Donate to The Hub – Ireland

All donations,
will help us help you.
Thank you.
Get the Hub Ireland App FREE

 Download The Hub Ireland App

Free for Android and IOS

Rateable Value

A Lacuna in Law

You can’t appeal a case stated: well you can’t unless you are PTSB and the case is of public interest: and now the Attorney General is onboard: her reasons are here:   AG submissions

The Con Job: in layman’s terms;

The Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court using Rateable Value by the Plaintiff exposed a Lacuna in the law. The use of a Rateable Valuation Certificate is summed up by Justice Murphy in the Bank of Ireland V Laura Flannegan & Christopher Ward 2014/88CA: “It appears to the Court on the evidence, that the plaintiff and others have devised and used an ad hoc non-statutory process which is devoid of legal effect, for the purpose of persuading the Circuit Court that it has a jurisdiction which it does not in fact enjoy.

 

This is a matter of serious concern to the Court. The standard letter issued by the Valuation Office in this and other cases may be derived from the type of letter issued by them in respect of rateable properties such as off licences which are in the process of being valued, but the fact is that the content of these letters, however unintentional, is misleading when applied to domestic premises.

 

The letter states “I refer to your application for a certificate showing the rateable valuation for the above property. I regret that I am unable to issue such a certificate as the property is not as yet valued for rating purposes”. The clear import of the terminology used is that the property is rateable but not yet rated, when as the Valuation Office well knows, the property is by virtue of the Act not rateable at all. In so far as this practice may be ongoing it should cease forthwith”.

 

And in all events we further say that it is your family home; it is not commercial and has no place in a commercial court.

And it is not a premises.

 

There are no Rates on domestic properties:

 

The Lending Institutions claiming the Jurisdiction of Rateable Value and initiating the case in the Circuit Court is misleading the Court and has effectively stripped everybody of asserting their rights under the Convention on Human Rights, to include Fundamental Freedoms under the Charter of Human Rights; the Irish Constitution and the Lisbon Treaty by entering into this Quasie Judicial Commercial Court!

 

It is likewise with the Eviction Bill 2013; there is no Jurisdiction within the Circuit Courts for those who are home makers and home owners. That is to say; our homes are not classed as commercial property. Therefore the conclusion must be that the Land and Conveyancing Act of 2013 can be compared to a “sticky plaster” intending to cover the 2009 Act the 1961 and the Act of 1961 which is based on Rateable Value at a minimum level.

 

The Lending Institutions could be seen as to be misleading the Courts into believing that the property in question (a domestic dwelling) is automatically a “commercial property”

They also claim that the property is a Principal Private Residence. (PPR)

As the place where you reside, the property is your permanent place of abode, your ‘sole dwelling’, your ‘home’.

 

The term Principal Private Residence is a hierarchical one; it is not possible to apply this unambiguous term   to a person’s only dwelling and family home unless a non-principal private residence co-exists simultaneously and is demonstrably in use as a secondary place of residence.

The term Principle Private Residence is also derived from the language of tax insolvency, and not pertaining to civil law.

 

The claims made by the Lending Institutions as to the nature or quality of my family home and the designation of that home as a commercial venture is obviously unfounded and unsupported by any factual evidence that is put before the Circuit Court.

 

By the Lending Institution claiming that the property is of a commercial nature, it immediately puts the defendant at a disadvantage of seeking due process, as it denies them any housing rights as addressed in the European Social Charter (1961) and Revised Charter (RESC) (1996): Article 8 – fair procedures. A commercial court is not required to deal with such rights, as the court is not domestic or pertaining to human rights. Put simply, commercial courts deal with the nature of business transactions not human rights issues.

The absence of any opportunity to defend Summary Possession Proceedings, which would result in homelessness was found to be in breach of Article 8 in Connors v UK in 2004 and that a the Civil Bill for Possession through the Circuit Court is a Summary Summons: but the Circuit Court has no Jurisdiction.

