Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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

Council Tax adjustments resulting in "arrears".


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4752 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

Hi. I have just received a Reminder Notice from the council about "arrears" on my account and despite contacting them they refuse to budge or accept any payment arrangement other than "In Full before the end of the financial year".

The situation arose last year when I contacted the Council to inform them of a change in circumstances. They realised that they had not updated my account with my reported change in circumstances (childcare & rent)- firstly in June 2008 - and again in September 2009 when my daughter started school and ceased attending Nursery.

 

The upshot was that my Council Tax & Housing Benefit claim was re-calculated for the whole period - and I was required to send in (again) evidence of childcare costs, income, bank statements covering an 18 month period. The whole situation dragged on for MONTHS because it was nigh on impossible to speak to the person actually dealing with my case. Letter tennis and mammoth phone calls ensued ... and finally we agreed on a figure of overpayment. (Although I was a bit miffed because I thought that my claim was accurate as I had informed them of my change in circumstances - as is required - but despite them acknowledging this they had not updated my claim).

 

So, as it stands, with the Housing Benefit claim, my payments have been reduced by £9.90 per week to recover the overpayment. No problem there - all agreed and ticking along nicely.

 

However, due to the recalculation, my Council Tax account for 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 were also recalculated using the revised figures generated by Housing Benefit - and this resulted in "Arrears" being added to my previously "paid "accounts.

 

I was issued with a new "Bill" showing these amounts outstanding with an installment plan to clear the balance within 4 months. I contacted them and asked if I could make an arrangement - as to clear 18 months of a miscalcuated claim over 4 months was going to be difficult - and it wasn't enitrely my fault that it had come about in the first place. Answer? NO. Apparently, payment arrangements cannot be entered into UNTIL you default.

So ... I just paid them direct the samne amount every week using my online banking facility - and have continued to pay each week. The balance now stands at £90.00

 

I received the letter this morning so I called them and explained that I could not afford to pay the "arrears" at more than I was paying at the moment. I was told that I had 2 options:

 

1: Put my account on "hold" for 31 days - after which the Recovery process would recommence

2: Sign up for Direct Debit and they could discuss a repayment plan

 

I explained that I was paying regularly and that I intend to clear the balance - but I just cannot afford to pay more just because they want it cleared by the end of the month! I was told that "we are following Legislation and are unable to make arrangements outside of the scope" (RUBBISH)

 

So, as it stands at the moment, I will continue to pay my fixed amount each week - but at the end of March they will send me another Recovery letter. The balance at that point will probably be about £40. (My new bill will be due - but should be calculated correctly and the installments should be manageable.)

 

My question is, after the 31 days are up - and they send me another letter, are they likely to issue a liability order (along with the associated court costs) if I am continuing to pay regularly and it is obvious that the amount will be cleared within a few weeks? It just seems a bit heavy handed that they are unwilling to accept a payment arrangement that is affordable - by using the "Legislation has our hands tied" line - along with the highly irritating "well, we've given you an extra month to pay anyway" line. (Should be over 12 months and not 10 in my opinion!)

 

Obviously I want to avoid any court costs - and will borrow the money if I have to - but it seems daft that my council aren't willing to compromise, when it is obvious that I am not refusing to pay - I am just not paying as much as they would like me to in order to clear the account before the end of the financial year!

:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mind me asking which council you're dealing with please. Just for the record, what they're saying is rubbish, they may not like carrying debts over to another financial year, but they can and do regularly. At one stage I was paying for 3 different financial years at once, fortunately all now behind me.

 

Hi. I have just received a Reminder Notice from the council about "arrears" on my account and despite contacting them they refuse to budge or accept any payment arrangement other than "In Full before the end of the financial year".

The situation arose last year when I contacted the Council to inform them of a change in circumstances. They realised that they had not updated my account with my reported change in circumstances (childcare & rent)- firstly in June 2008 - and again in September 2009 when my daughter started school and ceased attending Nursery.

 

The upshot was that my Council Tax & Housing Benefit claim was re-calculated for the whole period - and I was required to send in (again) evidence of childcare costs, income, bank statements covering an 18 month period. The whole situation dragged on for MONTHS because it was nigh on impossible to speak to the person actually dealing with my case. Letter tennis and mammoth phone calls ensued ... and finally we agreed on a figure of overpayment. (Although I was a bit miffed because I thought that my claim was accurate as I had informed them of my change in circumstances - as is required - but despite them acknowledging this they had not updated my claim).

