Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The incident was 03rd March 2024 - and that was the only letter that I have received from MET 15th April 2024 The charge I paid was at the Stansted Airport exit gate (No real relevance now - I thought this charge was for that!!).   Here is the content of email to them (Yes I know I said I was the driver !!!!) as said above -  I thought this charge was for that!! "Stansted Airport" Dear “To whom it may concern” My name is ??  PCN:  ?? Veh Reg: Date of Incident: 03rd March 2024 I have just received a parking charge final reminder letter, dated 10th April 2024 - for an overstay.  This is the first to my knowledge of any overstay. I am aware that I am out of the 28 days, I don’t mean to be rude, this feels like it is a scam My movements on this day in question are, I pulled into what looked like a service station on my way to pick my daughter and family up from Stansted airport. The reason for me pulling into this area was to use a toilet, so I found Starbucks, and when into there, after the above, I then purchased a coffee. After which I then continued with my journey to pick my daughter up. (however after I sent this email I remember that Starbucks was closed so I then I walked over to Macdonalds) There was no signs about parking or any tickets machines to explains about the parking rules. Once at Stansted, I entered and then paid on exit.  So Im not show where I overstayed my welcome.. With gratitude    
    • Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs,  viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty. Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone.   The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies. You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long  queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time. If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you. 
    • Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x
    • Doubt the uneconomic write off would be registered, unless you agreed to accept write off settlement of the claim. It is just cosmetic damage. All that has happened, is that the car has been looked at and they realised the repair costs are going to exceed the value of the car. If the car is perfectly driveable with no upcoming normal work required to pass next MOT, your current Insurers will continue Insurance and you can accept an amount from third party Insurers to go towards you repairing the scratched bodywork.    
  • 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

What does it mean by 'does not include single occupancy Council Tax discount'?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3583 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

Lost eligibility with 2 different Claim Forms where it has rested on being able to tick receipt of Council Tax Benefit in order to qualify. Although, I do receive Council Tax Benefit, I find I invariably get turned down, because of the interpretation of a seemingly ambiguous clause that goes with it, ie 'does not include single occupancy Council Tax discount'. Those spoken to on helplines over the years have not been sure themselves, and trying correspondence has been long, drawn out & fruitless.

 

To my mind, it has always meant that, if after taking into account any Council Tax discounted as a result of single occupancy, there is still Council Tax Benefit received, a single occupant should remain eligible. However, the decision-makers take the line that, just by receiving single occupancy Council Tax discount, there is automatic disqualification, which would suggest that single people could never be eligible. Therefore, seeking clarification in law, if possible, so it is known precisely how the matter should stand.

 

With many thanks, as I cannot find anything official in writing to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rebel11

 

Thanks for your understanding and assistance!

 

I hope there will be an answer out there, as I have had this question for a few years, but have always had to accept what was said in a letter, which made no reference to any official guidelines. It was only when I had a new invitation to complete one of the Claim Forms again, and finding a friend with the same view as myself, that I was prompted to revisit the issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read your post several times and I am not sure what you are talking about.

 

I think you are saying you receive 25% single occupier discount and CTR (CTB was abolished over a year ago).

 

What are you trying to claim on top which is being refused?

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi id6052 - Thanks for your reply in trying to help &, yes, I refer to the 25% single occupancy discount! Specifically re a tick box under Section B of SWALEC's Warm Home Discount Application Form 2014-2015, labelled - & I quote - 'Council Tax Benefit (Please note this does not include single occupancy Council Tax discount)', even though, as you rightly point out, Council Tax Benefit (CTB) is now Council Tax Reduction (CTR), but the same principle is at stake.

In my case, my eligibility entirely rests on being able to tick this box. However, in past years, when I tried to claim, I've been turned down. My thinking is I should be eligible, as previously explained. But, because of ambiguity, the decision-makers will take a different understanding & I've been left wondering who really is right? So I'd like to find out, if I'm genuinely right (by still receiving CTB/CTR after single occupancy discount is taken into account), or are the decision-makers, who want to say, just because I receive single occupancy discount, I can't be eligible.

In other words, for the purpose of the claim form, to remove ambiguity, what is the true official interpretation of the proviso, 'does not include single occupancy discount', when applied to CTB/CTR? Hoping this reads better to arrive at the answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what is SWALECs warm home discount?

 

Im getting from this that whatever you are applying for requires you to be in receipt of a means tested benefit. 25% single occupancy is not means tested so therefore the form is asking if you are receiving a council tax relief under "income" rules. It means that a single occupancy reduction alone is not sufficent for you to claim what you are trying to claim.

 

That is how I read the situation anyway. Others will correct me if I am wrong

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SabreSheep

 

SWALEC's Warm Home Discount gives as much as £140 off the cost of their electricity providing you qualify & one of a number of electricity companies also doing the same thing. Unfortunately, if of working age, there must be a match of at least 2 criteria under certain headings. Unfortunately, I could only do that, if I were to have the receipt of my Council Tax Benefit/Reduction (CTB/R) counted in, but as I am a single occupant, it has not been straightforward. Because of the proviso added to the tick box for receipt of CTB/R, in the past my application has not been accepted because of the ambiguity that has been read in it, which I am seeking to straighten out.

 

What you said, is just what I thought - that a single occupancy reduction alone is not enough, but, if after the reduction, CTB/R is still receivable - as with me - the tick box should be accepted! However, what has been happening is that the officials have looked at it differently and decided that, just in receiving Single Occupancy Discount whether or not I get CTB/R on the amount left to pay, I am disqualified. This would imply that no single occupant could ever hope to use that tick box in their claim, which did not seem right to me and the very basis for my query. This is also why I would also like to know if there is any official documentation in writing to refer to, which I can't seem to find, so that I can get definitive proof one way or another.

 

With many thanks for your valid points, which all helps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...