Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Council Tax Scam


This call was sent to me after a chat with the caller. It reveals the scam we call the administrative courts and opens up a world of unlawful retention of documents, ignoring Due process of law and the plaintiff gets to call all the shots...Really?

Telegram Post (Project # 1 - No Mercy)

No legal duty exists that requires a resident to notify a council of their residence at a particular address for council tax purposes, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Judges said the case would “clearly potentially have implications for other cases in the context of local government finance and payment of council tax”.

The case arose when an anonymised defendant told Hertsmere Borough Council that she had moved out of one address but was believed to still be living there possibly with a tenant.

It prosecuted her on several counts, one of which was fraud by failing to disclose, contrary to sections 1 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, that she lived at the original address “which you were under a legal duty to disclose, intending to make a gain for yourself or a loss to another, namely by avoiding to have (sic) to pay council tax.”
When the case reached the Crown Court the judge was surprised to find there appeared to be no such legal duty and allowed the prosecution more time to find one, a search that proved fruitless.
The Court of Appeal noted a passage of the Crown Court judgment: “The prosecution in short say that it is obvious that there is such a legal duty, that it is ludicrous to contend otherwise. Every household, they say, has an obligation to tell the local authority if they are residing in a property otherwise how would any local authority have the necessary information to collect council tax?
“As I said…during argument, it would surely be a great surprise to everybody if there was no legal duty to give a local authority that information. I remain surprised that I have not been taken to a provision or a document evidencing such a duty. The fact is, however, that I have not been.”
In D, R. v (Rev 1) [2019] EWCA Crim 209 Davis LJ said: “We can see no real answer to the reasoning and conclusion of the Crown Court judge.”
He said the defendant appeared liable to pay council tax and Hertsmere could seek civil recovery if she did not.
“But that cannot of itself, as we see it, connote that she was obliged in law to notify the council of her continued residence,” David LJ said.
“The fact is, as we have said, that such a provision simply is not there, either within the primary legislation or in subordinate legislation made pursuant to the provisions of the 1992 Act itself.”
David LJ said it could not be implied that the duty was created by legislation and that Hertsmere had “struggled to identify the precise form of wording which…should statutorily be implied”.
Bristow and Sutor Call - VERY Interesting -

Called and spoke to Mr Neil McKelly of Bristow & Sutor, in relation to them harassing a lady in the Midlands.  Call made 31-03-2015. Neil did no data protection as I only said I was calling on behalf of "____ ____" and that was enough for him. The only audio censored is where the name of the lady is spoken. Other than that, it's the raw call. There are several key things to be taken from this call.  And I'm sure Neil got a wee bit of an education too.

FB Post (contract Law, Commercial Liens and Controlling your Strawman) 
on 27 September’21

FINALLY! A Council Admits That Council Tax Liability Orders Do Not Exist!
There are NO COUNCIL LIABILITY ORDERS in Existence! Plymouth Council admits that in writing.
For years people have now campaigned in a number of cases to get these corrupt councils to produce a “True and Original” Copy of an alleged “Liability Order”.
This is the scam that the councils regularly pull off!
1. A summons is issued to you for non-payment of council tax.
2. As you go to court they try to trick you by meeting with you first in a side room. This is
an attempt to have you admit to “liability” for the council tax. They try to have you agree to pay a regular amount each month. This admission of liability by you means that they can secure a “liability order” without you even entering the court.
3. If you do not agree to pay, they issue a liability order regardless.
4. Research has shown that a proper “Court Order” MUST have certain things on it and
these are:
1. A wet ink signature by the Judge or Justices Clerk who signed it on the day (Not a facsimilie of a signature).
2. The Royal Identifier i.e. Royal Coat Of Arms.
3. Once the court date has passed they send a “Notice Of A Liability Order”
And this is where the scam exposes itself ...
If councils had a true and original Liability Order (as described above) then why would they not send you a copy of that? Why would they send you a piece of paper typed up on a word processing program that claims that they have a liability order.
A number of us have not paid council for the last several years successfully because when they are challenged over this, we back them into a corner Lawfully! Here’s how:
1. We conditionally accept their offer to pay council tax upon proof of claim (they must prove a number of points) – if they fail to prove each individual point, we withhold payment.
2. When they send a summons (It’s only an invitation to attend their place of business) we ignore it.
3. When they send a “NOTICE OF LIABILITY ORDER” we write back and send them a “NOTICE OF REBUTTAL” and “NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR TRUE AND ORIGINAL COPY OF COURT LIABILITY ORDER” which of course must meet the requirements as stated above.
4. They then send in the bailiffs whom we serve with bailiff packs (available from and issue them with our bills for attending (we also video them and put them on internet video outlets such as
5. Eventually the bailiffs get bored with that game and hand the case back to the Council.
6. The council eventually send a letter telling you they will send you to court “for committal
to prison” proceedings.
7. We then send them a letter which basically says this ...
“If you plan to present the matter before a criminal court and if you will rely on the alleged liability order to support your case then due process and the law dictates that you MUST send a copy of the TRUE and ORIGINAL LIABILITY ORDER to me. The LIABILITY ORDER must bear all the correct attributes (signature & royal identifier).
The law concerning disclosure dictates that you (the council) are required to do this at least 14 days before the hearing.
Therefore, if you plan to rely on this document we will tell the court that you have withheld it vexatiously from the beginning. Therefore, in this matter, the valuable time of the court will be wasted because you (the council) are required to disclose it 14 days before the hearing. You will have no problem sending it to me now. Will you?”
Normally at this point ... the council go away because you have backed them into a corner lawfully. They know they cannot go into a court and rely on a document which ...

