%20(1).svg)
Westminster Council committed procedural maladministration by:
Result: All enforcement actions are tainted and grounds exist for complete arrears write-off.
Westminster Council denied authorization for communications from authority@legaldueprocess.com when signed "Justice Minds Forensic Intelligence Ltd" despite three prior confirmations of the same email address.
This inconsistency is comparable to denying communication with Miss R Hay solely on the basis that the email signature differs from another name previously used on the same email address.
The procedural inconsistency is established by the evidence:
Westminster acknowledged and engaged with authority@legaldueprocess.com when signed "Ben Mak" but denied authorization when the same email address signed as "Justice Minds Forensic Intelligence Ltd"
Evidence demonstrating procedural inconsistency:
This conduct demonstrates procedural inconsistency inconsistent with legitimate authorization protocols.
Timeline of Harm:
Within 10 hours of receiving explicit vulnerability disclosure and formal legal notice, Westminster escalated enforcement pressure at 9:00 PM.
This demonstrates:
| Date | Event (6-Word Summary) |
|---|---|
| 22 Mar 2023 | Westminster sends enforcement demand directly you. |
| 19 Jan 2024 | Capita repeats arrears warning to you. |
| 31 Jan 2024 | They process your exemption request directly. |
| 31 Jan 2024 | Confirmation email acknowledges your submitted details. |
| 27 Feb 2025 | Anthony confirms authority email on record. |
| 14 Jul 2025 | Rebecca confirms authority address matches system. |
| 27 Aug 2025 | James confirms authority email already registered. |
| 24 Oct 2025 | You disclose homelessness, vulnerability, risk indicators. |
| 24 Oct 2025 | Westminster receives allegations, engages without objection. |
| 23 Oct 2025 | Secure Forcepoint message sent to you. |
| 12 Nov 2025 | Suddenly claim you're unauthorized on account. |
| 13 Nov 2025 | You challenge contradiction in their response. |
Three confirmations followed by false denial = tainted enforcement trail requiring arrears write-off.
Given this matter is now subject to High Court proceedings, and based on documented maladministration, procedural inconsistency, vulnerability handling failures, and enforcement activity that breached Housing Act and Equality Act duties, we advise Westminster Council to clear the outstanding Council Tax balance. Additionally, Mr Mak was a student during the relevant period and is entitled to compensation of £3,000 for the consistent aversion of his disclosed vulnerability.
This documentation establishes clear grounds for clearance. Council tax clearance is the most common outcome in settlements involving:
All five factors are present in this case.
Three binding precedents directly support Council Tax clearance in this matter:
Application to this case: High Court ruled that council tax schemes discriminating against vulnerable persons through procedural failures constitute unlawful maladministration. The Court quashed the scheme and awarded damages for discrimination suffered. Westminster's failure to make reasonable adjustments and double-enforcement despite disclosed vulnerability mirrors the discriminatory treatment found unlawful in Trafford.
Remedy ordered: Full recalculation and exemption for affected claimants; damages awarded for discrimination.
Application to this case: Established that Section 188 Housing Act duty to provide interim accommodation arises when authorities have "reason to believe" a person is homeless with priority need. Westminster had 286 recorded communications confirming awareness of Mr Mak's homelessness yet provided no emergency housing for 10 months—a breach far exceeding Mitchell standards. Continued council tax enforcement during this breach compounds the maladministration.
Remedy principle: Authorities breaching Section 188 duties cannot simultaneously pursue enforcement actions that aggravate the harm caused by their statutory breach.
Application to this case: Ombudsman found fault where councils failed to follow vulnerability guidelines and continued enforcement after mental health disclosure. Councils were ordered to write off debt and pay compensation. Westminster received explicit vulnerability disclosure on 24 Oct 2025 at 11:19 AM and sent enforcement demands at 9:00 PM—within 10 hours—demonstrating willful disregard for vulnerability protocols.
Remedy ordered: Debt write-off, compensation for distress, and policy implementation to prevent future enforcement against vulnerable persons.
Combined precedential weight: These three cases establish that Westminster's actions constitute procedural maladministration warranting full council tax clearance and compensation. The High Court proceedings provide the appropriate forum for enforcement of these remedies.
This is not rare.
Councils routinely agree to:
When they face combination of:
You have multiple procedural failings documented.
Local Government Ombudsman has issued many decisions ordering councils to clear council tax where:
You disclosed homelessness, Article 188 breach, suicidal risk, belongings destroyed
3 confirmations followed by denial
Email identity confirmed 3 times then later falsified
9:01pm demands after vulnerability notice; foreseeable distress
Equality Act s.20-21 breach
When these combine, arrears write-off is standard.
You have:
This means:
Tainted enforcement trail equals grounds for write-off.
Under:
Council should have:
Instead, they:
This is procedural oppression, not neutral administration.
Key principle:
Clearance is not offered as a negotiation.
Clearance is justified by documented breaches.
Westminster has no defensible alternative pathway.
This case meets all standards for upheld Ombudsman findings and High Court public law remedies.
Clearance constitutes the proportionate response to documented statutory breaches and procedural maladministration. This remedy aligns with established case law and Ombudsman standards.
In view of the procedural inconsistencies, the three recorded confirmations of the account email, the later false denial, the failure to act on disclosed vulnerability, the inappropriate timing of financial demands, and the cumulative distress caused, and given that this matter is now subject to High Court proceedings, we advise Westminster Council to formally clear the outstanding Council Tax balance. Furthermore, Mr Mak held student status during the relevant period and is entitled to compensation of £3,000 for the consistent aversion of his disclosed vulnerability.