 

The Lending Institution is misleading the Court: by virtue of bringing legal action before the Circuit Court and on a Summary Summons: however misguided:

 

The Lending Institutions and Banks are misleading the Court by suggesting that that certain properties being of a commercial nature, when in fact they are not. However, in some instances the Court may have to consider certain “fundamental rights” under consumer law as set out in the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and as guaranteed in the 1993 European directive on unfair terms in consumer contracts.

In addition, the question of whether the repossession would be a “proportionate” remedy under the Circuit Courts own remit, is for up for discussion. There has been recent public criticism that County Registrars and Circuit Court Judges may have been failing in their role as “agents” of the EU. As agents of the EU the Circuit Court is obliged, of her own motion to take into account that the Circuit Court does not err in law, which it is a concern of The Hub – Ireland.

It may emerge that the majority all of all Eviction Orders are Void, and not worth the paper they written on.

 

It is now becoming evident that many people in court facing a possession order of their home did not sign form 1a to enlarge the Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

 

By not signing this form the Bank did not gain Jurisdiction.

Also, by not filing the circuit court form 1a, statutory instrument 312 of 2007, circuit court rules (general) 2007; many people did not confirm and thus, did not give consent to enlarge the Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court.

 

On foot of this, the Lending Institutions have no Locus Standi in the Circuit Court.

Everybody in court needs to challenge this point, and needs to bring it to the attention of their elected members:

They are the Government, and they have not helped to sort the mess out, other than applying yet another new sticky plaster called the 2016 Courts Bill!

 

We can only give you our opinion and the tools to go forward: please use them.

 

The case is now before the Supreme Court under the title “PUBLIC INTEREST”.

 

One has to wonder why!

 

PTSB V Langan

 

: End of update.

 

**********

I think everyone is missing the point on the subject of Rateable Value and the Courts Jurisdiction:

Rateable Value Ruling of Mr Justice Gerard Hogan made the 28th July 2016

The second win in two days: Gorse Hill eviction NOT

The must read Ireland in the World Order

Ireland-in-the-world-order

The Circuit Court is a court of limited and local jurisdiction. The work can be divided into four main areas: civil, criminal, family law and jury service. The Circuit Court sits in venues in each circuit. Sittings vary in length from one day to three weeks and are generally held every 2 to 4 months in each venue in the circuit. Dublin and Cork have continual sittings throughout each legal term.

Civil business

The civil jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is a limited one unless all parties to an action consent, in which event the jurisdiction is unlimited. The limit of the court’s jurisdiction relates mainly to actions where the claim does not exceed €75,000 and the rateable valuation of land does not exceed €253.95.

 

The above is the Circuit Court Jurisdiction and you will note the word ‘land’. Every so called proof coming out of the Valuations Office states ‘Property’ and that’s the smoking mirror.

 

If you revert back to the letter 12th June 2015:

Letters 1 & 2:

  1. Is the property number xyz rateable: Valuations Office answer: no, the property number xyz is not rateable.
  2. Has the property xyz been rated: Valuations Office answer: property number xyz has not been rated since pre 1977.
  3. If the property number xyz has been rated, is it still rateable: Valuations Office answer: rates were abolished on DOMESTIC property since 1977.
  4. If property number xyz is not now rateable, when did the rateable value cease: Valuations Office answer: Rates ceased on domestic property in 1977.

55555 123

So that is that established. Letters 1 & 2 kind of closes the book on rateable valuations, however the legal eagles are not willing to back down; the simplest thing would be to pull the case and reissue using the Eviction Bill; but they are not. I feel that they are aragant enough to wish to fight and win on the grounds that we would not be allowed to win

 

Letter 3 the determination is that the property is valued at €17.48, it says property circuit court Jurisdiction is LAND.

img025

Letter 4 is the most common used and the one highlighted by Justice Murphy: it uses ‘However, if’…………… ‘Had been’…… and ‘would not have exceeded’.

