Common Law versus Statues – an answer to S24?

by Readers Question

18:04 PM, 11th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Common Law versus Statues – an answer to S24?

Make Text Bigger
Common Law versus Statues – an answer to S24?

Last night I googled ‘My Common Law Rights to earning a Living’ and came across this Beginners Guide to Common Law versus Statutes/Legislation and Acts of Parliament. Naïve as I am to the ways of government I had no idea how Statutes were used for the benefit of minority groups!common law

Common Law vs Statutes – Living by the Rule of Law

I appreciate it is not written by a solicitor but it poses a question……

Can a landlord refuse to consent to Section 24 on the grounds that the Statute is preventing him/her from earn a living in his/her chosen field of business? HMRC would take him/her to court whereupon s/he requests a Jury (I believe Common Law cases are taken to the Queen’s Bench) – which is his/her Right. The Jury, seeing the unfairness of the Statue will hopefully find him/her not guilty. As you will read, the Jury has the highest authority in the land (unless government has changed this since 2011!) and if the landlord is found not guilty then the Case overrules Section 24 and the Statute is no longer legal.

From my limited knowledge of Common Law it is my understanding that whilst in Court and being tried under Common Law the Prosecutor may try to trick the defendant into using terminology that immediately brings them under Statutory Rules and the case can be lost on those grounds therefore the landlord would need to be fully briefed in Common Law.

Is this a way forward? Who wants the job?

Jane

 



Comments

Tom Andrews

21:07 PM, 11th October 2016
About 2 years ago

It's a delusional freeman on the land argument and would only serve to further tarnish the name of landlords.

Imagine if one of your tenants tried this on with you.

Robert Mellors

8:58 AM, 12th October 2016
About 2 years ago

I thought a jury was only used in criminal law cases?
However, I am aware that a jury can bring in a verdict that is contrary to the statutory legislation (sometimes done in cannabis for medical use cases, where the jury believes that it would be unjust to imprison someone for taking a medicine that eases their suffering), this is sometimes referred to as a "perverse judgment", BUT, this does not make the legislation (statute) itself illegal or invalid. Thus, even in the unlikely event of a perverse judgement, the individual may not have to pay the s24 tax (for that particular tax year being claimed), but everyone else would still have to pay it. (and of course the next time a s24 tax is due the HMRC could take the same landlord to court and get a different verdict from a different jury).

Dr Rosalind Beck

9:09 AM, 12th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Hi Jane. Whether this is possible or not, I like your thinking. It's exactly this sort of lateral thinking that we need.

Luke P

10:15 AM, 12th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "12/10/2016 - 09:09":

Hear hear!

Adam Withford

10:27 AM, 12th October 2016
About 2 years ago

I am troubled with the idea (as we all are) that if there is no claiming (or in this case a reduced claim) of financial costs for the purpose of having a property rental business. How does one create the business? Are we all supposed to be buying with cash?

If there is a regulated financial industry which is specifically devoted to the supply of finances to the PRS, how can you say that the PRS business is not actually a business? Are there other businesses where their financial costs are only semi deductible?

AND if the non-deductible portion of the financial costs are incurring tax as income, how can HMRC tax the financial industry on it's income to the same proportion. That is double-taxing surely? It is not as if the financial costs are ancillary to the business like meals or magazines.

I just don't see how it is legal.

11:35 AM, 13th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "12/10/2016 - 09:09":

Thank you Dr Beck. It takes a bit of courage to throw a seemingly radical/naive suggestion into the Property118 arena but it's the only way to think outside the box and find a solution.

I live by this Chinese proverb - 'Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it.'

And I'm no radical - just someone who doesn't like bullies and will look under every stone for a way to get round or over a hurdle.

We all know that some of us are being prevented from earning a reasonable living in our chosen field (and/or creating a more reliable and manageable form of pension) due to these targeted tax rules when others are being allowed to continue in their trades deducting loan interest against their turnover. And we all know this is an unfair short-sighted government strategy with not a care for how it impacts on the people who put them in office (or didn't as the case may be).
If there is a little known Common Law that we can use to get the outcome we desire then why not find someone who is fully versed in Common Law to tell us either way? We won't know until we ask.

Does anyone know a creative lawyer who is fully conversant with Common Law?

Jane

Giles Peaker

21:23 PM, 13th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "PPM " at "13/10/2016 - 11:35":

I'm afraid you won't find a single actual solicitor or barrister who wouldn't laugh, or advise you very strongly not to even attempt such a thing because this stuff is nonsense, or more likely, do both.

Everything on that link is delusional gibberish.

Dr Rosalind Beck

22:24 PM, 13th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Giles Peaker" at "13/10/2016 - 21:23":

Please refrain from using insulting language. Actually, we are working on some alternative legal avenues behind the scenes at the moment and if we all just pooh-poohed ideas which people dare to put forward then no-one would ever come up with anything innovative.

Dr Rosalind Beck

22:25 PM, 13th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Giles Peaker" at "13/10/2016 - 21:23":

Please refrain from using insulting language. Actually, we are working on some alternative legal avenues behind the scenes at the moment and if we all just pooh-poohed ideas which people dare to put forward then no-one would ever come up with anything innovative.

Giles Peaker

22:32 PM, 13th October 2016
About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by "Dr Rosalind Beck" at "13/10/2016 - 22:25":

I did not insult any person. I was dismissive of the pseudo-legal nonsense on the linked site.

And those ideas are not 'a new avenue'. People have tried them repeatedly in UK courts over various issues. At best, they fail and lose the case. At worst, they have been imprisoned for contempt of court. These ideas have not been successful on any single occasion in court. This is because they are, quite simply, wrong.

1 2 3

Leave Comments

Please Log-In OR Become a member to reply to comments or subscribe to new comment notifications.

Forgotten your password?

OR

BECOME A MEMBER

HS2 accelerating Birmingham's potential into its grand future

The Landlords Union

Become a Member, it's FREE

Our mission is to facilitate the sharing of best practice amongst UK landlords, tenants and letting agents

Learn More