Curb HMRC Powers (and the way they use them)

HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).

The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?

If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.

The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.

Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.

What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.

It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.

Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.

Why is this idea important?

HMRC have a remit to search for people in positions of authority and to make examples of them as a lesson to future tax evaders (Dave Hartnett Acting Chairman HMRC, House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, 11th June 2008).

The fact that Tax Agents and Lawyers earn a living giving tax advice to clients and interpreting the cheapest way of having their clients pay the right amount of tax, is it not very dangerous when HMRC can arrest people in those positions for doing just that?

If HMRC arrest a tax adviser then HMRC must expect the tax advisers business will suffer, if not fail, as a result of the arrest and in a fairly short period of time. At the same time the investigation into the tax adviser can take anything up to two years with a very good possibility of no charges being made in the end.

The result would be the forced closure of a business by HMRC with no legal redress as it is unlikely that the owner will have the funds to mount any legal action.

Whilst the arrest of the individual is often just for the day whilst bail is organised, the sentence is one which hangs over that business destroying its ability to continue trading for as long as the investigation is on going.

What is even worse is that currently whilst the individual may have been arrested, HMRC only have to say what it is they are being accused of if they choose to raise charges. One could be arrested, released and have your business taken away from you and be none the wiser as to why. If this isn't a recipe for a bit of abuse of power I don't know what is.

It reminds me of an old judicial process we had of the use of the ducking stool. If they drown then they are innocent if they survive then they are guilty and should be burnt at the stake.

Are we not a little more developed than that? Obviously not.

High Court Enforcement for Business Owners Houses

High court enforcement officer must not be allowed to enter a person's house without their lawyer being present and 30 day's notice and highlighting that receipts for all goods in their house should be presented – or preferably the defendant/owners ability to move all their company's goods into storage for their seizure first.

At present an enforcement officer can suddenly turn up to you're house if he can prove you've done ANY business work there and demand you show receipts for everything in the house (unrealistic of course when caught on the spot)…  it was enough to make my Mother pawn all her rings to get rid of him (I was in my twenties, living from home being allowed by my parents to still live at home – my parents had nothing to do with the company but they were targetted)… DISGUSTING.

Why is this idea important?

High court enforcement officer must not be allowed to enter a person's house without their lawyer being present and 30 day's notice and highlighting that receipts for all goods in their house should be presented – or preferably the defendant/owners ability to move all their company's goods into storage for their seizure first.

At present an enforcement officer can suddenly turn up to you're house if he can prove you've done ANY business work there and demand you show receipts for everything in the house (unrealistic of course when caught on the spot)…  it was enough to make my Mother pawn all her rings to get rid of him (I was in my twenties, living from home being allowed by my parents to still live at home – my parents had nothing to do with the company but they were targetted)… DISGUSTING.

Remove notification, compliance and licensing for landlords

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the requirement to notify and license so called HMOs.

Reinvigorate local authority selectivity for rentals for which it pays, but only those for which it pays.

Allow consenting adults to share a dwelling up to it legal maximum capacity if they so wish without bringing in the extra layers of bureaucracy associated with HMO definitions.

Allow Own Electrical DIY

Recent laws make it illegal to do any electrical DIY more complex than changing a plug. A qualified electrician must be used.

A full time Electrical Engineeers who designs missile systems would not be allowed to add a simple junction box or change a one way light swich for a 2 way one. Likewise someone with a science degree. Or a garage mechanic who specialises in car electrics.

This is absurd and out of all proportion to the number of actual accidents over the past 10 years.

In fact it is nothing more than back door closed shop rules and restraint of trade.

Why is this idea important?

Recent laws make it illegal to do any electrical DIY more complex than changing a plug. A qualified electrician must be used.

A full time Electrical Engineeers who designs missile systems would not be allowed to add a simple junction box or change a one way light swich for a 2 way one. Likewise someone with a science degree. Or a garage mechanic who specialises in car electrics.

This is absurd and out of all proportion to the number of actual accidents over the past 10 years.