Play on words; but again the word is premises not land.

JackJohn

Letter 5 is interesting; it is a valuations report and shows no baring on the valuation but shows the value at: Gross €223,000. so they would have shot themselves in the foot.

 

Letter 6 is again Secured Property and quotes “relies on the rateable valuation”:: valuation of what, land or property?? Again playing with words.

img023

Letter 7 is most interesting, are the Valuations Office starting to back peddle? When the Solicitor in the UK saw this he said “I can’t see what’s in the box, it does not relates to the page”…….. and does that prove what the freemen of the land been saying????

img026

Rateable Valuation or no rateable valuation

 

Justice Murphy in here summing up makes it quite clear:

  1. It appears to the Court on the evidence, that the plaintiff and

others have devised and used an ad hoc non-statutory process which is

devoid of legal effect, for the purpose of persuading the Circuit

Court that it has a jurisdiction which it does not in fact enjoy. This

is a matter of serious concern to the Court. The standard letter

issued by the Valuation Office in this and other cases may be derived

from the type of letter issued by them in respect of rateable

properties such as off licences which are in the process of being

valued, but the fact is that the content of these letters, however

unintentional, is misleading when applied to domestic premises. The

letter states “I refer to your application for a certificate showing

the rateable valuation for the above property. I regret that I am

unable to issue such a certificate as the property is not as yet

valued for rating purposes”. The clear import of the terminology used

is that the property is rateable but not yet rated, when as the

Valuation Office well knows, the property is by virtue of the Act not

rateable at all. In so far as this practice may be ongoing it should

cease forthwith.

Giving no ground:

To us, it is very clear from the above; there is no contest and even the Justice Noonan seems to boil down to putting a value on zero, at the end of the day, if you strip out the gobbledygook.

 

Solicitors are not backing down, withdrawing the cases and resubmitting, why? How many homes have been taken just using the Rateable Value as the only Jurisdiction ??

 

The amount of families taking their homes back and counter claiming would be a small tidal wave, the implications of a win here is huge and a time bomb in the making.

 

So far we have the Justice Murphy ruling; Justice Noonan’s judgement; Judge White giving his opinion last week; a Cork Circuit Court Judge stating that he has no Jurisdiction to hear the case and it must go to the High Court: A Kerry Judge making an Order that the Plaintiff does not have Jurisdiction and refusing the motion to amend the Civil Bill; two Registrar’s refusing the Motion to amend the Civil Bill: one stating that the Civil Bill being held up by the Solicitor did not exist as it was flawed and therefore could not be amended.

 

 

 

It appears to the Court on the evidence, that the plaintiff and
others have devised and used an ad hoc non-statutory process which is
devoid of legal effect, for the purpose of persuading the Circuit
Court that it has a jurisdiction which it does not in fact enjoy. This is a matter of serious concern to the Court. The standard letter
issued by the Valuation Office in this and other cases may be derived
from the type of letter issued by them in respect of rateable
properties such as off licences which are in the process of being
valued, but the fact is that the content of these letters, however
unintentional, is misleading when applied to domestic premises. The
letter states “I refer to your application for a certificate showing
the rateable valuation for the above property. I regret that I am
unable to issue such a certificate as the property is not as yet
valued for rating purposes”. The clear import of the terminology used
is that the property is rateable but not yet rated, when as the
Valuation Office well knows, the property is by virtue of the Act not
rateable at all. In so far as this practice may be ongoing it should
cease forthwith.

Case Stated

36. Council for the plaintiff requested the Court to state a case to
the Supreme Court on the issue of jurisdiction. The Court is conscious that this is a Circuit Appeal and that therefore its decision is final. Were the Court in any doubt as to the applicable law, the Court would readily accede to such an application, however, the Court is satisfied that the law is as set out herein and therefore declines the plaintiff’s application for a case stated.

The High Court Case

beware-the-banksters

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

19

135.