They also know that you are going to counter-claim against them for being vexatious.
Here is the document from Plymouth Council which tells us that all that these liability orders are non- existant! … see FB post
The Cat Is Out Of The Bag -

This article is a continuation of the non-payment of council tax saga... now in its 3rd year.

The story so far: The council have demanded council tax from me, which I have refused to pay for 3 years - on the grounds that there is no lawfully enforceable contract between me (Roger Hayes) and the council. The council is refusing to provide me with a lawful contract because they think they have the right to demand that I pay council tax... which they do not. I am happy to pay my council tax – but only when the Council has agreed to provide me with a lawful contract... this is my right. The benefit of a contract is that it makes the council agree terms and conditions with me and prevents them acting in an arbitrary fashion i.e. it brings power back to the people.
The fact is that the council has no right to demand council tax from me (Roger Hayes) - but they DO have the right to demand it from the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES... but that isn’t me. If you are not familiar with the legal fiction – please watch the following video:

On the 11th January 2011 in the county court of Birkenhead, in front of witnesses, the court conceded to the right of Roger Hayes to act as ‘third party representative’ for MR ROGER HAYES. In essence the court agreed that they they were two entirely separate entities.  This is an extraordinary development to put it very mildly.
The court did not however concede without putting up a very vigorous fight... this is how events unfolded in the court room.
Judge:    Can we first find out who is in the court... is MR ROGER HAYES in the court?
Me:    Sir, I am third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge:    Are you MR ROGER HAYES?
Me:    No sir, I am the third party representative for MR ROGER HAYES... you may address me as Roger.
Judge:    I will not address you as Roger, I will call you MR HAYES
Me:    Sir, I am not MR HAYES, the court is required to address me as I request and I request that you address me as Roger. (NOTE – court protocol dictates that a defendant or respondent can be addressed the way they choose – the Judge then referred to me as ‘the gentleman’ but avoided referring to meas MR HAYES).
Judge:    If you are not MR ROGER HAYES then I will take note that MR ROGER HAYES is not represented in court.
Me:    In that case sir, you will have to also note that the council is not represented in court.
(NOTE. This would mean that the case would have to be dismissed, finding for the defendant, because the plaintiff had not appeared)
Judge:    I can see that that the council has representation in the court.
Me:    Then you will have to acknowledge that MR ROGER HAYES has representation in the court. We are all equal in the eyes of the law... if council has third party representation then so does MR ROGER HAYES. The council is a corporation and so is MR ROGER HAYES.
Judge:    MR ROGER HAYES is not a corporation.
Me:    Yes it is.
Judge:    No it isn’t, it is a PERSON.
Me:    A PERSON is a corporation.
Judge    No it isn’t.
Me:    Define person.
Judge:    I don’t have to.
Me:    Then let me do it for you sir. A PERSON is a corporation (NOTE: This is defined in a law dictionary) Sir, are you familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666?
Judge:    I am familiar with many laws.
Me:    Sir, I asked if you were familiar with the Cestui Que Vie Act of 1666, if you are not Sir, then with respect you are not competent to judge in this matter and that gives rise to a claim of denial of due process.
Judge:    Let’s hear from the council.
Me:    Sir we can only move on to the council’s presentation when the court has confirmed that MR ROGER HAYES is represented in court.
Judge:    Fine.
And the case continued.... with me (Roger Hayes) acting as third party representative for the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and with the judge eventually telling the council to go away and prove its case. The Judge was obviously very keen to avoid a charge of denial of due process i.e. a challenge to his competence. It was much easier for him to side with me and pass the buck back to the council.
Smart judge.
So what does this all mean? Well In very simple terms, it is SEISMIC i.e. extremely significant. It means that the court has accepted that the council’s claim is against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES and not me the flesh and blood man Roger Hayes. The court has also accepted that I (Roger Hayes) can act as a third party representative to defend the claim against MR ROGER HAYES.
The legal fiction cat is now truly out of the bag (although for me this is the second time I have achieved this in court).  If the council goes on to win its case, then the court will find against the legal fiction MR ROGER HAYES, but significantly, they will not have found against me Roger Hayes... because as the court agrees... MR ROGER HAYES is a corporation... which isn’t me. One important thing is now clearly established -  I, Roger Hayes, am not liable for council tax. AND NEITHER ARE YOU.