 

So, as it stands, with the Housing Benefit claim, my payments have been reduced by £9.90 per week to recover the overpayment. No problem there - all agreed and ticking along nicely.

 

However, due to the recalculation, my Council Tax account for 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 were also recalculated using the revised figures generated by Housing Benefit - and this resulted in "Arrears" being added to my previously "paid "accounts.

 

I was issued with a new "Bill" showing these amounts outstanding with an installment plan to clear the balance within 4 months. I contacted them and asked if I could make an arrangement - as to clear 18 months of a miscalcuated claim over 4 months was going to be difficult - and it wasn't enitrely my fault that it had come about in the first place. Answer? NO. Apparently, payment arrangements cannot be entered into UNTIL you default.

So ... I just paid them direct the samne amount every week using my online banking facility - and have continued to pay each week. The balance now stands at £90.00

 

I received the letter this morning so I called them and explained that I could not afford to pay the "arrears" at more than I was paying at the moment. I was told that I had 2 options:

 

1: Put my account on "hold" for 31 days - after which the Recovery process would recommence

2: Sign up for Direct Debit and they could discuss a repayment plan

 

I explained that I was paying regularly and that I intend to clear the balance - but I just cannot afford to pay more just because they want it cleared by the end of the month! I was told that "we are following Legislation and are unable to make arrangements outside of the scope" (RUBBISH)

 

So, as it stands at the moment, I will continue to pay my fixed amount each week - but at the end of March they will send me another Recovery letter. The balance at that point will probably be about £40. (My new bill will be due - but should be calculated correctly and the installments should be manageable.)

 

My question is, after the 31 days are up - and they send me another letter, are they likely to issue a liability order (along with the associated court costs) if I am continuing to pay regularly and it is obvious that the amount will be cleared within a few weeks? It just seems a bit heavy handed that they are unwilling to accept a payment arrangement that is affordable - by using the "Legislation has our hands tied" line - along with the highly irritating "well, we've given you an extra month to pay anyway" line. (Should be over 12 months and not 10 in my opinion!)

 

Obviously I want to avoid any court costs - and will borrow the money if I have to - but it seems daft that my council aren't willing to compromise, when it is obvious that I am not refusing to pay - I am just not paying as much as they would like me to in order to clear the account before the end of the financial year!

:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's Bristol City Council.

I know what they're saying is absolute tosh - but trying to discuss the matter with them is impossible! It took me almost 8 months to sort out the overpayment problem in the first place because they kept getting the calculations wrong .....

It's the stance on Court action that annoys me - even when it is obvious I'm paying regularly and the arrears were a result of an administrative error their end. (My accounts with them have always been paid on time and have never been in arrears at any of my addresses under BCC!)8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you! I'm just about to have my dinner so will be off the site for an hour or so. While I am could you do me a favour? Write down how much your debt was in total? What you've been paying per week / month? How long have you been paying this? How much is left? Are bailiffs involved or has there been any recent threat of involving bailiffs?

 

If you could either post this up or pm me the information, once I've eaten I'll come straight back to you.

 

Thanks PT for pointing me to this post! We'll do what we can!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I just wanted to update on the current situation. I have had no reply to my letter - but I have received a revised bill - with revised schedule of repayment starting in December 2010 - through to March 1st 2011! This was dated 08/03/11.

 

The amount of the scheduled payments exceeds the stated Balance Outstanding figure by over £20 - and quite frankly makes no sense whatsoever!!

 

Hey ho ... the saga continues!! (I am, however, continuing to pay a weekly fixed amount via Internet banking - irrespective of the non-sensical communication from the CT Office!). I'll keep you updated as the situation unfolds :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

FINALLY ... after much to-ing and fro-ing I have a result. I had to email the CEO again - because I did not receive a reply to my first email (Thanks for the draft Tingy!). I did however receive a few nonsensical account updates and a very silly letter, all apparently written in retrospect and including calculations that bore no resemblence to outstanding sums on my account - hence the follow up mail.

 

The second email was responded to almost immediately - resulting in a conversation littered with pontifications about "policy" and "procedures" etc ... but eventually concluded with my account being put "On Hold" until the end of April to allow the remaining £40 to be cleared as requested - without attracting Court Costs or a Liability Order.

 

Hooray!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...