This remedy is consistent with binding precedent established in LL & AU v Trafford MBC [2025] EWHC 2380 (Admin) (council tax discrimination against vulnerable persons), R (Mitchell) v London Borough of Islington [2020] EWHC 1478 (QB) (Section 188 Housing Act breach during enforcement), and LGO Decision 20 008 765 (debt write-off for enforcement following vulnerability disclosure). These authorities establish that Westminster's actions constitute procedural maladministration warranting full clearance and compensation under the Equality Act, Housing Act, Care Act, and Article 6 procedural fairness standards.
Mr Mak's research credentials include acceptance to a barrister-led legal project team, confirming substantive engagement with practicing legal professionals.
Direct confirmation from Barrister Helene Richman of 9 Stone Buildings Barristers' Chambers demonstrates that Mr Mak's legal research work met professional standards for acceptance to specialized legal research projects.
Evidence of Professional Legal Engagement:
Relevance to Current Matter: This acceptance demonstrates Mr Mak's capacity to conduct rigorous legal research, understand procedural requirements, and engage substantively with complex legal frameworks—directly relevant to the quality and reliability of evidence presented in this council tax maladministration case.
Official acceptance to legal research project led by Barrister Helene Richman, 9 Stone Buildings Barristers' Chambers.
Given the public interest nature of this legal matter pertaining to protecting vulnerable adult rights, data protection rights under GDPR Article 9(2)(g) and Article 17(3)(e) are waived for substantial public interest grounds. This disclosure serves the protection of rights and freedoms of vulnerable persons subject to local authority maladministration, consistent with Schedule 1, Part 2, Paragraph 6 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (substantial public interest in preventing unlawful acts and protecting vulnerable individuals from harm).
Official student status proof during council tax enforcement period — Westminster demanded this certificate multiple times but continued enforcement despite student exemption entitlement.
Student Status Exemption: This University of Law enrollment confirmation directly refutes Westminster's enforcement demands. Council tax exemption applies to full-time students, yet Westminster continued financial enforcement despite multiple requests for student certificates and documented homelessness. This constitutes maladministration warranting immediate debt clearance.
Credibility Enhancement: Combined evidence of (1) acceptance by a practicing barrister to a legal research team, and (2) official University of Law enrollment, strengthens the evidentiary weight of Mr Mak's documented case against Westminster Council, demonstrating both capacity for rigorous legal analysis meeting professional standards and entitlement to student council tax exemption during the enforcement period.
Care Act 2014 Section 6 requires local authorities to cooperate with other agencies to protect vulnerable persons from harm.
Westminster received formal notice of procedural harassment and vulnerability disclosure but continued enforcement, ignored the notice entirely, and then denied account authorization—a clear breach of the statutory duty to cooperate.
Evidence: Formal Notice sent to Westminster documenting:
Westminster Response: Ignored the formal notice, continued financial demands at 9:00 PM, and subsequently denied account authorization—demonstrating willful refusal to cooperate.
Document demonstrates Westminster's knowledge of harm and duty to cooperate.
Legal Consequence: Ignoring formal notices invoking statutory duties while continuing harmful enforcement constitutes maladministration warranting debt clearance and compensation under Care Act principles.
The Official Duty Audit documents Westminster's systematic failure to cooperate across 286 recorded communications spanning 10 months.
Every single communication confirmed awareness of homelessness and vulnerability, yet Westminster provided zero emergency housing and continued council tax enforcement—a flagrant breach of Care Act s.6 duty to cooperate with other services to prevent harm.
Audit Evidence Demonstrates:
Care Act Breach: Westminster's council tax department demanded payment while their housing department confirmed homelessness but provided no accommodation—a textbook failure of the statutory duty to cooperate to protect vulnerable persons.
Comprehensive statistical evidence of systematic Care Act s.6 breach.
Legal Consequence: 286 documented failures to cooperate across departments while pursuing enforcement against a homeless vulnerable person establishes systemic maladministration warranting immediate council tax clearance and £3,000 compensation.
Given ongoing homelessness, child protection proceedings in Family Court, and documented procedural harassment, the following public accountability mechanisms are available if Westminster continues enforcement during critical vulnerability periods:
NOTICE TO WESTMINSTER COUNCIL: Continued procedural harassment during documented homelessness and Family Court child protection matters will trigger escalation to public watchdog organizations and media outlets with established Westminster accountability records.
Role: Investigates complaints about councils and adult social care providers
Role: Investigative housing journalism with extensive Westminster Council coverage
Role: National investigative journalism on local authority failures
Role: Legal advocacy for homeless persons facing council failures
Role: Strategic litigation against public authority maladministration
Internal Oversight Mechanisms:
Escalation Protocol: If Westminster continues enforcement or procedural harassment during documented homelessness and Family Court proceedings, this evidence package will be forwarded to all listed accountability contacts simultaneously, including detailed timeline of 286 communications, Care Act breaches, and High Court proceedings documentation.
Legal Basis for Public Disclosure: Public interest in accountability for local authority maladministration, particularly where vulnerable persons including children are subject to ongoing harm, justifies disclosure to oversight bodies and investigative journalism under common law principles established in Lion Laboratories v Evans [1985] QB 526.
Comprehensive evidence package includes:
All evidence is court-admissible and indexed for High Court proceedings.