The Valuation Tribunal Service (VTS) is supposed to be independent, fair and impartial, but from what we have seen they think that they are above the law and can uphold decisions that are illegal in England and Wales.

In a case involving Andrew Corkish and Tracy Nicholson from the Valuation Office and VTS panel members Judith Barnes and Peter Hardcastle, it was explained to the tribunal that was held in the Hastings Council offices that legal estoppel applied and that for that reason they could not apply a banding to a building that could not be used residentially. This much has been decided by the Secretary of State and the High Court in 1997. Since then this Council had agreed to remedy the situation by consent in the Eastbourne County Court, but failed to deliver.

WEALDEN DISTRICT COUNCIL & OTHERS - ATTEMPTED FRAUD OR CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD ?

The Valuation Office makes many decisions that are unfair to boost Council Tax revenues for corrupt councils in England and Wales, such as Wealden District Council.

In a case involving Andrew Corkish, Tracy Nicholson and Valuation Tribunal Service panel members Judith Barnes and Peter Hardcastle, it was explained to the tribunal that was held in the Hastings Council offices on the 7th of September 2018 that an enforcement notice prevented residential occupation of The Old Steam House in Lime Park, Herstmonceux. It was explained that the Local Land Charges Rules 1977 required Wealden to remove incorrect information or defunct charges from the register, and that this had not been done, and as a consequence of that the council had put the defendant in a position where he suffered loss or the risk of loss in that he could neither occupy the premises legally nor sublet any other part of the premises covered by the extant enforcement notice in seeking to offset the charges that this council were seeking in the full knowledge that they were preventing full use of the premises yet seeking the full council taxes as if the premises had not been so blighted - and so causing loss.

It was explained to a Valuation Tribunal on appeal that Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 was then applicable and that the Wealden District Council were guilty of fraud. In that the valuation tribunal chose to ignore this information or recommend that WC carry out their function before they might reach a decision, made the parties involved guilty of being part of a conspiracy to defraud.

The situation is rather darker than it appears in that Wealden's officers have been involved in a long term agenda to part the defendant from the premises, including seeking to bankrupt the gentleman and lying to the Secretary of State's inspectors on at least two occasions and several High Court judges along the way in seeking to devalue the land in question such that neighbours might avail themselves of the premises at an undervalue.

For this reason and due to the perceived malfeasance in public office, Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 kicks in where this series of attacks violates Article 8 and Article 13, save that we have no Article 13 in our domestic legislation, therefore relying on the European Communities Act 1972 and Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that binds local authorities to observe the European Convention.

The players in this little Nazi Gestapo like charade were:

Andrew Corkish (for VO)

Charlotte Corkish (for VO)

Judith Barnes (VTS panel member)

Peter Hardcastle (VTS panel member)

Tracey Nicholson (for the VO)

Graham Wayman (for WDC)

Jon Bestow (registrar for the VTS)

Other players involved in the conspiracy to defraud over the years included:

Steve Bliss

T. Matthews

Jo Coll

BE AWARE: That hearings are not recorded and decisions are based on the notes of the panel members that may be a distorted version of events that will need to be challenged in law at any High Court hearing. So be prepared. You can assert your right to receive and impart information as per Article 10. Being a right, you do not need the permission of the Tribunal to make verbatim notes or recordings of the proceedings. The Registrar will not make the notes of panel members available to you for the express purpose of defeating any legal challenge, contrary to SDG 16 and the need for openness and transparency in quasi judicial and judicial proceedings. Hence, the Tribunal Service violates international law as do many courts in Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth's constitution denied Britain.

According to their website the Tribunal usually sits in panels of two people, with one of them acting as chairman. The chairmen and members are local people who, like magistrates, are lay volunteers. They receive training and are experienced in hearing appeals. The members of the panel are independent of both the Valuation Office Agency and the council. Panels are assisted by a clerk who offers advice on the relevant law, practice and procedure.

Hearings before the Tribunal are in public, unless you can show there are exceptional grounds for the hearing to be in private.

Normally they will give you at least several weeks’ notice of the hearing date (depending on the appeal type), although the regulations allow a minimum of 14 days’ notice, or less in exceptional or urgent circumstances. The hearing notice will tell you where and when the hearing will take place. All our hearing days start at 10.30. However, nearer the day, when we know how many people are likely to attend, we may be able to give you an approximate appointment time for when your appeal will be heard.

Before your hearing date we will contact you, either by phone or with a ‘hearing reminder’ notice to check if you will be attending the hearing and to give any help they can.

You can come to the Tribunal hearing or you can have a representative (for example, a friend, a solicitor or a surveyor) speak for you, whether or not you will be there yourself. However, if you are not going to be there, we must have a letter from you before or at the hearing confirming that that person may represent you.

If the hearing date is not one that you can attend, and if there is a good reason, you may request a postponement. Alternatively it is possible for you to ask for your case be considered without you being there, on the basis of written evidence.

However, it is very helpful if you come to the hearing so that you can put your case, answer any questions the panel has and ask questions of the other party (the VOA or the council). Our statistics show that a higher percentage of appellants succeed in their appeal if they do attend or are represented.

WHO WE WERE FIGHTING AGAINST FROM 1939 TO 1945

COUNCIL OFFICERS 1982 TO 2018

Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold

Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant

Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Bending Christopher

Black Julian - Boakes Beverley - Bradshaw Clifford - Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh

Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn - Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek

Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford - Lant Charles - Mercer Richard

Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J. -  Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio - Scott Trevor

Kevin Stewart - Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve

VALUATION TRIBUNAL SERVICE CONTACTS

....

PROCEEDS OF CRIME - Valuation officers who tow the party line are not only highly paid civil servants, but also stand to benefit from their involvement with underhanded dealings in planning consents in other geographical regions where there may be a "you scratch my back, and we'll scratch yours" arrangement. On the other hand, it could be that insider knowledge can be used legitimately to obtain consents for houses in the country such as this nice little retreat in an out of the way location, that might be termed green belt to the man in the street. If a council officer is paid cash for favours or receives 'in-kind' inducements for what amounts to fraudulent or even insider dealing and they are convicted, their assets could be seized by way of proceeds of crime. Is it worth it? Yes, power corrupts. It always will and those in positions of power will sometimes be tempted - because they know that others in their ring of power will protect them when the brown stuff hits the fan.

MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE

When an officer of the courts omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as did Ian Kay in the Stream Farm matter), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR).

Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322

LINKS & REFERENCE

https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/billing-authorities/wealden-district-council/