In fact it is nothing more than back door closed shop rules and restraint of trade.

London Pigsty

'If you live in London you aren't allowed to keep a pigsty in front of your home'

This is a discrace forcing pigs to live in back gardens; or worse, on the streets.

Why is it that a fellow countryman in Blackpool can keep his or her pig any where on his or her property he or she likes and yet I am discrimanated against because I live in London?

Not good enough….

Why is this idea important?

'If you live in London you aren't allowed to keep a pigsty in front of your home'

This is a discrace forcing pigs to live in back gardens; or worse, on the streets.

Why is it that a fellow countryman in Blackpool can keep his or her pig any where on his or her property he or she likes and yet I am discrimanated against because I live in London?

Not good enough….

Central Heating boilers

Thanks to the previous government, all new boilers fitted in the UK now have to be energy-efficient condensing boilers.

Since this came into effect I have noticed the following drawbacks raised by people getting new boilers via various messageboards & news comment websites.

 

  • Quotes of between £1200 to £5000 to fit the new boilers, depending on how much work needs to be done.
  • The new design boilers required by law only last 8yrs compared to around 25yrs for a conventional boiler.
  • At least one report seen in the comments section of a news website of someone not being able to use their Central Heating for several days during the extreme winter of 2009/2010 because the outlet pipe for their condensing boiler had frozen up (defeats the point of having a boiler somewhat I'd say).
  • Another report I heard involved a couple in London losing the use of the food cupboard in their already cramped kitchen because that's where their social housing landlord wanted to stick their new boiler.

Why is this idea important?

Thanks to the previous government, all new boilers fitted in the UK now have to be energy-efficient condensing boilers.

Since this came into effect I have noticed the following drawbacks raised by people getting new boilers via various messageboards & news comment websites.

 

  • Quotes of between £1200 to £5000 to fit the new boilers, depending on how much work needs to be done.
  • The new design boilers required by law only last 8yrs compared to around 25yrs for a conventional boiler.
  • At least one report seen in the comments section of a news website of someone not being able to use their Central Heating for several days during the extreme winter of 2009/2010 because the outlet pipe for their condensing boiler had frozen up (defeats the point of having a boiler somewhat I'd say).
  • Another report I heard involved a couple in London losing the use of the food cupboard in their already cramped kitchen because that's where their social housing landlord wanted to stick their new boiler.

Repeal of forcible entry and force against persons by bailiffs

End bailiffs powers to break in and use force against debtors and fine defaulters. 

We are seeking a return to the peaceful enforcement of fines by bailiffs who have been able to break to people's homes since March 2006 when the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 came into force. Very dangerous powers also exist in the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which allow bailiffs to break in to enforce all civil debts and to use force against the debtor or fine defaulter but they are not yet in force. These perverse laws should be removed in a Great Repeal Bill.  

Why is this idea important?

End bailiffs powers to break in and use force against debtors and fine defaulters. 

We are seeking a return to the peaceful enforcement of fines by bailiffs who have been able to break to people's homes since March 2006 when the Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004 came into force. Very dangerous powers also exist in the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 which allow bailiffs to break in to enforce all civil debts and to use force against the debtor or fine defaulter but they are not yet in force. These perverse laws should be removed in a Great Repeal Bill.  

Why do we owe a duty of care to people who break in to our homes?

I believe that we should scrap the duty of care laws in relation to people who have broken in to our homes. If somebody is trying to steal anything from my property and they injure themselves why is that my fault? They should not have been there in the first place and if they get into my home and I defend my family by using force why is it possible for the intruder to sue me. These laws are ridiculous.

If somebody who has broken into a persons property tries to bring a prosecution against the owner of the property either civil or criminal then they should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time. This would soon stop these criminals from profiting from homeowners even if they were unsuccesful in stealing from them but got injured either entering or leaving the property. Where are the rights of the homeowners? It is said that an Englishmans home is his castle and castle's were designed to repel people from entering them so why are we not allowed to do the same. If somebody breaks into my home and I catch them am I supposed to wave them out of the front door and say be careful how you go I wouldn't want you getting injured or should I be allowed to defend my family and property in any way I deem fit.

