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

akinika


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3921 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 this is my first time on site. i have sent a standard letter to this firm akinika asking for them to send me how they have authority to come after me for a debit they say i have with HMRC.this is the letter i got back. having viewed the above account we advise you that the HMRC, are acting on behalf of Her Majesty's government,and are not bound by the consumer credit act 1974.

 

the act regulates the way which consumer credit licensees carry on business.for example,there are rules on advertising,pre-contract disclosures,credit agreements and post-contractual information. please forward your propoals for settlement of the account.we are being advised by our client HMRC.

 

 

this is after they had sent me a letter saying they wanted full and final payment of the debt. please can someone advise me if they can say this and send my postal order back,if so can i send them a letter asking if i can have a full and final settlement amount.and only have to pay a reduced amount.because the company that this relates to is now wound up by me,and i am now only paye.and i have not got any spare cash to pay them in one go

thanks in advance davestan

Edited by citizenB
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi welcome to CAG,

 

The HMRC along with other Government departments are authorised to use 3rd party debt collection agency to collect taxes, loans and underpayments.

 

Yes they can do the this and are correct this is NOT a consumer credit debt and has nothing to do with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

 

This is NOT like a loan account this is I presume unpaid income tax or VAT and it will not go away, and is very much a priority debt.

 

This company you have wound up was it a limited company, sole trader??

 

They can indeed demand full payment immediately TAX DEBTS are not usually negotiable apart from the HMRC may allow time to pay, they have the alternative to seek a county court judgement for the debt.

 

You are obviously fully aware that the debt is owed and I would suggest that you seek dialogue with HMRC direct or through Akinita, possibly you make want to seek qualified advice locally on tax matters.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it was a limited company. so can i ask for a full and final payment on this debt,or will i have to pay full amount,this was all from 2009

The age of the debt does not matter for the tax debt, one cannot speculate on the HMRCs decision on a reduced offer.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to say what tax this relates to.

 

Is it Corporation Tax?

 

Is it tax deductions from employees/directors which have not been paid over?

 

If they are tax debts in the name of the company and the directors have not acted improperly then these tax debts usually die with the company.

 

If it is your personal tax then the situation is different so you need to be specific in letting the forum know exactly what taxes these are.

 

Also, did you ever let HMRC know that the company had ceased trading?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

HMRC is the client and it is for corporation tax

 

Ok good.

 

and i have been told i cannot fold the company at company house while i have debts from this company

 

While you may not be able to dissolve the company it doesn't alter the fact that the company has (I assume) ceased trading.

 

As I said, providing there has been no improper behaviour by the directors then the corporation tax liability is a liability of the company and not the director(s) personally.

 

Are there any assets in the company?

 

Did you advise any creditors that the company ceased trading?

 

Who are these tax letters addressed to? You personally or the company?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case I would write to HMRC telling them that the company ceased trading on whatever date a date and copy the collection agents in on the letter.

 

Include in the letter the reasons for the cessation and that the company has no assets or other liabilities.

 

If you haven't told the company's bankers that trading has ceased then I would also let them know as well.

 

HMRC should take the view that this is not worth chasing or they may issue a winding up petition for the company but of they chose the latter then you can cross that bridge when you come to it. It sounds scary but it isn't.

 

As I say, if you (as a director of the company) acted properly with regard to the company's affairs then you are not liable for this corporation tax.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

company ceased trading over 3 years ago told the bank about this over 2 years ago no money gone into this account for over 3 years so will write to akinika do not know the address for HMRC only got letters off debt company about all this lot

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...