UK - Neelu Berry opens my eyes

[Wakeman52]

An appeal for help, apparently her web provider is shutting down so she's looking for people to preserve her work ..

See:

https://www.webs.com/terms-of-service#: ... 20down%20a

Vistaprint has made the decision to shut down our Webs.com operation and we will no longer be hosting your WEBS site and it will be shut down on August 31, 2023. You'll retain access to your website and will have until August 31st 2023 to move to another website provider.'

Shame.

[SteveD]

Well she's in breach of several of the T&C's, surprised they let her get away with it for so long...
Suppose it was just she had so little traffic that they simply didn't notice...

[CrankyBoomer]

It amazes me how many people that seemingly have a certain amount of grey matter have gone down the rabbit hole over the years.

Intelligent people tend to be better at justifying their beliefs.

Thanks (albeit belatedly) for your reply/explanation, Albert.

[Larry Spoons]

I couldn't bring myself to watch more than the first few minutes of this, but have to say that Lee Can't is truly a comedy genius.

[TheRambler]

I found this link to Lynne Noble's website on Neelu's Facebook page:

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/lynnedmnob ... Az3ZKZl4eg

It's all a bit depressingly familiar, Direct Debit Refunds, Magistrate's Courts having no jurisdiction etc. Claims to be a nutritionist but seems to have a wider range of "interests". A cursory search yielded no mention on her on this forum.

Where do they all come from?

TheRambler

[SpearGrass]

I think the case sh'e's referring to is going to be big in the pseudo-legal sphere.

The case of Leighton v Bristow and Sutor is being touted elsewhere on the pseuodlegalverse as a finding that liability orders are unenforceable https://the98thmonkey450.substack.com/p ... now-become . However the fact that someone is trying to appeal this decision implies that it didn’t go as well as that. That’s also suggested by the fact that it appears that the judge didn’t order the claimant his full costs, which implies either misconduct on the part of the claimant, or only a partial win.

On the 98th Monkey website we’re told that the judgement has rendered unlawful all liability orders. It appears from this application that that was indeed what the claimant was arguing. However reading between their lines it looks as if the judge didn’t find that, but did find that execution of the subsequent warrant of control was invalid becuase the bailiff should have produced the warrant, not just an email saying there was one. There is a theory going the rounds (the Peacekeepers are very keen) arguing that unless the court generates a paper liability order- which courts no longer do, they make the order, record it in their register and leave it to the council to notify defendants - the order is unenforceable. Leighton has clearly tried to argue this and failed.

There’s no sign of the case on the National Archives or in Bailli and since the case was apparently decided in September, it would be there by now. If the judgement only decided that “authority” in Schedule 2 Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act means showing the occupier the warrant of control, then the judge might not have considered it worth reporting. The Act says that the bailiff must produce his authority to enter, and it wouldn’t be surprising if the judge found that that meant the warrant.

So Leighton is trying to appeal the decision, even though he appears to have won on the warrant of control point, because he wants to win on the liability order point as well. Another pseudo-legal website (Martin Geddes) says he was awarded £4k in damages against the bailiffs and the council. It appears the case was brought under para 66 of Sched 12 of the Tribunals etc Act, which is about damages against bailiffs, which again implies that no decision was made about the validity of the actual debt, or the liability order which enabled the council to enforce, or even the validity of the warrant of control itself.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Shensmith and Robertshaw talk about it.

[hucknallred]

On the 98th Monkey website we’re told that the judgement has rendered unlawful all liability orders.

The judgement is on there.
https://the98thmonkey.substack.com/api/ ... 9c6c88.pdf

Shensmith has also done a couple of videos on this, the first takes apart Twat in a Cravatte Vobes take on it, then in the comments section he was made aware of the B&S Judgement, so another video followed.

I now admin some CT groups on FB & they're all going apeshit when you tell them they are wrong about it.

[John Uskglass]

The judgement is on there.

Thanks for posting that. I'd come across references to the case, and assumed that the FMOTL interpretations were a lot of bollocks, given that there were no MSM reports on what would have been a hugely significant judgement if their version was correct. The Daily Mail would have loved it!

Where do they all come from?

We seem to have entered a phase where the 'gurus' have all but vanished, with the effective demise of the CLC, Waugh silent while mired in family trouble, Neelu off the radar, etc. However, their influence is still to be seen in a number of local groups particularly in the former coalfield areas of S.Yorks/Notts, engaged in what could be characterised as a guerilla struggle. These groups don't seem to have charismatic leaders looking to get fame and followers, but do have the capacity to bring people onto the street.

[aesmith]

The judgement is on there.
https://the98thmonkey.substack.com/api/ ... 9c6c88.pdf

Is that transcript different from a written judgement, like you'd see on Bailii, for example does it set any form of precedent?

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Rather bizarrely the You Tube algorithms started serving me up right wing conspiracy recommendations after watching a few Black Belt Barrister videos.

[SpearGrass]

That transcript is very useful.

Leighton argued:
a) that the bailiffs didn't comply with the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act because

(i) that they didn't have a reasonable belief that there was a court order to enforce and
(ii) they didn't show him evidence of their authority to enter the premises including the liability order

b) in any event, there wasn't a liability order

c) he was entitled for damages for harassment

d) the Statute of Marlborough 1267. This bans people exercising distress over cattle from driving them out of the county where they were seized and says distress should be reasonable

e) he had a commercial lien, notorised in Thailand which meant that if the council or their bailiffs kept writing to him, they had to pay £10,000 per letter.

