A History of Rates

Hi assassin

The OED might be cited as source for definitions, but as you point out people flounder in court by depending on it. This suggests fibbing on the part of those ptb who cite OED as source.

Have i got the wrong end of the stick? ie have i misread your post?

Cheers!

assassin wrote:Yes you are wrong

Okay darling.

Oh dear sweetie. You are seeing things that aren't there.
You said;

assassin wrote:You have admitted that you have A level English

I said;

honeyaisle wrote:Having been through an education system where I was taught these three things, was tested and given paper to say I had passed the test why are statutes still beyond comprehension?

assassin wrote:Honey, there is nothing off beat as the OED is cited as source for much of our legislation and gives people the chance to work backwards and note the changes in words and how they applied, and how they were used as the foundation of law.

Okey dokey darling. Makes you wonder why Law Dictionaries with their own definitions of the words found in Oxford English Dictionary exist though.

I am not sure if that part has been revised, but I notice a word change they have added, where a word of interest is changed while maintaining the same meaning, interesting that.

Yes the meaning of dwelling for the purposes of the Act or this section of the Act. I am sure this was investigated by folk on the old forum a few times with no specific outcome appearing out of the discussions. By all means correct me if I am wrong.

Amendment of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (meaning of dwelling)

Surely there is someone on here who has a degree in the relevant branch of English who can shortcut the learning process by explaining why these things are written the way they are thus empowering more folks to pick up the research baton and instead of seeing legalese gobbledygook start comprehending them as judges do.

This is interesting.
Yesterday this bit was in the buggered up quotes above buggered up by whosoever stripped the comment out and in doing so buggered up the quote bbcode.
This is it being put back again and I think this is the amendment Ferry Man refers to in his comment above and have now screen shotted the page just in case you never know. I will be screen shotting everything I write from now on and saving the text as text files. Seems prudent.

3. In section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (meaning of “dwelling”), after subsection (4) insert—

“(4A) Subject to subsection (6) below, domestic property falling within section 66(1A) of the 1988 Act is not a dwelling except in so far as it forms part of a larger property which is itself a dwelling by virtue of subsection (2) above.”.

iamani wrote:Hi assassin

The OED might be cited as source for definitions, but as you point out people flounder in court by depending on it. This suggests fibbing on the part of those ptb who cite OED as source.

Have i got the wrong end of the stick? ie have i misread your post?

Cheers!

Yes and no, what I have stated is that the OED is a source of many legal definitions and that law dictionaries are a source of interpretations of specific legislation in a specific context at a specific time and the only way it can me properly interpreted is:

If an exact case comes up with the same parameters where legislation hasn't changed, or

A judge gives his definition as to the meaning of a word in a specific context.

The sole purpose of law is to create a self perpetuating system which puts everything their way so they caan define or redefine a word as they see fit.

By beginning with the OED you can find the origins of a word and its multiple meanings at that time and you can work forwards and see the differing variants of a word as it evolves and how its meaning changes, you can then cross reference the differing meanings with law dictionaries of the time to give yourself a fighting chance.

Err how to say this without causing offence and getting this post edited. Nope cannot think how to do it so will let the Law Society chappie lead on this. The bold bits are my emphasis.

Dear Jon,

Thank you for your email.

Your enquiry was passed to the Law Society's library for suggestions
regarding the actual name of the dictionary used in the UK for court
proceedings and legal definitions. The Law Society library is a private
library for solicitors and as a general point, library staff do not
usually answer enquiries from members of the public.