Roger Hayes
Council Tax is Unlawful. No Obligation Challenge -

Council Tax is Unlawful and Fraud -
FB POST (Contract Law, Commercial Liens and Controlling your Strawman)

Question -

Hi all,
Do we have to pay council tax? I'm a little unsure whether or not to just cancel the DD, I'm afraid i don't know enough about this....

Answers -

Plenty of information o here Helen, but remember? We learnt to walk before we learnt to RUN. 

Helen Skelton I’ve not paid it  almost 2 years , has numerous bailiff and ct letters. One visit off bailiff , husband answered denied his name and shut the door in his face that was November and nothing since?  Is I know the truth I can’t pay it they can take everything I own if they can get in as doors always locked and I have a fkin big dog  I will never pay into this system again.

This is me too I’m trying to educate myself  on the best way to stop paying and if we are entitled to money back, any help appreciated where to start

get  this book it will help you understand  it only £7 of amazon  it a start for you - so they say you’ve broken the law … challenging legal authority / the lioness

This was launched a few days ago to allow each of us to challenge the council tax. It provides all the info and paperwork for free:

How can we prove the c tax goes towards Lobo loans pensions etc?? 

If you don't know enough that's where to start. There's a wealth of info in this group and Peter has so many vids with a crazy amount of info. Watch the vids, read through posts and form your own plan if action. Don't take anything for granted and expect a one sentence answer. There's more than one way to skin a cat as they say. It depends on your mindset and who you belive you are as to the course of action. Good luck

I rang the Council to say I can't afford to pay my arrears of £330 and was told it could be spread out over the new year's payments.  When I said it's voluntary, I was informed that everyone HAS TO PAY.  I have since had my final demand.

Nicola Barlow Most people in the Council believe it 'has to be' paid. They know no better. They like most people need educating. Council Tax is actually for businesses not homes but they've convoluted this to make us believe you have to pay it. Do some research, take nobody's word for it. Paying Tax is voluntary too but I bet if you phone HMRC they'll say 'you have to pay'.

There is not one statute in their Admiralty/Mandatory law platform that says taxations are indeed the law, nowhere can it be found, never has been........Ask them for the actual statute in law that says paying tax at any level is indeed written into any law process.......just say "I'm quite willing to pay what you say I owe the council if you, the council can prove in written format and visual proof that the statute that makes paying taxations exists............"everybody has to pay it is not proof".If they cannot provide you with any statute/law then there is no such law in existence....and we know there is not, but gently does it we are trying to educate the very people who are ignorant on this subject, and these are the little Hitlers who work for the councils. All listed on Dun & Bradstreet btw, as companies for profit, as is the UK government, and all governments.
Special Announcement …

Telegram -

The UK Council Tax Scam: How To Legally NOT Pay & Beat Council Tax For Good -

If you want to legally beat council tax and stop paying for good, book a call with me and I'll walk you through the steps:

Join my telegram group here:

Friend me on Facebook here:

Watch the Strawman video here:

In this video I explain i break down the Council Tax Scam and prove why and how you can legally beat the council tax!

FACT: We are all beneficiaries to the trusts we create when we sign a credit agreement.

This fact is why none of us owe anything to any corporation. We are NOT Debtors we are BENEFICIARIES and it is easy to prove. 

It's time to own who you are and fight back against the system that enslaves you. WE ARE ALL READY DEBT FREE. 

#BeatCouncilTax #DebtFreeJourney #HowToPayOffDebt #DebtCollector #DebtConsolidation #IVA #HowToGetOutOfDebt #ShouldYouGetAnIVA #AwakeningNation #TheStrawman
Debt Smashing, Council Tax Remedy And Private Trusts -
FB Post - Contact Law/Private Trusts/Law Common to Man)

Question - Summons for Unpaid Council Tax letter ….. Should I return to sender or ask for the liability order?

Answers - No. They create their own anyways. So go with their Legislation, play them at their own game.

Template ….

