Wow BJ eviscerates the EU!!!

[Burnley Ace]

Hmm "The senior adviser to Boris Johnson is listed as a property owner, alongside his parents and sister, according to Land Registry title deeds."

Have you seen a copy of these Land Reg deeds? Is he a part owner of the whole property or just one of the cottages? Are they joint tenants or tenants in common? Who is liable for the Council tax?

Are you just repeating what you have read?

[keith1879]

Here is a link to the Northern Echo story on the matter. https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... rk5CROxlGA Now I cannot (quite obviously) claim to have seen the relevant individual documents but I assume that if this sort of detail is reported and hasn't been disputed by the proincipal actors (ie the Cummings family) within a very short time then it is reasonable to assume that it is substantially correct.

[AndrewJB]

Does he own the cottage? Have you seen the documents? What is his portion of this “made up” bill? If he does own it what would his discount be? Who has “forgiven” this bill? or is it a case that legally it can’t be enforced? People are sent to prison for wilful refusal not because they can’t pay.

If you don’t know the facts why are are you repeating a story that you can’t fact check?

Of course! The rightwing papers don’t cover stories like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -in-durham

[AndrewJB]

This did come out at the time that it was a property in his name without planning permission. In the scheme of things it didn't touch the surface in terms of news headlines. I guess that's one of the advantages with being so corrupt and full of sh*t as there's only so much you can try and bring them to account to at one time

The entitlement is off the scale. I suppose planning permission and fifteen years of council tax arrears are just for ordinary working people. As with observing rules during a national lockdown.

[TheFamilyCat]

Screenshot_20201014-201548_Samsung Internet.jpg (208.25 KiB) Viewed 2471 times

_XcWKEg3_400x400.jpeg.jpg (33.61 KiB) Viewed 2471 times

[AndrewJB]

https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/ ... itten-off/ Some of the readers comments from the Echo.

[Devils_Advocate]

Haha John Shuttleworth = legend @2margarines

[aggi]

Have you seen a copy of these Land Reg deeds? Is he a part owner of the whole property or just one of the cottages? Are they joint tenants or tenants in common? Who is liable for the Council tax?

Are you just repeating what you have read?

Given that you're the one adamant that it's got nothing to do with him then I can only assume that you have seen the deeds and the national newspapers have just made up that easily verifiable fact and you're the only one who has checked it.

Personally though I'm willing to believe that such an easily verifiable fact that would be easily refuted, but hasn't been, is true unless someone provides evidence otherwise.

Sometimes it's just easier to admit you're wrong then make a fool of yourself trying to squirm out of it.

[AndrewJB]

Given that you're the one adamant that it's got nothing to do with him then I can only assume that you have seen the deeds and the national newspapers have just made up that easily verifiable fact and you're the only one who has checked it.

Personally though I'm willing to believe that such an easily verifiable fact that would be easily refuted, but hasn't been, is true unless someone provides evidence otherwise.

Sometimes it's just easier to admit you're wrong then make a fool of yourself trying to squirm out of it.

Considering the number of unverified or downright false claims parroted by that side over the years, I’m surprised one needs this level of detail before believing a story not found in his own news bubble.

[Burnley Ace]

Of course! The rightwing papers don’t cover stories like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -in-durham

Where does this article say he got £50k, that the cottage is his or that the CT liability is his?

[Burnley Ace]

Given that you're the one adamant that it's got nothing to do with him then I can only assume that you have seen the deeds and the national newspapers have just made up that easily verifiable fact and you're the only one who has checked it.

Personally though I'm willing to believe that such an easily verifiable fact that would be easily refuted, but hasn't been, is true unless someone provides evidence otherwise.

Sometimes it's just easier to admit you're wrong then make a fool of yourself trying to squirm out of it.

I’m not making the unsubstantiated allegations, you are! You show me the newspaper article that states he owns the cottage and that the liability is his, not his fathers.

[Burnley Ace]

Considering the number of unverified or downright false claims parroted by that side over the years, I’m surprised one needs this level of detail before believing a story not found in his own news bubble.

Bubbleyou’ve got your unsubstantiated story from the Guardian!! Get out of your echo chamber you muppets! How about ANY detail never mind level of!!

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Where does this article say he got £50k, that the cottage is his or that the CT liability is his?

It doesn't.