Why is this idea important?

I believe that we should scrap the duty of care laws in relation to people who have broken in to our homes. If somebody is trying to steal anything from my property and they injure themselves why is that my fault? They should not have been there in the first place and if they get into my home and I defend my family by using force why is it possible for the intruder to sue me. These laws are ridiculous.

If somebody who has broken into a persons property tries to bring a prosecution against the owner of the property either civil or criminal then they should be prosecuted for wasting the courts time. This would soon stop these criminals from profiting from homeowners even if they were unsuccesful in stealing from them but got injured either entering or leaving the property. Where are the rights of the homeowners? It is said that an Englishmans home is his castle and castle's were designed to repel people from entering them so why are we not allowed to do the same. If somebody breaks into my home and I catch them am I supposed to wave them out of the front door and say be careful how you go I wouldn't want you getting injured or should I be allowed to defend my family and property in any way I deem fit.

An Englishmans Home is his Castle

The idea is to replace the multitude of rules, regulations and statutory instruments that allow a multitude of public and quasi-public officials to make entry to a private home with a single system that requires a court warrant to be issued by a judge.

The sole exception to this would be for the emergency services who would have to assure themselves that there was an immediate credible risk to life or property if access was not achieved.

There is a good paper on this issue http://www.jessenorman.com/downloads/Crossing-The-Threshold.pdf

Why is this idea important?

The idea is to replace the multitude of rules, regulations and statutory instruments that allow a multitude of public and quasi-public officials to make entry to a private home with a single system that requires a court warrant to be issued by a judge.

The sole exception to this would be for the emergency services who would have to assure themselves that there was an immediate credible risk to life or property if access was not achieved.

There is a good paper on this issue http://www.jessenorman.com/downloads/Crossing-The-Threshold.pdf

Adopt the USA’s IVth Ammendment on Police Searching Your Home

The police should not be allowed to search homes without a magistrate's Warrant.They should not be allowed to enter a person's home on a false pretext and then ransack it in order to try and find something that has nothing to do with the supposed reason for entry.

Why is this idea important?

The police should not be allowed to search homes without a magistrate's Warrant.They should not be allowed to enter a person's home on a false pretext and then ransack it in order to try and find something that has nothing to do with the supposed reason for entry.

Change the Security Industry Authority appeal process.

Under current rules applicants have a 14 day window for a written appeal, and if still unhappy are given 14 days to apply to iether a magistrates or crown court. When my legal team applied to courts they were told that Magistrates and Judges are under strict rukes to uphold the SIA get licensed booklet, and as result of this are basically just rubber stamping the SIA decisions. With the Judges hands tied by SIA rules there is no unbiased, fully independant body an applicant can appeal to. It is totally against civil liberties, and an individualals right to work. The Judges and Magistrates should hear all appeals without being controlled by the Security Industry Authority.

Why is this idea important?

Under current rules applicants have a 14 day window for a written appeal, and if still unhappy are given 14 days to apply to iether a magistrates or crown court. When my legal team applied to courts they were told that Magistrates and Judges are under strict rukes to uphold the SIA get licensed booklet, and as result of this are basically just rubber stamping the SIA decisions. With the Judges hands tied by SIA rules there is no unbiased, fully independant body an applicant can appeal to. It is totally against civil liberties, and an individualals right to work. The Judges and Magistrates should hear all appeals without being controlled by the Security Industry Authority.

Make our home our castle again

Please remove the following laws which go against the english philosphy and democratic right that our home is our castle:

The sections in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 which give greater rights to bailiffs to make forced entries should be removed.

Why is this idea important?

Please remove the following laws which go against the english philosphy and democratic right that our home is our castle:

The sections in the Domestic Violence, Crime & Victims Act 2004 which give greater rights to bailiffs to make forced entries should be removed.