As far as our library is aware, there is no one single source used in
the UK for legal definitions. Solicitors contact the library for
definitions which may come from a range of sources. In addition, we are
only able to comment on where definitions may be found within our own
collection; there may be other sources of legal definitions which the
library does not hold or have access to. If you wish to know the
dictionaries used within the HM Court Service, I suggest you contact the
courts directly for this information. From our library's own holdings,
two of the best known dictionaries giving details of where to find legal
definitions are the following:

1) Stroud's judicial dictionary of words and phrases. 7th ed (2007,
Sweet and Maxwell)
(this dictionary provides details of where words have been judicially
defined by the court)

2) Words and phrases legally defined. 4th ed (2008, LNB)
(this dictionary provides details of where words have been defined
within legislation)

In addition from our own experience, solicitors may request definitions
from a range of sources including the Oxford English Dictionary. The
consolidated index to Halsbury's Laws of England (4th and 5th eds) also
has a section called words and phrases which directs users to specific
passages within the 50+ volume publication. Legal definitions are often
found within the body of legislation; quite often Acts have a specific
section entitled definitions. Dictionaries such as Words and Phrases
note where these definitions may be found. In addition to these sources
the library has a further 22 dictionaries in our current law
dictionaries section and these provide information on legal definitions,
legal maxims, latin phrases etc. We also hold a range of other legal
dictionaries. Details of our library's holdings of legal dictionaries
can be found on the library's catalogue
http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/libraryonline. Select the Books search,
enter the phrase legal dictionaries within the keyword search box to
retrieve details of the dictionaries we hold. For your information, we
do not hold Black's law dictionary, 8th ed (2004).

As I mentioned before, this information is taken solely from our
library's holdings and should not be taken as a definitive list of
sources or as a recommendation should you wish to purchase or refer to
any of them.

Please let me know if you would still like an internal review to be
carried out into your Freedom of Information request.

Yours sincerely

Bob Stanley
Information Compliance Manager - Legal Services
The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/dictionary

Slow day so I decided to have a bash at looking at grammar in relation to the section 3 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 starting with;

Meaning of "dwelling"

Straight off the bat we get the use of quotation marks the purpose of which is;
From here https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/punctuation/inverted-commas-quotation-marks

to mark off a word or phrase that’s being discussed, or that’s being directly quoted from somewhere else.

So there is ambiguity introduced right from the get go. Which use applies in this statement;

Meaning of "dwelling"

I was taught to see the former

to mark off a word or phrase that's being discussed

however it is obviously equally possible the latter

mark of a word or phrase that's being directly quoted from somewhere else

.
There is no way to know as he grammar rule in play is not cited anywhere in this statute.

Surely until such a seemingly innocuous thing as which grammar rule is stated as being in use it is not possible to proceed any further with a comprehension of this section of this statute. Once again please correct me if I am wrong.

Any why 'meaning' and not 'definition.
According to assassins preferred dictionary Oxford English Dictionary meaning is defined as;

noun What is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.
adjective Intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed.

Whereas definition is defined as;

noun A statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.

So it dwelling were 'defined' it would set in stone so too speak whereas if it s given a meaning it remains open to interpretation.
What is meant by dwelling would be more accurate than meaning of dwelling and definition of dwelling would provide a crystal clear unambiguous statement of what dwelling is.

Just for completeness dwelling is defined in Oxford English Dictionary;

noun A house, flat, or other place of residence.

Here is the link to dwelling definitions in actinglikeabankers favoured source of definitions memidex http://www.memidex.com/dwelling

However going to the very next line we get this;

E+W

(1)This section has effect for determining what is a dwelling for the purposes of this Part.

What section?
What is the determination used to identify the limits of the word section?
Surely it must be established before going further?

for determining what is a dwelling for the purposes of this Part.

What is a dwelling is an odd way of wording. What a dwelling isreads as definitive to me the what a dwelling is reads as the opposite of definitive as in open to interpretation.

for the purposes of this Part.

As with the use of the word section above the use of the word Part capitalised to boot is not determined or cited or listed anywhere in this statute.

From here https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/spelling/using-capital-letters

I got some comprehension of capitalisation.

At the beginning of a sentence

Use a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence:

In the titles of books, films, organizations, etc.

Use a capital letter in the titles of books and other publications, films, organizations, special days, etc.

In abbreviations

If you’re using the first letter of the abbreviated words, every letter should be a capital,

Once again which use in is in play with this sentence;

for determining what is a dwelling for the purposes of this Part.