The article is poorly written tbh with an attention grabbing headline, it mentions Cummings staying at a converted property on his father's farm and then states he's Co-owner, meaning they could then claim DC stayed at his 2nd home.

It's almost like the writer couldn't make up their mind about what to say so just threw it all in there.

It doesn't matter though, the people it's aimed at will gleefully seize it.

[AndrewJB]

Where does this article say he got £50k, that the cottage is his or that the CT liability is his?

The article describes Cummings as a co owner of the property. An article in the Northern Echo says the owners are being let off between £30k and £50k in unpaid council tax. People have been jailed owing a lot less. If it were Corbyn, I doubt you’d be questioning it at all.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The article describes Cummings as a co owner of the property. An article in the Northern Echo says the owners are being let off between £30k and £50k in unpaid council tax. People have been jailed owing a lot less. If it were Corbyn, I doubt you’d be questioning it at all.

Article makes a claim, eventually, after already calling it his father's farm.

What are the chances they can back that claim up and then maybe write a new article that makes more sense.

[aggi]

I’m not making the unsubstantiated allegations, you are! You show me the newspaper article that states he owns the cottage and that the liability is his, not his fathers.

You said it’s got nothing to do with him as it’s his father’s property and I pointed out that it is widely reported that he's on the deeds.

Now it may be that he isn't liable for the tax, I didn't make any comment on that, but being on the deeds doesn't say the property is nothing to do with him to me.

[Burnley Ace]

The article describes Cummings as a co owner of the property. An article in the Northern Echo says the owners are being let off between £30k and £50k in unpaid council tax. People have been jailed owing a lot less. If it were Corbyn, I doubt you’d be questioning it at all.

Which property is he the co owner of? Do you know the legal difference between joint tenants and tenants in common and how that would impact on any CT liability that he has as apose to the one other owners would have?

He, or is it his father, hasn’t been let off, the legal position as determined by the VSO is that there is no liability, it’s in the last paragraph of the NE report.

You aren’t jailed for owing you’re jailed for refusing to pay, another aspect of this case that Cummings hasn’t done.

As I said, it’s the facts that you trip over.

[Burnley Ace]

You said it’s got nothing to do with him as it’s his father’s property and I pointed out that it is widely reported that he's on the deeds.

Now it may be that he isn't liable for the tax, I didn't make any comment on that, but being on the deeds doesn't say the property is nothing to do with him to me.

He’s on the deeds of which property, the cottage or the property on which the cottage is built and in what capacity?

All I’ve asked for is the facts not a rehash of a poorly written Guardian report.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You said it’s got nothing to do with him as it’s his father’s property and I pointed out that it is widely reported that he's on the deeds.

Now it may be that he isn't liable for the tax, I didn't make any comment on that, but being on the deeds doesn't say the property is nothing to do with him to me.

Widely reported doesn't equate to factual.

[aggi]

He’s on the deeds of which property, the cottage or the property on which the cottage is built and in what capacity?

All I’ve asked for is the facts not a rehash of a poorly written Guardian report.

Not really. You started off with it’s got nothing to do with him as it’s his father’s property.. You'd already decided on your position with no facts to back it up and no willingness to provide any evidence for your stance (I assume because that would prove your first statement entirely wrong).

[martin_p]

He’s on the deeds of which property, the cottage or the property on which the cottage is built and in what capacity?

All I’ve asked for is the facts not a rehash of a poorly written Guardian report.

Co-owner of the new property he stayed in when he was up there.

[KateR]

meanwhile, and I may have missed this so if previously shared discussed I apologize

https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-j ... h-ukraine/

and

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... is-berlin/

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Not really. You started off with it’s got nothing to do with him as it’s his father’s property.. You'd already decided on your position with no facts to back it up and no willingness to provide any evidence for your stance (I assume because that would prove your first statement entirely wrong).

Do us all a favour next time and don't wait hours to post it

[Burnley Ace]

Not really. You started off with it’s got nothing to do with him as it’s his father’s property.. You'd already decided on your position with no facts to back it up and no willingness to provide any evidence for your stance (I assume because that would prove your first statement entirely wrong).

I don’t know what that is but it isn’t a copy of a normal Land Registry deed - they are yellow, the reference numbers are different and they aren’t called registered owners it’s Proprietor. Though to be fair it does say it’s not an official copy.

However, assuming it is a proper document just in a very unusual format it shows him as One of the registered owners of North Lodge which is the property where his father lives, as refered to in the Statement of John Hewitt of Durham CC. Cummings doesn’t live at that property and isn’t liable for the CT, his father is.

