Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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

Who is Liable for Council Tax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5557 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

My wife owns a cottage that she rents out. Recently we finally removed a tenant who was a little bit of a problem and now I have been hit with a summons to court for 1 months tax for the cottage because the old tenant says she left 1 month before she did.

 

I have spoken to Denbighshire Council and they basically said pay up or prove it when you come to court, which hopefully I can with statements from neighbours and the new tenant

 

Previous correspondence has not been received and they can't find the person who signed the recorded delivery.

 

Its not much although added court costs have not helped, but who is responsible for the Tax, the tenant apart, me, or my wife who owns the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically your wife - who owns the property is liable for the council tax, In fact - If I were you - I would get your wife to pay the tax direct to the council and then defend the action on the grounds that you are neither the person living in the property or the person who owns the property therefore you have no liabilty for that property.

 

They have issued on the wrong person in my opinion so you should be able to save yourslef the court costs.

 

If your wife pays before the case then they cannot immediately issue on her and generate more costs.

 

Just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Under Council Tax legislation a partner of a person is always jointly liable so the summons has been issued to a correctly liable person as it stands.

 

Did you have a signed tenancy agreement with the tenant that covers this period ?, if so then you able to hold the tenant liable for the council tax until either a new liability starts (i.e new tenants) or the tenancy ceased.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As an interesting point of law - although I do not suggest that this OP tries this, having looked at the rules on council tax liability it states that married couples will have joint and several liability.

 

That statement appears to assume that the couple are living in the property concerned.

 

When the property is owned by one partner, and neither partner is resident in the property, then I cannot see how the courts could find any liability on behalf of the other partner.

 

this is just my mental doodlings on the matter and would be interested in others thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
If you have proof that the tenant is liable then you must go to court or the judge will just stamp it as it is presented, he cannot do otherwise.

 

 

I have proof in the form of a statement from the new tenant stating he could not gain occupancy because the previous tenant still occupied the property in part and was involved in cleaning it out, not very well as it happened.

 

I have sent this to the council and they have just ignored both it and my suggestion that my wife owns the property has always done so and while I have usually carried dealings on her behalf I have always stated I'm not liable.

 

In fact her tenancy agreement had closed but she still had furniture present which made it impossible for it to be classed as vacated or empty

 

Looks like a court visit will be in order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge will have no choice than to stamp the liability order unless the person is present and can show they are not liable, so if you can show that then attend or you 'will' be the liable person.

 

If you can show you are not liable, don't forget to get the council to knock off the court charges which is the real reason they hand out these liability orders by the thousand, they make money out of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can show you are not liable, don't forget to get the council to knock off the court charges which is the real reason they hand out these liability orders by the thousand, they make money out of it.

 

Well I can prove the tenant had not moved her furniture out and was still attempting to clean the property.

 

I can prove the house has always been my wife's but that seems not to count now.

 

I have spoken to the Council on Friday, but yet again another signed for correspondence has not arrived, 3 rd one now

 

Looks like i'll have to persuade mt tenant to come with me on Thursday

Link to post
Share on other sites

Visited the court with my new tenant.

 

The application had been suspended by the council until further notice although we were not given any advise of such, which considering the 35 minutes it takes to get to the court pised me off, especially as no one was willing to discuss the matter further.

I have spoken to the council this morning, both the previously received recorded letters have now been informed and my liability has been suspended subject to investigation by their bailiff's

 

So I wait

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...