To Lorraine McDonagh
I have received a letter signed by you, whereby you claim to be collecting a debt on the behalf of Bedford Borough Council Letter dated 11/05/2022
This document will be kept on file as physical presentable evidence as it represents the criminal activities of Lorraine McDonagh a manager of Bedford Borough Council whether he or she is aware of this transgression or not. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
I now draw your attention to the following: -
The Companies Act 2006
“44 Execution of documents.
Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company-
By the affixing of its common seal, or
By signature in accordance with the following provisions.
A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company-
By two authorised signatories, or
By a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.
The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)-
Every director of the company
In the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.
A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed in whatever words, to be executed by the company, has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.”
The legal effect of the statute is that documents and deeds must be signed on behalf of the company by a director in the presence of a witness, or by two authorised signatories. Without adherence to these provisions no contracts can be considered duly executed by a company and their terms are therefore legally unenforceable, as was clearly implied when the Court of Appeal endorsed the view of Lewison J in the case of Williams v Redcard Ltd [2011]:
“For a document to be executed by a company, it must either bear the company’s seal, or it must comply with s.44, In order to take effect as if it had been executed under seal. Subsection (4) requires that the document must not only be made on behalf of the company by complying with one of the two alternative requirements for signature in
s.44 (2): it must also be “expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company. That means that the document must purport to have been signed by persons held out as authorised signatories and held out to be signing on the company’s behalf. It must be apparent from the face of the document that the people signing it are doing something more than signing it on the company’s behalf. It must be apparent that they are signing it on the company’s behalf in such a way that the document is to be treated as having been executed “by” the company for the purposes of subsection (4), and not merely by an agent “for” the company.”

Fraud Act 2006
“Section 4, Fraud by abuse of position
(2), A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.”
If Lorraine McDonagh is not able to provide evidence that the ‘letter dated 11/05/2022’ sent to MR JEROME F (you) is not a fraud then we will take it that it is a fraud, and the representatives of Bedford Borough Counci are now conspiring with it.

Due to the seriousness of this allegation we need to ensure Lorraine McDonagh's claim against MR JEROME F is lawful. This is a matter of complying with current legislation, without which MR JEROME F would be unsuccessful if he were to pursue legal proceedings against the representatives of BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL. It is therefore requested that Lorraine McDonagh from BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL provides physical presentable evidence of the following:

Validation of the alleged debt with full accounting
A copy of the relevant and lawful terms and conditions
A true and certified copy of the deed of assignment (not notice of assignment)
Deed of novation; A wet ink signature from MR JEROME F on a trilateral agreement between each party
A true and certified copy of the original credit agreement
Verification of the claim (a sworn affidavit or a signed invoice)
Evidence that MR JEROME F gave permission to pass the alleged debt to your company.

Should Lorraine McDonagh not be in possession of the aforementioned documents then the representatives of BEDFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL will be deemed to be party to a fraudulent act, and MR JEROME F reserves the right to full recourse through the courts of law.

Take notice of the following: -
Fraud is a deliberate action to defraud where the victim of the crime is unaware having no knowledge of a situation or fact. This crime carries a penalty of 7-10 years’ incarceration and there latter, where there are multiple instances of.

Malfeasance, Misfeasance, and Nonfeasance are also very serious crimes with a period of incarceration of life in prison. Malfeasance is a deliberate act, with criminal intent to defraud. Ignorance is no defence. Malfeasance has been defined in appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an agent has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no legal right.

Crimes of this nature cannot go unpunished. “I was just doing my job” or “I was just following orders” is no excuse.

Also consider the following: -
There are some fundamentals to be given consideration before an agreement or a contract is valid and enforceable.
Full disclosure by the parties. If there is no full disclosure by the parties then the agreement is void from the outset. There would not be any physical presentable evidence to any missing disclosure, but the absence of this material physical evidence is evidence of the fraud.

Agreed consideration by both parties. There must be a consideration by both parties! There must be material evidence of this consideration.

There should be a signed agreement by both parties. Without the signature from both parties there is no material evidence to the agreement or contract.

Must be compliant with the companies act. (See above).

The very absence of the company seal or signatures from the company is the material evidence of the fact that the activities are fraudulent from the start.
Does Lorraine McDonagh representative for BEDFORD BROUGH COUNCIL wish to proceed any further?

Comments -

Ring courts and see if your case is listed bet they cannot find your case

Yes but obviously record the call so you've got it as evidence, then you'll have your own defense pack to bring criminal justice to these.

Surprised not to see text in boxes. But yeah this will be issued by the council not the courts. You could do them for sending you and creating a fraudulent document.

The barcode is the give away. No true court document has a barcode. A council produced one does which is fraudulent

Definitely ask for the liability order,  don’t stop asking questions, keep eeking it out, the longer it goes on, the more will be exposed.

Promissory note.!

do you know if this process is similar for those living in Scotland ?


… so just a matter of slightly modifying your template then

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)