In any event It’s a hypothetical bill in light of the VSO declaration and Article 3 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1993 - (reported in the Northern Echo)

Back to my original point, Cummings hasn’t had £50k handed to him by the denizens of Durham County. You are correct I shouldn’t have written it’s his fathers property, I should have written, it’s got nothing to do with him as his father is the resident of the property and is therefore liable for any Council Tax bill unless all proprietors of the property have formally notified the Council, in writing, that the liable person for the Council Tax bill is not the person who is habitually resident, but by formal deed, the agreed liable party is ....”

[Burnley Ace]

Co-owner of the new property he stayed in when he was up there.

It would appear from the extract produced by Aggie that he is the co owner of the main property, North Lodge,

[aggi]

I don’t know what that is but it isn’t a copy of a normal Land Registry deed - they are yellow, the reference numbers are different and they aren’t called registered owners it’s Proprietor. Though to be fair it does say it’s not an official copy.

However, assuming it is a proper document just in a very unusual format it shows him as One of the registered owners of North Lodge which is the property where his father lives, as refered to in the Statement of John Hewitt of Durham CC. Cummings doesn’t live at that property and isn’t liable for the CT, his father is.

In any event It’s a hypothetical bill in light of the VSO declaration and Article 3 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1993 - (reported in the Northern Echo)

Back to my original point, Cummings hasn’t had £50k handed to him by the denizens of Durham County. You are correct I shouldn’t have written it’s his fathers property, I should have written, it’s got nothing to do with him as his father is the resident of the property and is therefore liable for any Council Tax bill unless all proprietors of the property have formally notified the Council, in writing, that the liable person for the Council Tax bill is not the person who is habitually resident, but by formal deed, the agreed liable party is ....”

It looks like it's an electronic copy from the land registry. Ones I've had in the past haven't been yellow.

I'd guess there are only deeds for north lodge, not the cottage, as obviously the issue was that the cottages hadn't actually been registered (hence the lack of planning permission and potential council tax backlog).

Given it was described as a spare cottage then you'd think that no one would have been habitually resident so less clear cut than you're suggesting.

[KateR]

10 February 2017 Registered office address changed from Dafft Ltd, North Lodge Darlington Road Durham DH1 3SU to Thhe White House Darlington Road Durham DH1 3SS on 10 February 2017 (1 page)

9 February 2017 Appointment of Mr Matthew Herriott as a director on 9 February 2017 (2 pages)
9 February 2017 Appointment of Mr Matthew Herriott as a secretary on 9 February 2017 (2 pages)
9 February 2017 Termination of appointment of Robert Cummings as a director on 9 February 2017 (1 page)
9 February 2017 Termination of appointment of Robert Cummings as a secretary on 9 February 2017 (1 page)

[AndrewJB]

meanwhile, and I may have missed this so if previously shared discussed I apologize

https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-j ... h-ukraine/

and

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit- ... is-berlin/

This continues the trade we had with Ukraine before brexit. It also commits us to maintaining the territorial sovereignty of the Ukraine. Johnson’s Party gets a lot of money from Russian donors. Committing the lives of squaddies to Ukraine if Putin attempts another nibble is an interesting double game, all to have the same trading deal we already had before brexit.

[AndrewJB]

I don’t know what that is but it isn’t a copy of a normal Land Registry deed - they are yellow, the reference numbers are different and they aren’t called registered owners it’s Proprietor. Though to be fair it does say it’s not an official copy.

However, assuming it is a proper document just in a very unusual format it shows him as One of the registered owners of North Lodge which is the property where his father lives, as refered to in the Statement of John Hewitt of Durham CC. Cummings doesn’t live at that property and isn’t liable for the CT, his father is.

In any event It’s a hypothetical bill in light of the VSO declaration and Article 3 of the Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order 1993 - (reported in the Northern Echo)

Back to my original point, Cummings hasn’t had £50k handed to him by the denizens of Durham County. You are correct I shouldn’t have written it’s his fathers property, I should have written, it’s got nothing to do with him as his father is the resident of the property and is therefore liable for any Council Tax bill unless all proprietors of the property have formally notified the Council, in writing, that the liable person for the Council Tax bill is not the person who is habitually resident, but by formal deed, the agreed liable party is ....”