Part is used to identify different parts of the Act

Local Government Finance Act 1992
Part I  Council Tax: England and Wales

As an aside or not why the use of Roman numerals to identify Parts?

It could be correct to comprehend the capitalised word Part as meaning Part I and not Part II but still I cannot fit the capitalisation with either 'use of' statement quoted above unless Part is an abbreviation for something else. I honestly do not know.

Perhaps someone versed in a greater level of grammatical matters than I, almost everyone, could pop in at this stage and explain.

Hi all

assassin - thanks for clarifying.

honeyaisle - i think it fairly obvious that ambiguity is indeed woven into ALL legislation, through deceptive use of language and that the scrivener's art is best defined as spell-craft. Our 'English' language has been deliberately tailored to lend itself easily to such deception. It is, quite simply, both a magical language and a language of magic. There are so many ways to study it, so many disciplines of it, it's perfect for what T.H.E.Y. use it for - fraudulent control.

i can't answer the questions you have posed, interesting as they are. The roman numerals possibly part of the Glossa. The oddly placed capitals - no idea, but it does seem important. The difference between 'what is a dwelling' and 'what a dwelling is' again seems blatant and deliberate ambiguity, but it also seems a bit more than that....

Anyone up for taking this back to the beginning and trying to decode it using the clues FM left? Seems he did it that way for a reason, it may yet benefit us to play along....? (and if it was good enough for Socrates' students, well....)

Cheers!

You're welcome iamani

Actually its both, because you can interpret words in many ways you can present in many ways depending on YOUR specific interpretation and this is where you are caught out, you give your interpretation and a court can change the meaning from your interpretation to any other interpretation they like by amending a context and syntax slightly.

iamani
Just gone back over this thread from the original post looking for clues laid by Ferry Man and honestly I am befuddled as to why clues are needed. Surely something was read or was heard by Ferry Man which sent him diving into this specific Act and the History of Rates so why not simply give others that starting point?
Level playing field and all that instead of immediately dissing 99% of the population aka the slumbering masses as not having the necessary tools to do what he did which was study it for hours per day for two months solid before he 'got it' and armed with the correct level of grammatical knowledge to boot.
What chance have the 99% of which I am a member got without the advantage of his starting point?
And yet despite being able to find hours per day for two months he goes on to claim he has commitments which prevents him from putting any time into putting a concise brief statement of what he has found to share with as wide an audience as possible and dives instead into the world of private messages where the 99% cannot go.

Just chatting about the things he has said noticed whilst searching for the clues you say are there that appear to contradictory.
Can't say I can see any so please share those you can see it would be appreciated.

Here is another example.
He says this;

Pointer: use statutory definitions or supreme court cited definitions, you have no standing, right nor authority to define interpret or cite your own definitions that you think may be the ones that are relevant, I cannot emphasise that point enough.

Then contradicts that statement with this one;

The General Rate Act has its own definitions and that is all that we need, 99% of the populace are probably unable to read a statute correctly, and that is not because of some dark room of scriveners plotting to befuddle us all in their inns, it is simply that their are rules that have to be followed that are predicated on a good command of English grammar, syntax and sentence construction, these tools have been denied to the slumbering masses ... anyway.

Hi honeyaisle

i would like to attempt to answer the questions you have raised (if only with opinion) and help if I can - but it's very time consuming so before i do that i'd like to know where to start and, to be blunt, if it's worth my time. May i ask a few questions to that end? (i'm assuming yes btw)

1) Are you researching this subject because CT is causing you hardship, or is it an objection based on seeing the bigger picture?

2) What is your current level of knowledge?ie: are you aware of -
a) the NAME game?
b) the difference between a 'man' and a'person'?
c) how titles (Mr, Mrs etc) affect how you are perceived in law?
d) what'status' is and how and when it should be established?
e) the ramifications of a birth certificate?
f) how basic contracts and trusts work? Commerce?
g) the general need to accept responsibility for your own life?

