Customize

Judicial Review for London rates relief

Discussion in 'Scientology Property Tax' started by Anonymous, Oct 7, 2010.

  1. Anonymous Member

    Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Proposed claim for judicial review


    To

    City of London, Guildhall, PO Box 270, London, EC2P 2EJ


    The claimant

    Roland <insert surname> of <insert address>


    Reference details

    146 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4BY
    Mandatory relief from national non-domestic rates


    The details of the matter being challenged

    The decision to grant mandatory relief from national non-domestic rates to Church of Scientology Religious Education College Incorporated ('COSREC') at 146 Queen Victoria Street, London, EC4V 4BY.


    The issue

    City of London has erred in the above decision, because:

    * CoL is confused over COSREC's claim of religious status; if there is no public benefit then it makes no difference whether COSREC a religion or not.

    * CoL has ignored the Charity Commission's statement that COSREC is not 'for public benefit'.

    * COSREC has falsely claimed to CoL that it is a South Australian charity, and CoL has not checked on this. As COSREC is not a charity in any jurisdiction, its argument that foreign charities should be treated identically to UK charities is entirely irrelevant.

    * CoL has wrongly taken into account the risk of costly litigation, when this should not be a factor in deciding whether to grant mandatory relief from business rates.

    * In calculating the potential risk of costly litigation versus the benefit to the taxpayer of denying mandatory relief, CoL has erred in taking into account only one year of mandatory relief.


    The details of the action that the defendant is expected to take

    As proposed to the Finance Committee on 27 September 2010, "appoint an independent assessor to carry out a further review of public benefit delivered by COSREC to inform a future decision on whether to confirm or deny COSREC’s entitlement" to mandatory relief.


    The details of the legal advisers, if any, dealing with this claim

    The appointment of legal advisors is pending, awaiting CoL's response to this letter of claim.


    The details of any interested parties

    CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY RELIGIOUS EDUCATION COLLEGE INCORPORATED
    18 WAYMOUTH STREET
    ADELAIDE
    SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5000
    AUSTRALIA
    Company No. FC009154

    <NB - need to send them a copy of this letter>


    The details of any information sought

    The reasons behind CoL's first and second decisions on this issue, in both of which cases the decision was to deny mandatory relief.



    The details of any documents that are considered relevant and necessary

    <Are there any more documents that we want? We have most things now I think>



    The address for reply and service of court documents

    <Roland's address>



    Proposed reply date

    <14 days from the date of sending>


    --------------------------------------------------------------

    Edits and suggestions are welcome.

    This has to meet a very specific legal format (part of the 'pre-action protocol for judicial review' laid out here: Pre-Action Protocol for Judicial Review - Ministry of Justice ) so don't fuck with the format please.

    - WT
  2. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    What we REALLY want is CoL to 'refuse any further mandatory rate relief to COSREC' maybe even 'claw' back all or at least some of the rate relief the CoS got given in error or do the above.


    Don't we want the Background Papers from this doc?

    Esco Text Retrieval System
  3. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    My name and address:

    Roland Rashleigh-Berry
    Gerbergasse 5
    Biberach/Riss 88400
    Germany

    We need to be very focussed on this judical review thing. It is not to do with local authorities making poor decisions. It is all to do with process. We all KNOW that they got it wrong but that is not enough. The courts are not there to overturn stupid decisions. We need to establish that they DID it wrong.

    The Law Explored: judicial review - Times Online
  4. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    OK, so what aspects of the process are we saying were done wrong (apart from those above)?

    * they should have acted to check COSREC's claims and not just taken them at face value

    anything else?
  5. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Also, it is not clear from the above which decision we are complaining about. Was it the initial decision to grant rates relief or the decision to extend it. I would say that it should be the decision to extend it that was made recently.
  6. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    CoL should not of ignored the the CLEAR statement by the CC


    Other developments

    10. The Charity Commission responded in November, 2009, that their decision of 1999 in respect of the Church of Scientology remains valid and that they maintain the same view about COSREC i.e. that it is not established for charitable purposes or for the public benefit.



    Why not both the initial decision + the decision to continue giving CoS rates relief?
  7. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Because the latest decision is easier one to overturn and it would be me sticking my neck out. Also, there is normally a time limit of three months from this decision being made.

    In the extension of mandatory rates then all the issues that should have been properly considered at the initial granting should have been freshly reconsidered so those reasons can mostly still be used.
  8. RolandRB Member

  9. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    The initial decision was under a different (and more restrictive) Charities Act .

    If we want to argue that the past 3 (4?) years of relief should be clawed back then we need to challenge the initial decision, not just the latest renewal.