The VAO deemed the properties built without planning permission - something ordinary working people wouldn’t get away with - are liable to council tax. The property described as Cummings’ second home was built in 2002. For most people, council tax would be owed from the time the property was built. Cummings’ and his co owners have avoided that tax. One rule for ordinary working people, and another for the very rich.

[dsr]

The VAO deemed the properties built without planning permission - something ordinary working people wouldn’t get away with - are liable to council tax. The property described as Cummings’ second home was built in 2002. For most people, council tax would be owed from the time the property was built. Cummings’ and his co owners have avoided that tax. One rule for ordinary working people, and another for the very rich.

The law about planning permission is that if the new build is there for 10 years, it is allowed to stay. In some cases, 5 years. A farmer not that long ago built a house and surrounded it by hay bales to try and hide it for the relevant time, but it was spotted and he had to pull it down.

Now, you may be right that "ordinary working people" aren't covered by this law. In which case, perhaps you would provide the link to the relevant law, or else provide a case where someone got done after date because he was an "ordinary working person".

[AndrewJB]

The law about planning permission is that if the new build is there for 10 years, it is allowed to stay. In some cases, 5 years. A farmer not that long ago built a house and surrounded it by hay bales to try and hide it for the relevant time, but it was spotted and he had to pull it down.

Now, you may be right that "ordinary working people" aren't covered by this law. In which case, perhaps you would provide the link to the relevant law, or else provide a case where someone got done after date because he was an "ordinary working person".

Ordinary working people are unable to hide their extensions, or other un-permissioned builds. Maybe you can provide a link of an ordinary working person who has got away with building something without first getting planning permission? Even among the wealthy, it’s unusual for people to not get planning permission. What does that say about the character of those who don’t?

[AndrewJB]

The law about planning permission is that if the new build is there for 10 years, it is allowed to stay. In some cases, 5 years. A farmer not that long ago built a house and surrounded it by hay bales to try and hide it for the relevant time, but it was spotted and he had to pull it down.

Now, you may be right that "ordinary working people" aren't covered by this law. In which case, perhaps you would provide the link to the relevant law, or else provide a case where someone got done after date because he was an "ordinary working person".

I think it’s likely as well that Cummings & fam. exploited a loophole in the law to avoid the owed council tax. The same law applies to ordinary working people, but they’re not able to afford the lawyer to exploit it. Less likely is that Cummings used his position to exert influence on the VAO. Either way it looks like one rule for ordinary working people, and another for the rich - if you’re an ordinary working person.

[dsr]

Ordinary working people are unable to hide their extensions, or other un-permissioned builds. Maybe you can provide a link of an ordinary working person who has got away with building something without first getting planning permission? Even among the wealthy, it’s unusual for people to not get planning permission. What does that say about the character of those who don’t?

I could provide a link of someone building an extension without planning permission and getting away with it, but he wouldn't thank me for doing so.

Complaining that rich people can hide their extension is pure class envy. "It's not fair, he's got a bigger house than me". Deal with it. By all means complain about the character of the Cummingses, but leave out the "I hate the rich, I hate the Tories" agenda because it sounds a bit pathetic.

[martin_p]

I could provide a link of someone building an extension without planning permission and getting away with it, but he wouldn't thank me for doing so.

Complaining that rich people can hide their extension is pure class envy. "It's not fair, he's got a bigger house than me". Deal with it. By all means complain about the character of the Cummingses, but leave out the "I hate the rich, I hate the Tories" agenda because it sounds a bit pathetic.

But it’s not the planning permission that’s the main point here surely. It’s that he’s escaped paying council tax on a property equating to approximately £50k. I don’t know what the time limit is on paying back taxes, but whatever it is he should be paying whatever the council tax should have been over how ever long they’re allowed to go back.

It seems that two wrongs equal a right for Dominic Cummings at least.

[RMutt]

I could provide a link of someone building an extension without planning permission and getting away with it, but he wouldn't thank me for doing so.

Complaining that rich people can hide their extension is pure class envy. "It's not fair, he's got a bigger house than me". Deal with it. By all means complain about the character of the Cummingses, but leave out the "I hate the rich, I hate the Tories" agenda because it sounds a bit pathetic.
[/
I think the use of the word ‘envy’ in discussions such as this often says more about the person using it than it does the target. It’s as if, for some they can only see the argument through the lens of competition, everything boils down to the keeping up with the Jones’ mentality that plagues modern life. Is it not possible to see that some don’t care that much about having what others have? But that what is being argued is the unfairness, the lack of parity in the decision making. I’m not envious of Cummings’ or his ilk’s lifestyle, I’m perfectly happy with my own, but I do get angry when there is a lack of consistency that appears to favour one over another. And when the avoided tax could help others it’s galling that a section of society are able to get away with it so easily.

