Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Liability for council tax - living together or not?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4112 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I thank you in advance for any advice. I can't seem to find any info dealing with this. CAB are about as useful as a wax cooker.

 

I will leave out place names - so i can't be identified.

 

I am a full time student in X council. I rent a flat as somewhere to sleep on the days I have lectures. I also have a home in Y council. I am married. The X council asked me to tell them who is resident at my flat in X council. I said, I am married, my wife will visit me, what does 'resident' mean? how many days can my wife stay before being classed as resident? They didn't answer and just decided that my wife is therefore resident. They promptly sent a bill giving me the 25% discount for being a student but said my wife must pay because they assume my wife must be resident.

 

My wife is unemployed, although, we pay council tax in Y council, as we are too lazy to claim for council tax credit. But, paying in 2 councils was a bit much, so we assumed that if the council charges council tax for my wife in council X, then it can also give council tax credit. The council tax credit was refused because my wife couldn't prove she is resident at the flat in X council. Well Duh! we told the council she isn't - they said they assume she is.

 

So, now they say, that 'oooo your wife is most definitely resident because she said she was, in this application for council tax credit' - ignoring of course that it was refused on the grounds she cannot prove she is resident!

 

Basically, apologies for the long post. But what is the legal basis for this? can the council charge me council tax purely because i am married? they have said i need to prove that my wife is not resident here. but i am not really sure how to do that. (they won't provide a definition of what residence means)

 

i understand that as the leaseholder i need to pay council tax (but of course i am a full-time student so am entitled to pay no council tax)

 

who is in the right here? do i really have to pay council tax for myself and my wife in both councils? seems a bit harsh. they talk about the 'main address' and the flat is neither mine nor my wife's main address in many respects. our belongings are at our main address in Y council, our bank statements go there, we do everything there. the flat is purely a crash pad for a few weeks during term time.

 

any idea how to approach the council. i feel a bit insain repeating the same thing to them and getting the same moronic response.

 

 

 

thanks again!

 

if i just ignore the council tax letters what will they do? will i get taken to court? how will a court view what i have written here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi, hope I can help you a bit. You will usually pay Council Tax on the property which is your & your wife's "sole or main residence", theres no exact definition but previous court cases have given general guidance things which should be taken account include where you spend most of your time, security of tenure, intention to return, where your registered to vote, where your doctor is, where your mail goes, etc. Which from what you've said is at the property in Council Y, where you should have a 25% discount as a student.

 

The property in Council X would then be your second home. I'm not completely certain by you should get the 'Class N' student household exemption at the property, if not then a discount between 50% to 0% depending on the council for furnished second homes.

 

If you ignore their letters they will assume your not contesting the liability and expect you to pay. You'll only get taken to court if you fail to pay the instalments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Be careful because what the council will do is think you are both resident at your main address in council Y and charge you upto 100% for an empty property in council X. You'll end up paying in full twice.

 

Bonkers I know - basically means every student in the land doesn't actually live at their student address (because it arguably isn't permanent enough), should claim their student discount at their parents' address and pay upto 100% for an empty property where their university is.

 

Would be interesting to read what happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon the information, you have supplied, it appears that: -

 

  1. Y is the main residence for both you and your wife
  2. You would be entitled to 25% discount on Y assuming no other adults resident
  3. You or your wife may be entitled to Council Tax Benefit for Y as a couple - depending upon your income
  4. X is a second home
  5. You would be entitled to second home discount on X - the amount of discount for second homes varies from Council to Council - and can range between 0% and 50%
  6. You would not be eligible for Council Tax Benefit for X

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just realised this thread is nearly 12 months old - god knows why it has been resurrected

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...