If you can find the time to to answer those questions i
can find the time to attempt to answer yours.

You might notice that I have made an 'offer to contract' here, complete with consideration and terms, and you have free will to accept, decline or redefine (counter-offer).

Deal?

Cheers!

I think that FOI request is very telling .It is in fact telling you that basically the only definition of any word is what they choose to give it.On that basis any judge can make whatever ruling he/she likes.
This will never change until all courts use one set of definitions only ,& that should be the OED because that is the language in common use and understood by everyone.

I would like to suggest that a section is opened for FOI requests .I for one have gained a lot from requests i have done in the past .
Just a library if you will of requests & responses.

Daveiron
Exactly my feeling. As soon as I read they have a Private Library the penny dropped that the lawyer can dip into it and of course any other source deemed fit to produce the definition of any word that will favour their argument in their theatre. All the source seems to have to be is 'authoritative' and the fact the Law Society has it's library this suggests one gains authority by virtue of publishing a book, article, paper, pamphlet or some such.
Talk about having a loaded deck.

iamani

Blimey all I asked for was your take on these clues which I cannot see. Shouldn't take more than a few minutes to list em as there ain't that many posts by Ferry Man in this thread. It must have taken you longer to come up with that odd list of questions. Fair does though you are clearly too busy so apologies for bothering you. Won't do it again, promise.


Here is some answers though seen as you asked nicely.
1 It's interesting.
2a Never heard of the NAME game. If you mean the ALL CAPS NAME being somehow different to the Capitalised Name then YES I have come across it once or twice.
2b A person is a mask. Not a clue what a man is.
2c I am not a lawyer so no.
2d Not a clue.
2e The birth certificate is a copy of the birth record.
2f part one a It ain't rocket science but can be confusing on first flush.
2f part one b Being a retailer for longer than was good for me yes.
2f part two See the answer to 2f part one b.
2g Not a clue what you are on about.

Hey,

The way I would personally find the meaning of “dwelling" is as follows,

Section 3, Local Government Finance Act 1992 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/section/3

Section 115, General Rate Act 1967 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/9/section/115/enacted

Part III, Local Government Finance Act 1988 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/part/III

actinglikeabanker wrote:Hey,

The way I would personally find the meaning of “dwelling" is as follows,

Section 3, Local Government Finance Act 1992 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1992/14/section/3

Section 115, General Rate Act 1967 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/9/section/115/enacted

Part III, Local Government Finance Act 1988 := http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/41/part/III

Cheers assassin (Ooops! Blonde moment, sorry) Actinglikeabanker
Sadly I do possess sufficient grammatical skill (evidence back up this thread) to comprehend what is contained in those links. Unless some kind soul with the right skill can find the time to turn it into plain English I am stuffed.

Daveiron
A thought occurred to me over a lovely tea as to why nothing is clearly defined in legislation. It struck me that if things were defined the legal world would disappear in an instant. The legal world needs ambiguity to carry out its deceptive interpretations of words and phrases and given the sheer volume of folks who rely on government for an income either directly through employment or benefits or by contracting to the government or working in any government registered commercial enterprise NGO charity etc etc right down to everyone who believes they own their own home, the volume is colossal and as disaffected with the state of play at any given time these folks will go along with it as it is the least worst option, at least that is my take on my friends and acquaintances opinions on things. They whine and moan about all manner of government stupidity from tax to war and still go and vote and most of them work in government directly and indirectly.  
Point being as bad as it is the masses will put up with it so the legal nightmare endures.

Hi honeyaisle

Thank you SO much for playing along, please accept my apologies for how i came across in my last post, i was hoping to achieve more than one aim in doing it that way.

i shall now work on some (hopefully) suitable answers, and will post a little later.

Cheers!

