Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
  • 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 Liability Order Applications


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4366 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 have a question or two about council tax liability order applications; in particular with regards how costs are agreed, for example with the Magistrates' court.

 

Background info

 

First off, this is the letter North East Lincolnshire council sent Grimsby Magistrates' court last year when it decided it wanted to increase the revenue generated from council tax liability order applications by changing the composition of the summons/liability order fees.

 

It increased the overall cost by 23% as well as front loading all the charge to the summons fee (effectively a 120% hike).

 

 

Council's letter notifying the court it was increasing costs

Dear Deputy Justices' Clerk

 

 

Court Costs for Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rates

 

I am writing to advise you that North East Lincolnshire Council has taken the decision to increase the court costs which it charges to tax payers for the non payment of Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rates.

 

The costs to be charged for a summons for Council Tax and National Non Domestic Rates will be £70.00. There will be no additional costs for the liability order. The increase will take effect from 1st April 2011.

 

If there is any further information you require then please don’t hesitate to contact me directly on 01472 ****** or via e mail at *****.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to express my thanks for your continued cooperation and support.

 

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Income and Collection Manager

 

Simply notifying the court of its intentions is clearly not something councils should be doing regarding how much (if any) costs are awarded to them.

 

Also, how is it possible for councils to specify on the summons document a predetermined amount for either the summons or liability orders which will be imposed on the taxpayer?

 

Magistrates would need to determine this at the council tax liability order hearing. These costs would vary from one hearing to another because a key factor in determining the costs incurred by the council would be the number processed in the rubber stamping exercise of the bulk hearing.

 

Does anyone have further details about how the level of costs imposed on council taxpayers in respect of liability order applications are agreed and authorised by the Magistrates' court? Any links to legislation?

 

Also any opinions of the legitimacy of councils specifying the amount of costs imposed on the actual summons document when a summons is only a means of inviting the defendant to court to answer the complaint?

 

Thanks for any information.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is what your after, here's a link to the regulations regarding summons and costs

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/34/made

doesn't seem to mention how its set.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is what your after, here's a link to the regulations regarding summons and costs
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/613/regulation/34/made

doesn't seem to mention how its set.

 

Thanks!

 

Regulation 34 raises the question of how it can be possible for a debtor to stop the recovery process going to the liability order stage by settling outstanding council tax plus the costs imposed for the summons.

 

i.e

34.
–(5) If, after a summons has been issued in accordance with paragraph (2) but before the application is heard, there is paid or tendered to the authority an amount equal to the aggregate of—

 

(a) the sum specified in the summons as the sum outstanding or so much of it as remains outstanding (as the case may be); and

 

(b) a sum of an amount equal to the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in connection with the application up to the time of the payment or tender,

 

t
he authority shall accept the amount and the application shall not be proceeded with.

At any normal Magistrates' court hearing it would be Magistrates that determine the level of costs which would need to be awarded at the actual hearing.

 

To implement Regulation 34(5) above, the costs would need to be assumed as no court hearing has taken place at that stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read around a bit I found some advice but couldn't find the specific regulations.

 

The council it would seem to need to notify the justices clerk of the "standard" costs it intends to charge for that year and the clerk needs to raise any objections. If at summons stage the council tax has been paid in full but the cost remain unpaid, the court can still issue a Liability Order for the original costs but not award any additional costs. The defendant can challenge the costs awarded at the Liability Hearing and equally the council can ask for the costs to be increased if it has incurred additional work e.g. hired legal consultants. So in effect the costs are still at the Magistrates discretion.

Edited by revshelp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read around a bit I found some advice but couldn't find the specific regulations.

 

The council it would seem to need to notify the justices clerk of the "standard" costs it intends to charge for that year and the clerk needs to raise any objections. If at summons stage the council tax has been paid in full but the cost remain unpaid, the court can still issue a Liability Order for the original costs but not award any additional costs. The defendant can challenge the costs awarded at the Liability Hearing and equally the council can ask for the costs to be increased if it has incurred additional work e.g. hired legal consultants. So in effect the costs are still at the Magistrates discretion.

 

The council will always run the expected costs past the court in advance - this stops the court deciding at a hearing that they don't think the costs are appropriate.

 

When a summons is issued any applied costs are treated exactly the same as any council tax shown on the summons and a Liability Order can be granted against just the costs. Costs can be applied for the Liability Order granting irrespective of whether its for summons costs/council tax or a combination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Council Tax Practice Note Number 9 Page 8, item 3.3 says:

3.3 The form of the council tax summons is not prescribed and authorities should liaise with the Clerk to the Justices to agree an acceptable format.......The summons should set out the sum outstanding for which the authority is applying for a liability order. It can also state the costs incurred to date and point out if these costs plus the sum outstanding are paid then the authority will not proceed with the application for a liability order.

It seems the rules are being bent to cater for the mass processing of these council tax liability orders. It must be as a result of the government's desire to automate, as far as possible, the judicial process.

 

The summons is a means of informing the defendant of the date, time and venue of the court hearing and should not include information advising what costs the defendant may pay to avoid the order being granted.

 

A predetermined amount of costs cannot be known and therefore not, with any credibility, be agreed by the Magistrates' court in advance. The letter detailed in my initial post is evidence that Magistrates' courts give a free rein to councils to determine their own level of costs. It also seems unlikely that authorities ever have to justify their claims.

 

Interestingly, in the same document linked to above, also on page 8, item 3.18 states:

“3.18....The order will include the costs reasonably incurred by the authority in securing the order. Whilst it is likely that authorities will have discussed a scale of fees with the Clerk to Justices it should be recognised that the Court may wish to be satisfied that the amount claimed by way of costs in any individual case is no more than that reasonably incurred by the authority

Costs imposed on residents can never be determined in advance because a higher number than that anticipated processed through the applications would mean that each defendant would have paid above the amount the council reasonably incurred.

Edited by outlawla
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...