the Harassment Act 1997 therefore they are breaching it. Potentially a criminal offence.

Christmas behind bars ⛓️🎅🏻⛓️

Breach of the Harassment Act elevates the matter from a civil case into the realms of criminal conduct and consequently any person that is unlawfully harassed by an enforcement agent without the correct paperwork may make a complaint to the police or ( if the police are otherwise occupied with looking into the serious organised crime of hurty feelings ) they may want to consider whether to exercise their powers under Section 24(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ( PACE ) and arrest the enforcement agent to prevent a breach of the peace or any escalation of the situation.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/section/24A

A suitable notice on the boundary of the property that is clearly visible to any visitor may suffice to bring this matter to the attention of any bailiff.

The tide has officially turned, you heard it here first🫸🏼🌊

The winter solstice marks the point in the year where there is maximum darkness 🌒and we can look forward to increased light as the year moves on, and this new ruling certainly changes the balance of power as it gives us all ammunition in the fight back against unlawful government tyranny. All are equal under the law.

The above were all settled in the recent case of Leighton v Bristow [2023] J90SA002 in the High Court of Justice Kings Bench Division by His Honour Judge Harrison where at paragraph 45 the claimant was awarded damages of £4000.00 and in this case if you fail to cease and desist you will have met the criteria for Harassment which may result in up to the same amount again and aggravated damages may also apply. In addition costs of 50% were also awarded to Leighton.

Clarification: please note that apart from bailiffs, the council have other remedies to enforce council tax such as attachment of earnings orders, property charges and potentially prison, however a recent House of Commons committee has resolved to look at these issues to ensure that councils are enforcing matters in a more compassionate and evenhanded way and changes are planned for 2024…

At the time of this amendment which is Christmas Day 2023 a video explaining this has reached 100,000 views in one day! and therefore this demonstrates that this subject is regarded by the public in the same way that the discredited poll tax was. A video discussing it by a DIY lawyer trying to distract from the core issue by dealing with strawman arguments has half as many views and the majority of the comments express sympathy with the defendants and frustration with the injustice perpetrated on normal people. It would seem obvious that the people demand a more equitable system from their public servants and that this corruption has gone on for too long.

The thing that led to the pax being withdrawn was that many people simply stopped paying it and it became unenforceable. There are now thousands of people pushing back against councils and it will not be long before the same tipping point is reached.

Disclaimer: This article is not to be construed as legal advice and you are advised to take your own legal counsel based on your own particular circumstances and not act upon the information given here.

Leighton V Bristow & Sutor Cardiff Hcj Judgment 20230920 V Final

185KB ∙ PDF file

Download