Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

Council Tax adjustments resulting in "arrears".


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4779 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...