The judge's decision was

a) (i) the bailiffs were told by the local authority that there was a liability order and therefore had a reasonable belief - they didn't have to intensively investigate the question themselves

(ii) but they didn't have evidence of their authority, as that would have been the liability order, and all they had was communication from the council about it

(b) although there was nothing from the court proving definitively that there was a liabilty order [because no-one in the case asked them!] , on the balance of probabilities the court probably made a liability order in this case.

c) He wasn't harassed, inevitably debt collectors have to contact debtors of they're to do their job, and 35 contacts between 2015 and 2021 doesn't come close to the test for harassment.

d) the 1267 statute doesn't confer a cause of action.

e) the lien doesn't create a contract; the council can't be taken to have agreed by silence to the terms.

As this is a judgement of the High Court, theoretically it's binding on magistrates' courts, but only as regards a declaration on the law, not the facts. In fact neither Leighton nor the bailiffs understood the procedure themselves, so the judge's understanding of procedure was inevitably flawed. The defendant bailiffs thought that the magistrates' court didn't have a record of the order. However, they do, albeit that it's a paper record, so much harder to search than any other court order, which nowadays is digital. More fundamentally, the judge was obviously led to believe that the bailiffs' right to enter the premises was created by the liability order, whereas in fact, once a liability order has been made, the council themselves may make a number of other orders including a warrant of control. So the warrant of control issued by the council is the authority to enter, not the liability order, which simply permits the council to take various actions. However the judge expressly says that the council were not parties and hadn't been able to give their explanation as to the procedure. So he is deliberately limiting the impact of his judgement.

The upshot is that Leighton got £4,000 damages on point a) and (according to his notice of appeal) 60% of his costs, probably on the basis that and harassment were the core of his claim, and the harassment claim failed.

I think the bailiffs probably have grounds to appeal, but I guess they'll roll with it. But I think Leighton was lucky to get as far as he did.

[SpearGrass]

We seem to have entered a phase where the 'gurus' have all but vanished

As Netolitzky has observed, they ebb and flow. After all, Ou sont les Jacqui Phoenixes d'antan?

In the council tax field, we still have gurus, notably the Peacekeepers who are very active, operating a strange mixture of anarchism - we do not consent - and misapplication of genuine statutes and caselaw.

[Wozzle]

The Council Tax Case she mentioned as with everything doesn’t set any precedent they think it does.

What the litigant was able to prove is the bailiffs didn’t have the correct paperwork to begin collections activity. As they did anyway it was deemed to be harassment.

The Black Belt Barrister gives an excellent break down of the case.

[aesmith]

What the litigant was able to prove is the bailiffs didn’t have the correct paperwork to begin collections activity. As they did anyway it was deemed to be harassment.

Strictly it wasn't ..

Is the conduct over the period alleged such that the court can conclude that the threshold for a finding of harassment is met - ie, the conduct is of an order that would sustain criminal liability if proved to the requisite standard?

36. In my judgment, the conduct does not reach that threshold, especially seen in the context of enforcement activity. In my judgment, the period over which the activity took place and the long periods of no activity lead me to that conclusion

.
And at 45 ..

I will assess damages as being in the sum of £4,000. This sum is less than I would have awarded if harassment had been established

[Albert Haddock]

As this is a judgement of the High Court, theoretically it's binding on magistrates' courts, but only as regards a declaration on the law, not the facts.

I think it may also be binding on County Courts in the same way.

[longdog]

As this is a judgement of the High Court, theoretically it's binding on magistrates' courts, but only as regards a declaration on the law, not the facts.

I think it may also be binding on County Courts in the same way.

I'm not sure county courts ever have anything to do with Council Tax enforcement.

[SpearGrass]

County courts do enforce council tax, as two of the courses the liability order enables councils to take are to apply for a charging order on the premises and to apply for bankruptcy. Both of those are County Court orders.

The County Court requires confirmation that there is a liability order before acting. That will either be uncontroverted evidence by the local authority that there was an order, or an extract from the magistrates' courts register.

[SpearGrass]

Update: leave to appeal to the Supreme Court refused. He's submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal instead.

[aesmith]

A bit of a rant on her Facebook page about wills and dying wishes etc. Do we conclude that the estate of her late sister isn't going the way she hoped?

The UK legal processes do not respect The Dying wishes of the deceased.

There is no respect for verbal Wills.

Anyone who is rightly excluded from a Will can still Rob the dead in a deal with bent solicitors to make profit for criminal networks hijacking the courts.

In that event, the family members, who, normally, do know very well what the dying wishes of the deceased are, do not have the money to pay for court fees to fight in court to honour those dying wishes. Utterly shameless is the length of time properties are left rotting, empty, while billing companies, council tax liability orders are getting fatter.

So if there is a dispute, in what those dying wishes are, between the surviving family members, then all they need to do is give independent witness statements of what they believe were the Dying wishes of their loved ones and agree to honor and respect them. This will flag up the estranged family members for alleged defrauding of the dead.