Lawyers are always in danger of going to the dark side because, good or bad, new laws tend to make them richer. Arguably the worse the laws the more work they generate. Only noble traditions passed on at an individual's age of peak naivety in Law School helped most of us understand that law is at its very best only a (sometimes) necessary evil and that every problem solved even by the best law introduces several new ones.

Ha. Just read this and smiled.

http://www.thelastditch.org/2017/07/another-boat-burned.html

Hi all

By following FM's clues i think i've cracked it. Either that or i've come up with a new theory that seems exciting!

Ferry Man - if this is what you were getting at then we'll fecking done lad! It also suggests a matrix exit, i love it! Ties in with my CQV research beautifully! So simple, yet so much potential! If it's not what you were getting at - then we'll done me!

honeyaisle - sorry to keep you waiting. In lieu of the answers i previously offered, would you be prepared to accept my opinion on what the 'concise brief statement of what he has found ' you were hankering after earlier, as an alternative?

Cheers!

another long day! lamani, yer perhaps on it this site in its early stages yet fueled by aged posters . f/man has obviously knowledge however to post the info could scupper works and give away the position and m/o used . when ever we use the legal fiction were stuffed , without subject matter jurisdiction they have nothing. it will be a shame for f/man to walk away , the mods have given the olive branch , totally in fairness just remains for ego to dissolve and all sweet .

Hi teddy2

i think FM's been a bit hard-done-by to be honest. To be fair to the guy he stated his intentions and hopes quite clearly and came across with info/possible knowledge designed to be understood by the people of a certain level of knowledge and motivation that he told us he was hoping to engage with. That said, it IS a chat based forum and unfortunately it didn't work out quite to plan, and if it comes down to egos then we could probably ALL afford to try a bit harder in that dept. really......couldn't we?

Am i right in reading that caution may be in order on releasing this info (assuming i'm correct)?

Opinions, anyone....?

Cheers!

Caution is always needed as for every way anyone has of thwarting a self protectionist system, they will find six ways of getting around it by using self perpetuating laws.

Honey, you could begin by starting at the top with this, look at supreme court rulings where dwelligs are defined by a panel of three judges and work downwards to the High Court and see how many definitions they have given, and in what context they have been given and presented, you already know these differences.
Draw all the similarities in definitions and context and apply them, if you can get just one defined version of the word dwelling from a superior court you can ensure the lower courts follow their own rules as they are bound by any precedent of a superior court.

heads a tad heavy, that was a good red ! reading your angle of the matter , that word ego i perhaps clouded the character of f/m and was not deserved , he is perhaps able to take the quest to the next level , and to have a thread that can be joined by only those "up to speed" this site is for the good of all and were learning every day , the next level thread,
a good idea ,a race without novices is an extremely faster one then the draw back of others viewing with "the next move" the problem of creating solutions yet the others knowing its source .
always an issue , f/m seemingly had this in mind .
what is the solution on any forum .

imani
I said I wasn't going to bother you again and I meant it so share or don't its up to you.

Assassin
For once old friend could you please show instead of tell?
You seem to be in possession of the higher courts definition of dwelling so do share the sources or deliver the courts definition either way show don't tell, please.

Anyway off I goes silly blonde that I am to find out what Assassin says is 'out there'.
Found this https://www.ashfords.co.uk/article/when-is-a-home-not-a-home-under-scrutiny-temporary-accommodation-and-the-protection-from-eviction-act-1988

Bold bits my emphasis

The first issue before the court was a submission that the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 ("PEA") requires a court order to recover possession of "premises occupied as a dwelling under a licence" and that Parliament had set out a comprehensive list in s.3A of PEA 1977 of the tenancies and licences which were excluded from the scope of the Act - this type of accommodation was not, the appellants argued, included. To determine the first issue, the court were required to consider whether the premises were licensed for occupation "as a dwelling". The difficulty before the court was that the words dwell and dwelling do not carry a defined legal meaning but rather are ordinary English words.

