Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • 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

Summons Despite Offer Of Payment


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5735 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

Briefly, my son missed some Council Tax payments but didn't realise (no need to bore you with details). Upshot was the first he heard of it was a demand for the full amount (700 quid for the remaining balance for the year). He wrote with an offer of settlement which would have amounted to exactly what he would have been paying monthly (and probably what a court would order him to pay anyway?) but they have ignored this and today he received a summons. Is a court going to be happy with the Council's attitude? What to do???

 

Thanks, anyone...:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The court summons will be for a liabily order, which is just to prove that he is liable.

The judge in liability cases cannot take into account the ability to pay or any reason why, he can only decide if your son is liable for the council tax or not.

 

There is absolutely no reason to go to the court for this as nothing your son could say can stop the liability order unless he can show that he is not liable.

 

Liabilty orders are done hundreds at a time and the court does not even look at the names on the list, he just rubber stamps the bottom.

 

Your son will get the liability result from his council and will then be able to make the council an offer of payment. They will more than likely divide the remaining £700 + fee, by the six month left of the concil tax year and that is what he will pay.

 

This will not affect his credit rating at all and is not recorded with any credit reference agencies.

 

So in summary, wait until the liability order is returned from the court and then give the council a ring. He MUST do this by the date shown or it will be handed to bailiffs to collect and I'm sure he does not want that to happen.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. I'm going to ring them today anyway (the council) to ask them why they didn't respond to his offer of payment. I expect to wait most of the morning to be connected and then to be told they can't speak to me without his permission becuase of the Data Protection Act or the fact that I wear different coloured socks to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will be wasting the cost of a phone call if you do, they have guidelines that they stick to rigidly and you will not get a reply except that he should have rung them when he got the reminder.

 

This whole liability order rubbish is just a moneymaking [problem] and for no other reason. Did you know that last year, the councils in England made £200million in fees from getting liability orders?

 

Just a few years ago, liability orders were unheard of except in a very very few instances, then along came New Labour.

 

They are probably the only finance department in the whole world that 'want' people to default on their payments.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm! Yes. I think what we'll do is wait until the very last minute and pay the lot off, even if I have to use a credit card. At least that way the scumbags won't get the 50 quid 'charge'

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm! Yes. I think what we'll do is wait until the very last minute and pay the lot off, even if I have to use a credit card. At least that way the scumbags won't get the 50 quid 'charge'

 

Sorry to disappoint but the charge is the first thing they take, you cannot get out of that. If you paid £700, that will first be the fee and then the ct leaving £50 council tax still to be paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was issued with a Statutory Demand and made an application to have the SD set aside. The SD was dismissed and I was ordered to pay costs of GBP975.00. I have since the hearing paid the debt issued on the SD , which now leaves the Costs which I was ordered to pay.

I understand that I can apply to the Court for an instalment plan (FORM N245). Will this protect me from the Claimant serving another SD. The Order was made 7 days ago and I have a further 7 days to pay the Claimant before enforcement of Order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was issued with a Statutory Demand and made an application to have the SD set aside. The SD was dismissed and I was ordered to pay costs of GBP975.00. I have since the hearing paid the debt issued on the SD , which now leaves the Costs which I was ordered to pay.

I understand that I can apply to the Court for an instalment plan (FORM N245). Will this protect me from the Claimant serving another SD. The Order was made 7 days ago and I have a further 7 days to pay the Claimant before enforcement of Order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you only have 7 days to go C you should contact the claimant first and see if they are willing to accept instalments. Because of the time restraint you would be best ringing them so this will still leave you time to ask the court if the claimant refuses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...