Local Government Act 1888

Stuart Hopkins made this Freedom of Information request to Lewisham Borough Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was successful.

Dear Lewisham Borough Council,

In the Local Government Act 1888 it specifically states the following.

79 Incorporation of county council.

(2)All duties and liabilities of the inhabitants of a county shall become and be duties and liabilities of the council of such county.

Can you confirm that you operate under the Local Government Act 1888 as required by law.

Since you are therefore liable for the inhabitants liabilities, does this not mean that you are also liable for the inhabitants council tax. Not withstanding other liabilities which inhabitants of said council possess

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hopkins

Foi, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Hopkins
                            
 
Re: Freedom of Information Act 2000
Reference No: 210440
 
Thank you for your recent request.
 
Your request is being considered and you will receive a response within
the statutory timescale of 20 working days, subject to the application of
any exemptions. Where consideration is being given to exemptions the 20
working day timescale may be extended to a period considered reasonable
depending on the nature and circumstances of your request. In such cases
you will be notified and, where possible, a revised time-scale will be
indicated. In all cases we shall attempt to deal with your request at the
earliest opportunity.
 
There may be a fee payable for the retrieval, collation and provision of
the information requested where the request exceeds the statutory limit or
where disbursements exceed £10. In such cases you will be informed in
writing and your request will be suspended until we receive payment from
you or your request is modified and/or reduced.
 
Your request may require either full or partial transfer to another public
authority. You will be informed if your request is transferred.
If we are unable to provide you with the information requested we will
notify you of this together with the reason(s) why and details of how you
may appeal (if appropriate).
 
Please note that the directorate team may contact you for further
information where we believe that the request is not significantly clear
for us to respond fully.
 
 
Kind Regards
 
Kevin Knight
Corporate Information Team
0208 314 9928 

show quoted sections

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

Mr H - Sections 79 to 80 of the Local Government Act 1888 were repealed in their entirety by the Local Government Act 1933 (c.51 Schedule 11 Part III and the London Government Act 1939 (c. 40 Schedule 8).

As a result the answer to your question is no, they don't have any such liability any more - and its questionable if they ever did in the way you suggest.

The 'liabilities' referred to in the 1888 Act clearly being related to the collection of revenues/taxes which previously had been the responsiblity of individuals to pay directly to Government.

Be very interesting if you receive a different response from the Council on this.

Becky

J Osborn left an annotation ()

I don't read any limitations, as you suggest becky. The clue is in the word "all".

I plainly read this as a bilateral contract where both parties have consideration and would result in breach of contract/franchise if the County Council reneged on their duties and liabilities within that agreement.

If however, as you suggest, this is unilateral then another word to bring to the table is slavery.

Whether it has been repealed or not needs testing in what passes for a Court of Law these days. I am certain it is still current.

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

Stuart - Did you actually read section 79 of the 1888 Act on legislation.gov?

The footnote to that section clearly states when sections 79-80 were repealed and by what specific Acts.

Believe it or not - there's nothing left to challenge and trying to argue the interpretation of one word, in a repealed section that no longer applies, seems kind of pointless.

Far as I can see the only possible grounds for a challenge would be to challenge the result of the Parliamentary votes that adopted the two amending Acts back in the 1930's.

Good luck with that one!

Becky

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

J - Go read the section footnote yourself, its there in black and white.

Becky

Ringwood, James, Lewisham Borough Council

Dear Mr Hopkins
Thank you for your recent request for information made under the Freedom
of Information Act 2000.
 
Please find following the Council's response:
 
Q 1.    In the Local Government Act 1888 it specifically states the
following. 79 Incorporation of county council. (2)All duties and
liabilities of the inhabitants of a county shall  become and be duties and
liabilities of the council of such county. Can you confirm that you
operate under the Local Government Act  1888 as required by law.
 
A1. The Council of the London Borough of Lewisham is not a County
Council.  We respectfully refer you to the provisions of the Local
Government Act 1972.
 
Q.2.Since you are therefore liable for the inhabitants liabilities,   does
this not mean that you are also liable for the inhabitants council tax.
Not withstanding other liabilities which inhabitants  of said council
possess"
 
A2. Kindly refer to our response to your Q1 above from which you will see
that q.2 is, with respect,  not applicable to us.
 
I trust that this information is useful.
 
You have a right of appeal against this response. If you wish to appeal
you must do so in writing to the Corporate Information Manager at the
following address:
 
Corporate Information Governance Team
LB Lewisham
1a Eros House
Brownhill Road
Catford
London SE6 2EG
or
[1][email address]
 
Yours sincerely
 
James Ringwood
Senior Caseworker – Customer Services
LB Lewisham
 

show quoted sections

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

Technically accurate response, but would have been simpler just to confirm those sections had been repealed anyway and therefore no longer applied to any type of Council.

Please don't forget to update the status of the request, helps keep the site tidy.

Becky

pete left an annotation ()

That reply is bogus, it's a deflection, whoever the council is in the county is carrying the liability, it's not a question that needs to be asked to a council, of course they don't want to carry the liabilities, cos they're crooks...Becky Bear that subsection has never been repealed...look more carefully

Stuart Hopkins left an annotation ()

Pete, yes you are right, Lewisham council are in the county of London, so the idea that this does not apply to them is a joke

Paul of the Woods Family left an annotation ()

whilst much of this act has been repealed by subsequent legislation s79 is still alive.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict...

79 Incorporation of county council..

(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F1 .

(2)All duties and liabilities of the inhabitants of a county shall become and be duties and liabilities of the council of such county. .

