Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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
      • 160 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

Can C Tax Liability Order be overturned if amount is wrong?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4758 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

Revamp of an old thread..

My son recently received a notice of intended bailiff visit for a C Tax Liability Order from 2005/2006 he knew nothing about, being for a previous shared tenancy where he'd paid cash to the joint tenant for bills, who hadn't paid the Council. (Yes, I know!!!!)

 

This was the first he knew of a liability order - notice had been sent to his old address, so he'd no chance to defend it.

The dates on the demand are provably wrong being 3 months longer than he lived there, and therefore the amount demanded is more than is due.

 

Having written to the Council explaining the circumstances they have pointed out that he is still liable for the debt, which we knew, but have conceded that the dates are wrong.

However they have asked him to fill in a Statement of Income but have not recalculated the amount owed and deducted the 3 months.

They also promised that they would hold off the Bailiff whilst communicating about this, but he turned up when my son was out and put a card through the letterbox. When he phoned they apologised and said it was a "mistake". 8)

 

So, how to proceed? Need to write back to them and request a recalculation, obviously. But as the Liability Order amount was wrong, can this be overturned and/or the Court Fee deducted from the bill?

My son accepts he must take it on the chin and pay up, but I'm trying for damage limitation.

Also - They won't tell us how much or if the other tenant is paying, so how do we know they won't get BOTH of them to pay the same bill?

 

Finally, do the Councils ever consider Full & Final Settlements for old CT arrears?

 

Elsa x

Link to post
Share on other sites

well you certainly can't do F&F [sadly!]

not sure on the wrong amount, but , i'd certainly start paying 'something' to them on a regular basis.

if you are liable for all/none is outside my remit.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks DX,

I've figured he probably owes around £600. He could pay £400 straight off, then something monthly but wonder if that's adviseable as it lets the other guy who REALLY owes the money off the hook. I wish they'd be honest about whether he's paying anything, then my son could match his instalments rather than being landed with the whole bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Until the council are provided with information showing the charge is wrong then the liability order amount is correct.

 

The fact that an adjustment is possible which can reduce the balance is not a valid defence for overturning the liability order - the liability order will stand with the reduced amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and thanks ss.

They do now admit it's wrong as they've checked from when his C Tax was paid for his current house, so it's proven, thankfully, they just haven't bothered to let him know the new amount owed.

I suppose the endurance of the LO is hypothetical, really, as he does intend to pay, but he'd rather have done it amicably without the looming threat of bailiffs, and he certainly doesn't want an attachment of earnings as a blot on his record with his employer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Unfortunately the usual LA attitude is a intransigent " the law is on our side and we do what we like " with a tendency to put a far too literal ( which is a very limited way of thinking ) and over simplified structure on matters , and their " management " express incredulous surprise if anyone has the " temerity " to challenge them in a Magistrates Court , they are also prone to verbal / psychological bullying and tend to be smug and patronising .

 

There are a few better LA's that are more open to conciliation before they actually get to the Magistrates for a liability order . The kindest thing you can say there is too much politics and " pressure " with a culture of fear . " New Public Sector Management " and a Centralised Target Culture have a lot to answer for too ....common sense , received wisdom and conventional logic unfortunately go out of the window .

 

There is another problem called Silo Management or in plain English ....failure to communicate thus compounding previous errors and excaberating " mistakes " .

 

It's best that they are initially challenged in writing , you are also allowed to make a complaint of malinsmistration to the Head of the LA Department ; if you've exhausted those channels ...you are then entitled to go the Local Government Ombudsman ....You are quite entitled to calmly state your case to the Magistrates beforehand ...otherwise the Human Rights Legislation on a Right to a Fair Trial is infringed ....whether the LA and their cardboard cutouts like it or not .

 

I've had court costs for liability orders dropped by the Head of Dept dropped as the Guild County Administrative Centre LA " case " was built on sand and botched all the way through , I did complain on two occasions , once to a Senior County Councillor and to the Labour MP . The problem appears to be that no one seems to have any authority , everything appears to be by diktat .

 

A friend of mine is in trouble .....she was prosecuted and fined for non disclosure on CT means testing , £350 costs , £100 fine for each occasion and £15 victim surcharge , prior to the IUC (interview under caution ) she put in a offer for settlement letter and made sure it was mentioned on the prepared written statement . A revised notice was issued ...however the formula used was too simplistic and flawed ...it was at least £200 out , the statements issued only started to right themselves by the last two and were " relatively correct " accurate to the nearest £20 . She paid what she believed was the correct amount and patiently explained and qualified why ....however later under duress and sufferance she paid the extra overcharged £200 .

 

Whilst the Witness Statements were contradictory , curious , vague , misleading and very disingenuous , begging more questions than answers and this was seized on by the defending solicitor ....those witness statements were covered with red circles and underlinings , the Senior Officers contradicting the Junior Officers

 

......they stated that the full amount for this financial year had been paid but only on the date she paid the extra overcharged £200 under duress . If you are charged with fraud ....to settle you have to pay on the basis of to the end of this financial year as if you hadn't been caught you would still keep claiming ....The Prosecutor did a graph and statement for the Court Clerk and the Bench , The Magistrates were happy that the amount had been paid back and the Defending Solicitor attested to this to .

 

Unfortunately " by coincidence " as the end of the financial year is looming , she had a final notice with a order to pay £88 saying she'd been previously warned a month before her IUC , otherwise they'd get a liability order . A reply was drafted and a complaint of malidmistration letter sent to the Head of the Department .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno where you dug this old thread up from, but I certainly agree with:

 

Unfortunately the usual LA attitude is a intransigent " the law is on our side and we do what we like " with a tendency to put a far too literal ( which is a very limited way of thinking ) and over simplified structure on matters , and their " management " express incredulous surprise if anyone has the " temerity " to challenge them in a Magistrates Court , they are also prone to verbal / psychological bullying and tend to be smug and patronising .
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...