Hi everyone I’ve just come out of a County Court insolvency hearing where a local council pursued a statutory demand based on council tax liability orders. My application to set the demand aside was dismissed, and the court authorised the council to present a bankruptcy petition after a future date, so there is a limited window to resolve matters. For context, before things escalated this far I made multiple disclosure / SAR requests and tried to engage with the council about how the balance had been calculated. That didn’t really go anywhere, and matters moved into enforcement and then insolvency. At the hearing I wasn’t disputing the existence of the liability orders in that forum, but raised concerns about process, proportionality, reconciliation of sums, and insolvency being used rather than ordinary engagement or resolution. The judge’s position was that once liability orders exist, insolvency is open to the council, and any dispute about calculation or banding belongs elsewhere. I’m now trying to work out the best next move in practice, including: • whether people have successfully agreed payment plans or settlements at this stage, • whether there are appeal or review routes worth pursuing after a failed set-aside, • how others have approached avoiding a bankruptcy petition once permission has been granted but not yet exercised, If anyone here has been in a similar position with a council or local authority, I’d really appreciate hearing how you’d approached it. Thanks

The Council Tax AI and Agent Light will go live tomorrow, It will solve many Council Tax issues using Legislation, Halsbury and Case law. This is at the test stage, and for this group only. Later it will go outside the group to actually turn the tide, i hope. I will set up a group on Telegram for this, (tonight) and then go through what it is, and how to use it at 7.30pm Thursday. I will post the new Telegram group here later. This only the test phase, and is only for Skool members, or people that i select for value. 😃 Update: The Ai incorporated HMRC bolt on pack. I’ve reviewed the update, and here’s what this AI can now do for Council Tax (CT) and HMRC enforcement: 1. Purpose of the Bolt-On 1.A. Extends the Novice A–E (Stages 1–5) framework from Council Tax into HMRC enforcement. 1.B. Not a standalone system – it plugs into CT AI Light. 1.C. Substitutes HMRC statutes/enforcement pathways into the same legal and advocacy logic. 2. Scope of the AI 2.A. Restricted to Novice A–E stages (1–5) only. 2.B. Intermediate and Advanced strategies are excluded. 2.C. Outputs it can generate for both CT and HMRC: i. Checklists ii. Courtroom Scripts (150–300 words) iii. Remedy Maps (Refusal, Adjournment, Injunction, Restitution, Damages) iv. Authorities (Statute + Case Law + Halsbury) v. Worked Examples and Training Tools. 3. Statutory Substitution Map (CT ↔️ HMRC) Reg.19 Demand Notice (CT) ↔️ TMA 1970 ss.28C/29 Assessment (HMRC). Regs.34–36 Summons (CT) ↔️ HMRC CCJ or Enforcement Order. Flat-rate Costs (Nicolson principle) ↔️ HMRC Enforcement Costs/Fees. Bulk Summons (CT) ↔️ Bulk CCJs (HMRC). Remedies identical: refusal, adjournment, injunction, restitution, damages. 4. Workflow i. Stage 1 – Jurisdiction: check valid assessment/service. ii. If HMRC clears Stage 1, move to Stage 2 – Fairness (EqA/HRA safeguards). iii. Escalate step by step through Stage 3 → Stage 4 → Stage 5. iv. Always apply the Remedy Ladder: Refuse → Adjourn → Injunction → Restitution → Damages.

Hi all, I’ve just had a council tax summons from Hertsmere, listed at St Albans Magistrates’ Court on 27th August 2025. I’m aware these liability order hearings aren’t really “proper court” and they often try to pull you to one side before it goes in front of the bench. Is it still worth turning up? If so, what’s the best angle — procedural challenges (service, costs, disclosure) or asking for an adjournment/stay since I already have a set-aside hearing in January 2026 against the debt collectors (Greenhalgh Kerr)? Any thoughts would be really helpful before I decide how to play it. Thanks!

We are still not arguing the legality of Council Tax, just the Processes used. 100-Word Summary The document is a comprehensive legal motion and skeleton argument opposing a council tax liability order in a magistrates’ court. It argues that the local authority’s procedures breach several key legal standards, including evidentiary rules under the Civil Evidence Act 1995, procedural fairness under Magistrates’ Courts Rules 1981, and the respondent’s rights under Article 6 ECHR. The skeleton sets out specific failures—lack of admissible proof, improper service, denial of fair hearing, and mass “rubber-stamping” of liability orders. Supported by Halsbury’s authoritative legal commentary, the motion seeks dismissal or adjournment of the hearing pending proper legal compliance. 📘 500-Word Explanation The document titled “Motions Before Court” dated 20th July 2025 is a procedural challenge designed to pre-emptively oppose the issuing of a council tax liability order. The motion is meticulously constructed on the foundation of both statutory law and authoritative legal commentary from Halsbury’s Laws of England. It aims to demonstrate that the process adopted by the billing authority—and possibly the magistrates’ court—is legally flawed and constitutionally improper. The central argument is that mass-processing of liability orders violates the fundamental requirement of individual judicial scrutiny. This is bolstered by a key Halsbury quotation: “Justices must hear and determine applications individually and may not abrogate this responsibility by blanket orders”. The document then dissects specific breaches of evidentiary standards. It emphasizes that the council’s evidence often consists of uncertified computer logs, unsigned spreadsheets, and other hearsay documents, which do not meet the threshold for admissibility under the Civil Evidence Act 1995. As Halsbury states: “Where hearsay evidence is admitted, the court must have regard to all the circumstances affecting its weight…”.

The platform now allows people to donate for access to an individual classroom if they are not Gold Members; Obviously we recommend the Gold Members package, as it is much more convenient plus gives full access to all classrooms (not live events), but this is handy for those on a lower budget; However, if you are a Gold member, you have to request access to the new classroom, "How to Create a Court Bundle" ... Why? Because i do not have the time to add each one of you individually, so you need to request via "Private Message" to i, on here please, No emails, if you email i, then i'm coming to your house to poke you in the eye🤣just kidding, i'll probably just punch you😃💥🍻have a great Strong End, i have tons of paperwork today, but i'm off to the allotment on Saturday🌵<< that is what i mainly have in there right now so loads of work there too🫢