How clear does it get?
Dwell and dwelling DO NOT CARRY A DEFINED LEGAL MEANING!
Hence the need for a whole private library and them some full of different LEGAL MEANINGS which the solicitor can use to argue in the theatre laughingly called court.
Still for completeness because precious few will bother reading through that entire page as evidenced in the comments above.

In considering the meaning of dwelling, assistance was drawn from the Rent Act, where the court looked at the purpose of the accommodation in order to ascertain if the property is a dwelling. Although Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale dissented, the majority found that that s.188 imposes a low threshold duty onto the local authority in that an authority is not under a duty to provide a particular form of accommodation or to provide the same accommodation for an applicant throughout the period, and can require the applicant to transfer from one address to another pending its decision.

Rent Act eh! Is Ferry Man leading folks up the wrong path?
Don't forget he said the supreme court agrees with him and yet here is the same supreme court stating quite clearly in what reads as plain English there are no legal definitions of the words dwelling and dwell.

In considering policy issues the Court felt that further straining scarce housing resources by requiring possession orders, combined with the legislative and factual context of licences, pointed to the conclusion that the temporary accommodation provided by the authority in performance of its duties is not provided as a dwelling for the purposes of PEA 1977.

Lord Hodge (in his leading judgment) then turned to discussing various case law and concluded that 'dwelling' suggests a more settled occupation than mere residence. Therefore it was consistent with this approach to conclude that a day to day licence of accommodation does not show any intention to allow the homeless applicant to make his or her home in that accommodation.

Lord Neuberger and Lady Hale's dissenting views were that a person can dwell, reside or live in premises where his occupation is temporary. They highlighted the housing benefit system which makes reference to "funds such persons that are liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling" arguing that the system of funding would fall apart if housing benefit were not available to pay for the temporary accommodation provided. They were also unimpressed by the argument that there should be any disturbance of what had been understood to be the law since the Court of Appeal decision in Mohammed v Manek.

In considering the second issue of the Article 8 consideration the appellants submitted that procedural protection requires the owner to obtain a court order before evicting the occupant enabling them to raise the issue of proportionality as a defence. In deciding this issue the Court noted that it is only in exceptional cases that the applicant will succeed in raising a proportionality defence, that there are safeguards in place that allow the occupant to be involved in the process and through the county court or judicial review have the opportunity to raise the question of proportionality. In addition, recovery of possession was proportionate to the aim pursued and was therefore necessary in a democratic society. Therefore the second issue also failed.

This judgement does offer clarity to local authorities in respect of this issue and the finding that temporary accommodation can be recovered without the need for a possession order will come as a relief to local authorities.

All that and still no legal definition of dwelling or indeed dwell was arrived at.

Here's another attempt at the same question from a different legal angle, aren't they all?
http://www.devonshires.com/government-local-government/section-20-statutory-consultation-for-dwellings/

The starting point is the Housing and Finance Act 1972 in which it defines a dwelling as being:

See how they do it?
This singular Act has a definition of dwelling defined within it. Presumably for the purposes of that singular Act but who knows?
The act itself is not readable online only available as a PDF download which is a series of images not searchable text so all I can do is point to the parts where dwelling is clearly visible aka part v, 60 - part vi, 65 - part viii - part. When I come across the actual definition mentioned in the article I will copy it out on here.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/47/pdfs/ukpga_19720047_en.pdf

the article continues

“… a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling together with any yard, garden, outhouses and appurtenances belonging to or usually enjoyed with that building or part …”.

This definition of dwelling has then been adopted for the definition of dwelling in s20 consultation.

Once more a definition is used for a singular piece of legislation as there is no legal definition of dwelling or dwell. In short they make it up to suit their purposes from any sort of authoritative publication as I said back up the page.

As such, this suggests that s20 would apply even before the RP sublets to residential occupiers, as each unit is “intended” to be occupied as a single dwelling, even if they are not currently let. If the freeholder has not consulted when they should have done, they will be limited to recover at £250 per set of works, or £100 per year of any QLTA. Freeholders who lease to RPs often believe that s20 does not apply to them. However, Oakfern Properties shows that a freeholder’s non-compliance may well mean that the service charges over £250 or £100 will not be recoverable. Therefore, if you are an intermediary landlord and your landlord is demanding service charges, you should check if they have complied with s20.