    Are you sure about this 3 month time limit? docs?

    Why would the recent decision be easier to overturn?

    Would it increase your exposure? I'm not sure I see how it makes any difference.
  10. Anonymous Member

  11. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    I only want my name used to challenge their recent decision. It is too late to challenge the initial decision. Read the docs in the links I gave and you will see this three month time limit.

    Edit: Yes, it would be nice to claw back the rates they should have paid but it is better to attack their latest decision to extend it and just stop more money coming in.
  12. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    right.

    I'm not sure that Roland has "standing" if he's not a UK tax payer.
  13. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Possibly not. I have not been a UK tax payer for many years and have been officially a resident of Germany and before that Switzerland and before that Germany and a tax payer of those countries over that time period for many years.

    Edit: No - I have no standing in this on further reading.
  14. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Any UK volunteers?
  15. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Better still, any volunteers who are UK resident and skint or better still on the dole or incapacity benefit or in receipt of state aid of some kind because then they can get legal aid for this action.
  16. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    ooo, can they?

    docs pls?
  17. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Could ask one of the OG's?

    Hartley P?
    John something?
    Jensting?
    Tony Yarwood?
    Manc Tony?
    Bonne Woods? (maybe)
  18. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    "OG's"?
  19. RolandRB Member

  20. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    No, because of the legal costs it is better to use somebody who will easily get legal aid.
  21. Anonymous Member

  22. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    OG's - Old gaurd
  23. Sponge Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    The original decision was based on the information in scientology's application being truthful. We're back to the COSRECI issue. It was never an established charity in South Australia, which the cult later admitted and is cited officially by lack of such recognition in any Australian registration or tax authority. i.e. they lied in the application. So, IMO, it would be foolish not to recommend a clawback.
  24. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief


    All its says about legal aid.
  25. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    True, but then you report them for fraud (which I already did).

    The initial decision to grant mandatory rates relief was made four years ago. It was known about and nobody chasllenged the decision so the three month time limit is long gone. But the decision to continue to extend it is very recent and so that should be the target.
  26. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief


    If their decision gets quashed and they stop the mandatory rates then you challenge their new decision in stopping mandatory rates in that they did not ask for back rates. One thing at a time.
  27. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    But we still need a UK person to be the complainant.
  28. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Yes, but it has to be somebody who can get legal aid. A dolee or somebody on incapacity benefit or even a student.
  29. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    guys? folks? people? bit of help here?

    cat-halp-1-1.jpg?w=347&amp;h=364.jpg
  30. Anonymous Member

  31. RolandRB Member

  32. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Does anyone know who the guy is or how to get hold of him?
  33. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    I'll work on this this weekend. It will take me all weekend. There are plenty of stupid things in this case and stupid paths people have gone down for no reason and stupid analogies drawn where they have no place but this is not about people being stupid and incompetent. That is the social norm not only in local government but central government as well. We hear the results of this on the news daily. Judicial review is not there to save us from the actions of morons, because morons at every level are a part of society and something we have to work alongside with, but instead it is there to save us from people who did not follow proper and reasonable steps in coming to their decision.

    Let me work on that. I'll come up with something that can not be argued against.

    But what we desperately need now in the UK is somebody to front this and this person must be eligible for legal aid. It will be no risk to them and we will have to guarantee this somehow but they have to be a person entitled to legal aid. A dolee or a person on incapacity benefit, perhaps. A student trying to survive on a student grant. A retired person eeking out an existance purely on a state pension.

    I'll do the legal work but we need to find a front person who, I will stress again, will not be subjected to any financial risk because we will have to make damned sure they are not.

    I'll handle the legal arguments. Somebody else needs to find our front man/woman.
  34. theLastAnon Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    I've not read all of this, but don't you need a London resident not just a UK resident to have standing?

    What about William Thackery? Is he in London?

    Or an outed Anon willing to take it on?

    Just thoughts.
  35. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief


    Would WT want to out himself?
  36. theLastAnon Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    No Idea. Just throwing it out there as he has been active in other matters on the legal side of things.
  37. Anonymous Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    Any of these guys would fit what we need

    Hartley P
    John something?
    Jensting?
    Tony Yarwood?
    Manc Tony?
    Bonnie Woods? (maybe)
  38. Bluebell Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    What kind of time frame do we have till this has to be sent?
  39. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    One more time now.............

    .......THEY NEED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR LEGAL AID
  40. RolandRB Member

    Re: Judicial Review for London rates relief

    We need our man/woman in two weeks maximum I reckon for all the practicalities involved. By the end of the weekend would be better.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins