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

Business rates - closed business


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5407 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,

 

Long story short:

 

In Jan 08 we closed our business, paid what was due to all creditors, and were up to date with the business rates on our rented shop. We informed all parties concerned as we should have done, and stopped trading. My OH joined the Army and I became a student nurse.

 

6 months later, we get a letter from the council saying that they had made a mistake and given us small business rate relief incorrectly - 2 years previously. Hence, they now wanted £200 +. This was 6 months after they had been told we had stopped trading.

 

I contacted them, told them they business was closed and about to be struck off (it was a ltd co.). There was no business bank account, we were making reduced payments on our loans, and have about £3 per month spare after all costs.

 

The council said they would get back to us and after 12 months of to-ing and fro-ing, having taken the business (not us, it was only the business named on the summons) to court, they called and asked me if I would take personal responsibilty for the debt. I said, no, the co was ltd and would they reply to my earlier letters.

 

No reply has ever been forthcoming, but the debt seems to have dropped to £150. The council have prevented us being struck off, and about 1 month ago someone came to my parents house (where the ltd co was registered, but only as a postal address) to get the money. My mother never opened the door and explained the co wasn't there.

 

Today, the council have tried to call me again.

 

What do I do? The council don't seem to understand that if the co has no business, no money and no account, it can't pay. It was a ltd, so I have no personal responsibility for any business debts.

 

Help!

 

Tracy

Link to post
Share on other sites

You applied for strike out and not liquidation, that's where the problem lays.

It is not possible for directors to avoid their responsibilities by allowing the company to be struck off. The liability of directors and members continues as if the company had not been dissolved. Any aggrieved party may, within twenty years of the striking off, apply to the court for the company to be restored to the register. If this happens, any further dissolution has to be by formal winding-up in liquidation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply, Conniff.

 

However, as we had correctly informed all that were required to know that we had ceased trading and were applying to be struck off, I cannot see that we are at fault. The council did not discover that this debt was outstanding until 6 months after we ceased trading.

 

Also, the debt was for something which was only discovered two years after the bill had been paid - if I had done that to one of my customers, I'm pretty sure I would have been told to go away.

 

Finally, if a company is limited, surely the company directors do not have any personal responsibility, unless they have signed a declaration (for example to the bank); otherwise, what would be the point of being a ltd company?

 

Can it be right that as neither of us were named that they want us to use our personal money to pay for a company which would continue to trade even if we were both dead?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi V8

 

I work for a firm of chartered surveyors managing large clients business rates liabilities and have an excellent knowledge of the legislation and case law surrounding business rates.

 

You need to ask the billing authority how the small business rate relief was incorrectly awarded at the time the liability was initially raised. You would needed to have applied at the time, only been liable for one hereditament (thats business premises to you and me!) and have an Rateable Value of less then £15k (£21.5k in Greater London). This should not be something they can change their mind about unless they miscalculated the charge at the time.

 

If they miscalculated quote 'ENCON Insulations V Nottingham' which is a legal case regarding whether a rate account was billed 'as soon a praticable'. Generally speaking the error would need to have been rectified 'as soon as praticable', which whilst this time period is not defined is accepted as being in the rate year (1st April to 31 March period) in which the error was made plus a few extar months if it was near the end of the year.

 

I hope this helps if you need any more assistance tell me exactly what the Billing Authority (Council) say and also a clue which one it is and I may be able to come up with something for you.

 

GOOD LUCK AND DONT BACK DOWN

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jim,

 

Thank you so much for your reply.

 

The billing errors occurred in 2006 and 2007. We were not informed of these errors until June 2008, even though we informed them we were closing and moving out in Dec 2007.

 

It is Derbyshire Dales District Council, based in Matlock.

 

Thank you once again, and I won't back down ;).

 

Tracy x

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...