Windows on the World: COUNCIL LOSE COURT CASE over SPD Form
Now Newlyn are party to the fraud, check latest article on this case
Phone call to council over SPD Form:
Read this important info:
Council lose court case over SPD (single persons discount validation form) and are denied costs. The counterclaim against the council however can be pursued. The form has been rolled out all over the country by partner companies on behalf of your local council.
The judges ruling proved that you do not have to fill in The SPD form which is not a council document. You can ask them for a council form instead or simply provide the information yourself.
Waltham Forest Council committed perjury, were in contempt of court and lost the case. They gave erroneous information and failed to provide correct information. Their barristers skeleton argument was taken apart with no objection raised by the council or their barrister. The discount was reinstated and they were denied costs. The counterclaim against them can be pursued.
Previous Single Persons Discount Form article on landofthefree
Story on 12160 website, reporting this case and Waltham Forest Cabinet member for the environment Clyde Loakes wasting £15,000 of council tax payers money on a vexatious court case over a cardboard box, and victimising a local business woman.
FULL STORY :
Council lose court case and are denied costs in SPD form court case.
London Borough of Waltham Forest Council proceeded on an assumption after having been furnished with the facts in a vexatious court case which was not in the public interest and wasted the time of the Crown and Council Tax payers money, as well as my own losses which form the counterclaim.
Failure to respond by council and issue of computer generated summons
Having not filled in the fraudulent and unconscionable Single Persons Discount form (See above link to articles).
The council failed to respond to all points made in my correspondence and obfuscated and failed to address the fraud. This was right up to the time of the court case when all documents were served with my concerns and correct determinations to Head of legal services Daniel Fenwick who was served several documents which could have stopped the council wasting their money, the time of the courts and myself.
The Head of Revenues and benefits John Turnbull and Stephen Cooper plus the boroughs Head of legal services Daniel Fenwick all failed to respond at all.
A computer generated summons was issued for the full amount (the discount had been removed on an assumption)
I put in a counter claim for costs and loss of rights, this was served on the councils Head of legal services Daniel Fenwick who as stated failed to respond or pass on the relevant paperwork.
Notice had also been sent to Michelle Haddock, Revenues and benefits Team Manager who had after several phone calls to her staff failed to respond to the points made or my further correspondence stating she was in dereliction of duty as a public servant. She could have also stopped the unnecessary court proceedings but chose not to do so.
Council commit perjury
A response from a Mrs T Denham again obfuscated and failed to address the fraud and used cut and pasted extracts from other documents. The letter was also malicious and arrogant which has been the same with all council responses. This was received two days before the court case. Again they could have addressed the matter before the hearing but chose not to do so. The letter also brought up a previous amount not owed (vexatiously).
This amount was also brought up in court and Alistaire Clarke the councils presenting officer committed perjury before the magistrate by supplying incorrect information under oath over this amount. (which was not even part of the summons.)
The bulk hearing Jan 10th.
My documents were served to the council’s chief legal officer on 20th December and to the court by recorded delivery on 21st Dec. This included my counterclaim.
Neither the court nor the council were in possession of my documents on the day of the case.
After having been kept waiting for four hours a court was found and the council proceeded to seek a liability order.
After my brief submissions to the magistrate he responded that he had been hearing the same thing in the previous cases with Waltham Forest council that day. ..
The council were not in possession of the relevant paperwork and had used cut and pasted extracts from documents not relevant. (As was the same in my case)
He adjourned the case for the 1st Feb. The council put in no defence to the counterclaim.
Contempt of court
The council sent me correspondence dated 28th Jan (outside their filing date which was 24th Jan) from a Robin Levett. He referred to the case as a liability hearing where my “counter complaint” would be considered. It was in fact a counter claim, which they at all times failed to address. My documents had been served well within my time limit which was 17th,
The letter stated the council would be represented by barrister Gita Chakravarty. The barrister’s skeleton argument was also included.
Court Case 1st Feb
The council were represented by Team Leader of benefits and Revenues Denise Haden, their barrister Gita Chakravarty and some another woman who looked particularly stoney faced.
I bid them all “Good moaning” and we entered the court at 10.15 for the scheduled 10 Oclock hearing at Thames Magistrates Court , Bow.
Denise Haden stated they were seeking a liability order. As at the first hearing the council had no proper information on my case. I was allowed to question both Denise Haden and Gita Chakravarty their barrister.
I took the witness box to take apart the barristers skeleton argument. She had made wrong assumptions and was also in possession of erroneous information.
It was probably not all her fault as the council had previously got most of the information wrong all by themselves.
From my court notes:
Contempt of court by council
The council were instructed to serve their documents by the 24th. The date on the documents sent to myself was 28th. The council are therefore outside the submission limit. The counterclaim remains undefended.
Obstructing the course of justice
Council agents on the 31st (day before the case) refused to give me access to my own account information when I mentioned the court case.
This would have been Michelle Haddock who blocked the information as she is “Team Manager”. All my calls were recorded and are contained in the evidence presented.
