Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Self assessment question


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2554 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 guys,

 

I'm currently self employed as an 'Entertainer' and 2016/17 my income was £2000 with expenses of £2500. I'm also on a 0 hour contract as a PAYE in an office where the tax gets taken automatically.

 

2015/16 my earnings for my self employment were roughly the same, I made a loss but I managed to get a tax refund on this. This year however, HMRC are saying that I owe them £1.50.

 

I'm thoroughly confused and yes, I obviously need an accountant, ha. I'd just like to hear any reasons why this is? My options were exactly the same as last year so could see what I put online on the last assessment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not enough info, we would need to know what your tax code is and more about what you put on your SA form for earnings, expenses tax paid in your employment etc. HMRC may have tweaked your tax code for the year so taking everything into account it may be true that you owe £1.50 becasue they have undercollected from your employment.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

not enough info, we would need to know what your tax code is and more about what you put on your SA form for earnings, expenses tax paid in your employment etc. HMRC may have tweaked your tax code for the year so taking everything into account it may be true that you owe £1.50 becasue they have undercollected from your employment.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Firstly, I just want to mention that I understand that I obviously need someone who know's what they're doing here (And I plan too!) It was just because the circumstances were not to dissimilar to 2015/16 so I used similar options with the different numbers.

 

Anyway, some more info for you.

 

Self Employed

Sole Trader

Income £2000

Expenses £2500

 

Employed PAYE

 

I've not received the P60 yet but guessing it will be the same as my final Pay of the year below?

 

0 Hour contract, average weekly pay £280 around £18 PAYE tax.

 

Tax Code 1100L

 

Total Gross Pay TD 13169.07

Gross for Tax TD 13169.07

Tax paid TD 474.00

Earnings For NI TD 13059.00

National Ins TD 661.98

Pension TD 1.51

Employer NI TD 754.72

Employer pens 1.89

 

Thanks once again - Ironically, I have "Tax for dummies in my Amazon Wishlist" Shall be purchasing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anon im going to stick my neck on the block here, its £1.50, pay it and move on.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says you owe as i think it is do with the rounding down/up throughout the year as i has the same problem. If you want to offset your self employment losses against your PAYE you need to complete one of the boxes by putting in your net loss and this then generates the refund

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says you owe as i think it is do with the rounding down/up throughout the year as i has the same problem. If you want to offset your self employment losses against your PAYE you need to complete one of the boxes by putting in your net loss and this then generates the refund

 

Thank you.

 

Under the self-employed section 4 - I've filled out profit with loss £2500 Which shows (Net business loss for tax purposes: £ 435.00)

 

Even if I removed my "employed" section the results are still the same with how much I'm owing. Which section am I missing here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you.

 

Under the self-employed section 4 - I've filled out profit with loss £2500 Which shows (Net business loss for tax purposes: £ 435.00)

 

Even if I removed my "employed" section the results are still the same with how much I'm owing. Which section am I missing here?

 

Just to add, the paper returns seems to be different to online. (capital gains section)

Link to post
Share on other sites

a couple of sections up, the main title is something about losses, the first question is Loss from this tax year set off against other income for 2016-17, the second is loss to be carried back to previous year(s) and set off against income (or capital gains) third question total loss to carry forward after all other set offs including unused losses brought forward. You complete the first box putting in the £435 and this then calculates at the end.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

a couple of sections up, the main title is something about losses, the first question is Loss from this tax year set off against other income for 2016-17, the second is loss to be carried back to previous year(s) and set off against income (or capital gains) third question total loss to carry forward after all other set offs including unused losses brought forward. You complete the first box putting in the £435 and this then calculates at the end.

 

Thank you. That seems to be it, it's now telling me I'm owed £85. Which obviously needs to go towards "Tax for dummies"

 

I'm going to wait until my p60 comes through to double check the details and send.

 

Thanks for your help. Hopefully business should be better next year, and yes I need an accountant.

 

Appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:-) no problem, it is the one box I keep forgetting to fill in every year! :oops:

 

Indeed, I'll know for next time now.

 

and, any tax refund can either be re a cheque, or on the paye. the form shld give you the option.

 

Mine have anyways come as a check, Ive not seen an option online. It does ask for my bank details but the last one was via cheque.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine have anyways come as a check, Ive not seen an option online. It does ask for my bank details but the last one was via cheque.

i also took a cheque, but it did give the alternative option to offset it re tax code paye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...