(3)Where any enactment (whether relating to . . . F2 bridges, or other county purposes, or to quarter sessions) requires or authorises land to be conveyed or granted to, or any contract or agreement to be made in the name of, the clerk of the peace, or any justice or justices or other person, on behalf of the county or quarter sessions, or justices of the county, such land shall be conveyed or granted to, and such contract and agreement shall be made with, the council of the . . . F3 county concerned. .

Annotations:
Amendments (Textual)

F1 Ss. 79(1), 80 repealed by Local Government Act 1933 (c. 51), Sch. 11 Pt. III and London Government Act 1939 (c. 40), Sch. 8

F2 Words repealed by Local Government Act 1933 (c. 51), Sch. 11 Pt. III and London Government Act 1939 (c. 40), Sch. 8

F3 Word repealed by Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1978 (c. 45), s. 1(1), Sch. 1 Pt. XII

it is only where the symbols f1 etc appear in the actual text thatrevision has been made. I am looking at the latest revision available which means anything not actually still alive and kicking is not shown....

Paul of the Woods Family left an annotation ()

Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009

(3)In this Chapter— .
“principal local authority” means—

(a)

a county or district council in England;

(b)

a London borough council;

(c)

the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority;

(d)

a county or county borough council in Wales;

Becky Bbear left an annotation ()

Paul - I was obviously mistaken, seems that none of the subsequent amendments to the 1888 Act repealed or varied section 79(2).

Which raises the question...what exactly were the 'duties and liabilities of the inhabitants of a County' prior to the 1888 Act?

Depending on the answer to that question, it may well be that County Authorities have considerably more 'duties' or powers than they realise.

The matter of 'liabilities' seems a little more complex, since it is very unlikely the intention here was to transfer 'personal liabilities' such a debts due under other legislation either current at the time or made subsequently.

Still...have to admit it would be very interesting to test in Court exactly what duties and liabilities fell within the scope of this section of the 1888 Act.

Becky

Stuart Hopkins left an annotation ()

I might try that in the small claims track, refund of all monies paid.

Arten 60 left an annotation ()

whilst much of this act has been repealed by subsequent legislation s79 is still alive.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict...

The above link is either broken or they are hiding the information. I am about to make a similar claim against my county!

Arten 60 left an annotation ()

Hi All

I asked my County Council to discharge my council tax bill in accordance with the above Act.

The request was obstructed by them and remedy denied because according to them the Act applies "Collectively" to the inhabitants of the county.

After many exchanges of correspondence the corporate lawyer dealing with this was asked by me to show me one case history that corroborated his claim. After much badgering he produced 5 cases from other parts of the UK but not a single case from my county Essex.

So in 125 years not once have the county council ever discharged any liabilities on behalf of the inhabitants of the county, which leaves us with the question:

Where has all the monies raised gone.

pete left an annotation ()

Only 5 cases in 125 years, there's 5 cases of proof then. Collectively assumes there are individuals, so the individuals have rights within any collective. It seems all of the Councils have been genned up on how to not make any actual admittance of fact and simply runaway from the law. It seems the Law has become their means to generate cash, for the "collective", as that's how they raise loans, and upon inquiry into the affairs of the collective by the collective, the Council turn into Philadelphia lawyers.

Good work Stuart, these hoods in the Public Office need exposing for the vermin that they are, I know in my area they act as a tribe using "religion" as their favourite shield of choice because they have been hypnotising everyone into believing lies.

Also there is rumour now that Habeas Corpus is no longer valid, this is also untrue, as I have used it in Crown, where I got the Chief Clerk to the Justices to admit that all criminal cases heard in the Crown are subject to contract, and therefore Commercial in nature. funny thing was, someone else had made a different inquiry into the Clerks of the Justices, and that Society went bump, twice, after 109 years...very, very dodgy these Asiatics from that little State without a Constitution.

Arten 60 left an annotation ()

Hello Pete

The real point is that the word "Collectively" does not appear in the statute. Remember these statutes come with definitions of the words.
The problem I have with these autocrats in council tax offices across the UK is that they all seem to be brainwashed into believing that the 1992 Community Charge Act is sacrosanct. This is clearly nonsense statutes can and do get repealed.
Of course Article 9 Bill of Rights 1689 is Constitutional Law written by our forefathers with the explicit intention of curtailn any abuse of future Parliamentarians. Parliament is supposed to be there to give the Common Man a say in the running of the country. They work for us, not us work or slave for them.
This fits in with what our famed English Judiciary have stated in the past:

“Parliament may pass a law which is repugnant against common right and reason or impossible to perform. In which case the Common Law will intercede and strike it down”
Sir Edward Coke

Seems like basic common sense to me, imagine if they try to pass a law which is just a civil code legalising paedophilia.
Legal does not mean Lawful and never has they have used furtive methods and sharp practices to pull the wool over people's eyes but you can only fool some of the people for some of the time.

eric sinclair left an annotation ()

Hi Stuart, the information that you have posted is great for folk that are struggling at the moment. Could you please let me know if the 1888 act could help me with council tax in south Lanarkshire Glasgow. I wrote to the council in January 2015. sorry to say I've had no response. Now the council are taking me to court. Your help would be much appreciated.
Yours faithfully, Eric.

P Maddison left an annotation ()

I have also used The Local Government Act 1888 against my council over the Council Tax and they also told me that it had been repealed.
I have tried to get The Local Government Act 1933 but it too seems to have 'vanished'... I wonder why?

michael john left an annotation ()

Cught you out there ,didn't they beccy where was it you said you practiced law????

And yes it is write their in"BLACK and white."

The county council as trustee are entiteld to get paid they hold your eqitable title ( the creditor), hence they get the district council to do the dirty work also avoiding any liabilty . They are also bankrupt due to the gold standards act would you agree beccy???