Information given and remedy sought 5 times Nov 21st , Dec 4th, Dec 12, Dec 19th, 2nd Jan. Not including the documents served 12 /11 John Turnbull/Stephen Cooper. 7/1/13 Michelle Haddock served documents, 20th Dec Daniel Fenwick Head of Gov and law served . All failed to respond to the facts or at all.
The councils Skeleton argument taken apart.
It was stated that the case was adjourned for me to “File documents in defence of a liability order.”
UNTRUE: The adjournment was for the council to respond and also to defend themselves against my counterclaim , as they had failed to produce the documents on the day they summonsed me or respond at all.
“The issue before the court is whether or not it is satisfied that the arrears are payable by the respondent and that they have not been paid”.
UNTRUE: The issue was not about whether arrears had to be paid it was about whether the council had failed to respond to fact and printed an unnecessary summons wasting court time on a matter that should have been resolved at an administrative level as there were no arrears.
“The applicant made a formal request by letter dated 21 June 2012 that the respondent complete the SPD form…A further request was made 18 July…To date the respondent has failed to complete the form or to provide the information requested at all..”
UNTRUE: As the SPD form was not a council document… I stated that the applicant made no request by letter.
On Nov 21st The council agent hadasked me if I would fill in a form if it came from the council , I agreed but no form was sent.
“Failed to provide the information requested at all”
Untrue. Information was provided to council agents on Nov 21st , further calls to remedy and clarify were made Dec 4th, Dec 13th, Dec 19th , 2nd Jan. All notes and information were logged onto the council system. There had been no change in my circumstances. All respondents, the named council officers failed to respond as per my documents
“The respondent was charged a £350 administrative penalty for two failures to respond to the applicants request….The administrative penalty does not form part of this application”
UNTRUE: There was no administrative penalty as the information requested was already on the council system as stated. The £350 penalty is for failing to inform the council of a change in circumstances, which in this case did not apply and was not and cannot be enforced in this case. They cant even remember that they didn’t fine me!
Council quote wrong case law..
“The respondents liability to the applicant for the payment of council tax is governed by statute and not by common law principles of contract” Case law quoted McCombe J in R v Gosport council 2004. O Connell v Fareham 2005.
NO RELEVENCE : The quoted case law had no relevance to this case. It deals with Non payment of council tax, human rights issues and contractual obligation which are not an issue in this case.
“No contract exists between the parties. The administrative penalty is fixed by statute and is not a contractual term”
Not relevant. The issue is concerning Data Tank , an undisclosed third party who uttered a false document fraudulently claiming to be the council. Data tank advertise the form as Revenue generating. To wipe out as many claims as possible
“The applicant had an obligation to take reasonable steps to ascertain whether the respondent was entitled to the discount”.
This was true however they were informed that I was entitled, this was logged onto their system. The council failed to provide a form.
“The respondent failed to supply the information”…The council made an assumption.
SPD Reminder sent 18th July 2012.
“The letter repeated that the applicant would have to assume that the respondent was not entitled to the discount if the respondent continued to fail to complete the Single Person Discount review”.
This was untrue as they had been instructed that there was no change in circumstances. This was logged onto the account.
They had then sent the backdated bill for the year with the discount removed.
“No valid defence has been raised by the respondent”.
This was untrue, no valid defence had been raised by the Council.
The Judges Remedy.
The judge asked me if I would sign one side of the form if it was photocopied. I agreed and stated that it would remove the controversy. This was a very clever move by the judge as it indicated his agreement with my stance on the document.
The document on one side had the council logo and Head of Revenues and Benefits name Stephen Cooper as the author of the document which was clearly fraud.
This affirmed the point I had made that as the form was not a council document and from an undisclosed third party but purporting to be a council document it was indeed fraudulent and I was under no obligation to sign the original SPD form and have it sent back to their partner company Data Tank.
The judge asked if the council would accept this, they had to agree. I had already given the judge a statutory declaration stating I was the sole occupant. I signed the back of the form and gave it directly to the council.
The judge stated that my counterclaim could be heard in County Court. The discount was to be reinstated and backdated.
Having lost the case the council’s barrister asked for costs. The judge stated that the council’s costs were denied.
Contempt of court
When I got home I found a letter and “Costs schedule for counter complaint” from the council demanding costs of £1,232. The letter was dated 31st Jan. The day before the case! It included a fee of £36 for two e mails!
The council’s presumption of victory was premature…and once again they were in contempt of court by issuing this before the case had been heard.. They also once again described my Counter Claim as a Counter Compaint, trying to ignore there was a fee schedule and undefended counter claim from myself.
They don’t give up
After the amended bill had arrived another document turned up. “Notice of impending enforcement action”. It was for the amount stated to be from 2006 at the first hearing on 1st Jan.
It stated it was from 2009 and that a liability order had been obtained at a Magistrates Court which was untrue. The councils presenting officer had also committed perjury as the alleged debt was not from 2006.
This previous amount did not form part of the claim on the summons so would have been inadmissible.
I got a statutory declaration stating that the validity of this amount and the Magistrates alleged order had been questioned previously and it was vexatious and there had been no liability order issued in 2009 as I had asked for it at the time. I also brought up the perjury and that it had no legal standing.
This case proves that you do not have to fill in the SPD form as long as you provide your own correct information to the council.