Finally asking the question "Definition of Dwelling for council tax purposes" delivered these links an quotes
http://www.dab-vjb.gov.uk/council-tax/definition-of-dwelling/

In general terms any kind of house or flat will count as a dwelling if it used as such, including second homes that are not let out commercially. Caravans count as dwellings if they are someone's main home. Certain properties in multiple occupation, where facilities are shared, may count as one or more dwellings depending on the detailed occupation arrangements.

https://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/council-tax-guidance-manual.pdf

A dwelling is any property not included or required to be included in a local or central non-domestic rating list, which would have been a hereditament for the purposes of the General Rate Act 1967.

There is a whole raft of Acts used in this document which is a Council Tax Guidance Manual.

General Rate Act 1967 (GRA 1967)
Local Government Finance Act 1988 (LGFA 1988)
Local Government Finance Act 1992 (LGFA 1992) - Section 3
Rating (Caravans and Boats) Act 1996
The Council Tax (Situation and Valuation of Dwellings) Regulations SI 1992/550 (amended by SI 1994/1747 and SI 2008/315)
The Council Tax (Chargeable Dwellings) Order SI 1992/549 (amended by SI 1997/656, SI 2003/3121 and SI 2012/1915)
The Non Domestic Rating and Council Tax (Definition of Domestic Property and Dwelling) (England) Order 2013 SI 2013/468

Fair does Ferry Man's Local Government Finance Act 1992 is listed but not one of the Acts in that list was consulted by the Supreme Court when seeking a legal definition of dwelling. So a Supreme Court states there "is no legal definition of dwelling and dwell" and yet this Council Tax Manual seeks provide a legal definition of dwelling by quoting from seven other Acts but not the one the Supreme Court consulted.
Gets addictive this wandering through Acts n such.

1.2.2 Definition of Dwelling
Section 3 of the LGFA 1992 gives the meaning of the term dwelling.
A dwelling is any hereditament:
• as defined under section 115(1) of the GRA 1967;
• not shown or required to be shown in the local or central rating lists; and
• not exempt from non-domestic rating.
The definition of a dwelling is not affected by the rules of Crown exemption. The Secretary of State has the power to amend the definition.
1.2.3 A hereditament is defined under section 115(1) of the GRA 1967 as a property which is or may become liable to a rate, being a unit of such property which is, or would fall to be, shown as a separate item in the valuation list.
1.2.4 A property is a dwelling if it is used wholly for the purposes of living accommodation.

As far as I can see the Supreme Court judges are quite correct there is no legal definition of dwelling or dwell.

Welcome to the court system.

The term "dwelling" is used for census stock purpose.

Census; early 17th cent. (denoting a poll tax): from Latin, applied to the registration of citizens and property in ancient Rome, usually for taxation, from censere ‘assess’. The current sense dates from the mid 18th cent.

What tenure do you have? Who owns your home? You are a tenant renting the property from who? Why are you paying "tax" rent.......

The councils keep a UPRN (unique property reference number) for every registered property in Britain. Does a UPRN sound very much like a UTRN (unique tax reference number). Legislation was enacted in 1990 that made it a legal requirement for every property to be registered. It was 1990 when poll tax was introduced and subsequently changed to council tax in 1993.

In feudal law there used to be socage, they abolished this and to compensate her Majesty for the loss of revenue they introduced excise tax!

What needed replacing in 1990 for the introduction of poll tax. Why does anyone even if they are the "outright" owner have either a freehold or leasehold tenure, tenancy. who actually owns the property because I suspect someone else has a higher tenure than you, but still a lesser tenure than the queen.

Even the fact that it is recorded as stock should send alarm bells ringing, and if we are recorded on the census then are we not also someone's stock. The census is a stock check for taxation purposes.