[AndrewJB]

I could provide a link of someone building an extension without planning permission and getting away with it, but he wouldn't thank me for doing so.

Complaining that rich people can hide their extension is pure class envy. "It's not fair, he's got a bigger house than me". Deal with it. By all means complain about the character of the Cummingses, but leave out the "I hate the rich, I hate the Tories" agenda because it sounds a bit pathetic.

I don’t recall ever saying I hate the rich. And I’ve never complained that someone has a bigger house than me. In fact there’s nothing in anything I’ve ever written that is motivated by envy. It’s odd that you’d even make such an accusation.

Going back to the question at hand, what is the point of having rules that some people are able to avoid? They either apply to everyone, or we have a dysfunctional system.

[Rowls]

Have you never heard of retrospective planning permission? It’s not uncommon.

Neither is it illegal.

[martin_p]

Neither is it illegal.

It doesn’t seem they’ve applied for it and I guess they don’t need to as the building has been there too long now. But this is defection, it’s the fact no one has paid council tax on the additional properties and are not being asked to that is the scandal.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Have we established beyond doubt who's liable for the council tax yet or are we still throwing it around?

Also, any chance of proof that Cummings has been let off because of who he is?

Isn't there a statute of limitations on how far back they can go in regards to demanding money?

[aggi]

The law about planning permission is that if the new build is there for 10 years, it is allowed to stay. In some cases, 5 years. A farmer not that long ago built a house and surrounded it by hay bales to try and hide it for the relevant time, but it was spotted and he had to pull it down.

Now, you may be right that "ordinary working people" aren't covered by this law. In which case, perhaps you would provide the link to the relevant law, or else provide a case where someone got done after date because he was an "ordinary working person".

That's an entirely separate point to the council tax issue that is being discussed though.

[martin_p]

Isn't there a statute of limitations on how far back they can go in regards to demanding money?

Quite possibly, but I’m fairly sure it won’t be zero years, zero months and zero days which is what has happened in this case.

[aggi]

Neither is it illegal.

Planning permission issues aren't. Failure to notify of circumstances prompting a change in council tax liability technically is. Something like 6 years in prison if done fraudulently and a year if not. (Obviously those only get applied in the most egregious of circumstances but it does give an idea of the measure of the offence.)

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Quite possibly, but I’m fairly sure it won’t be zero years, zero months and zero days which is what has happened in this case.

If it hasn't been declared as legally allowed to remain until very recently, then how can they chase council tax for it?
Or am I missing something here?

[martin_p]

If it hasn't been declared as legally allowed to remain until very recently, then how can they chase council tax for it?
Or am I missing something here?

It hasn’t been declared as anything, as mentioned by others time has run out to do anything about the new houses. They were built without planning permission but now it’s too late for the council to refuse it or knock the houses down. They still haven’t got planning permission, they just don’t need it.

[aggi]

Quite possibly, but I’m fairly sure it won’t be zero years, zero months and zero days which is what has happened in this case.

From what I remember council tax is a weird one and the initial demand doesn't have a limitation. After the demand has been made then there is a six year limitation period (subject to rules around if payment has commenced).

There are further rules by county as well though depending on what they've put in place. I read up on it a while ago and it was complicated. The minimum is six years though.

[martin_p]

Duplicate

[aggi]

Anyway, more on Brexit job creation:

Britain's new border form-fillers (50,000, apparently) will be more numerous than the entire staff of the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council combined (about 43,000).

(Admittedly it seems that the EU as a whole employs about 55k so there's a target for us to overtake.)

[Devils_Advocate]

A proud nation of form fillers

[AndrewJB]

A proud nation of form fillers

The party of bureaucracy, and red tape.

[TheFamilyCat]

Anyway, more on Brexit job creation:

Britain's new border form-fillers (50,000, apparently) will be more numerous than the entire staff of the European Commission, European Parliament and European Council combined (about 43,000).

(Admittedly it seems that the EU as a whole employs about 55k so there's a target for us to overtake.)

Have Serco been given the contract for form filling?