Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I see the poops are still trying to deflect from their own criminality and and abuses by whinging on about raynors buying her council house - now about election registration - anyone who owns a flat or house understands that you dont give up your and your childrens home just because of a new relationship and while we are on about that ..   lets start with When is jenrick being revisited for both lockdown abuses and self admitted (claims estate is his main home - not the property in his electorate or his london property) 'possible (lol) electoral registration abuses as he claimed he was at his estate 'main home' away from both London and his electoral 'home'  - much of which paid for by the taxpayer     Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick 'breaks lockdown rules twice' by going to 'second home' - Mirror Online WWW.MIRROR.CO.UK Key Cabinet Minister Robert Jenrick drove 150 miles to his 'second home' after urging the nation to remain in their homes in a bid to...   ... perhaps follow with more self admitted lobbying while in a potion where they shouldn't “A few of us in parliament have lobbied the government – and with the help of the Treasury select committee, the chancellor has listened,” John Baron wrote.   Tory MP faces lobbying questions over Treasury committee role | Investing | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Co-owner of investment management firm called for ‘urgent’ post-Brexit changes to City rules at committee meetings     About time labour got in the game and started pressing for these self admitted/bragged Tory abuses were properly investigates.
    • No I didn't I got the dates mixed up.   
    • Sorry about that, TJ. The person who posted it specifically said it was free access. Here's another version of the FT article. https://archive.is/KYrPa
    • Isnt there some indication in there of at least intent to inform arbuthnot? IF he wasn't then it would seem to be Vennells decision to keep him 'uninformed .. Although seems to me if arbuthnot was unaware - he was either incompetent or should have very detailed records of denials. Seems vennells is constantly at the core of all the lying about all these issues though.
    • Paywalled/subscribe HB I'm unaware of the details on this HB but why is it a potential taxpayer burden? Hasn't a judge already ruled port has rights of access - so shouldn't costs be on the private company (South Tees Development Corporation) trying to change established access?     LIVE: High Court updates as CEO gives evidence in access rights row between STDC and PD Ports - Teesside Live WWW.GAZETTELIVE.CO.UK The face-off between the Teesport operator and Mayor Ben Houchen's South Tees Development Corporation continues in the High Court  
  • 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

Council Taking on line payments for old Bill


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2430 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

I have today had a letter from my council cancelling my right to pay my Council Tax. In installments.

 

I have been paying this on line for the last 4 months for this year on a regular basis. My last payment was paid on Monday this week.

 

When I received the letter I phoned my Council who informed me all my on line payments have been taken off an old Debt which is also being taken via my ESA.

 

They say I have to pay again as the money I have paid has gone off my old debt.

 

My question is, Is this correct and can they do this.? I spoke to someone back in April who assured me this would not happen again, Obviously, it has.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In respect of the monies which were being paid online - under what circumstances where they being paid, where you paying the same amount as shown on the demand notice and paying for the correct dates or where you paying odd amounts at different dates ?

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today had a letter from my council cancelling my right to pay my Council Tax. In installments.

 

I have been paying this on line for the last 4 months for this year on a regular basis. My last payment was paid on Monday this week.

 

When I received the letter I phoned my Council who informed me all my on line payments have been taken off an old Debt which is also being taken via my ESA.

 

They say I have to pay again as the money I have paid has gone off my old debt.

 

My question is, Is this correct and can they do this.? I spoke to someone back in April who assured me this would not happen again, Obviously, it has.

 

Was the earlier debt under a liability order?

You say this was being taken via your ESA, so is this under enforcement(attachment to benefits)?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today had a letter from my council cancelling my right to pay my Council Tax. In installments.

 

 

 

 

They say I have to pay again as the money I have paid has gone off my old debt.

 

.

 

The council do not have to offer monthly instalments. The fact that they do is for ease but that's over and beyond what they legally have to do.

 

I dont understand why you think you have to "pay again"

Your paying your debt to the council from past year or years where you used all the services that the council had to do and not paid for.

Its called catching up with older debt and staying current on the year your in

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council do not have to offer monthly instalments. The fact that they do is for ease but that's over and beyond what they legally have to do.

 

I dont understand why you think you have to "pay again"

Your paying your debt to the council from past year or years where you used all the services that the council had to do and not paid for.

Its called catching up with older debt and staying current on the year your in

 

The person who started this thread said she/he was paying the older CT via her ESA and this years via the council web portal

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the earlier debt is the result of an enforcement, extra payments may not be added to it.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payments are applied to debt 1st.

So online payments just reduce the debt that the payments via ESA go to.

There is a maximum that can be deducted from esa.

 

So you dont "pay again" as the op suggests.. Your catching up quicker

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payments are applied to debt 1st.

So online payments just reduce the debt that the payments via ESA go to.

There is a maximum that can be deducted from esa.

 

So you don't "pay again" as the op suggests. Your catching up quicker

 

No of course not. But the amount taken from a debt under enforcement is calculated, in order to leave the debtor with enough to live on(or o they say). This is a statutory process, you cannot add to the amount taken off that debt and sidestep that process.

 

If the earlier debt is not under enforcement, the debtor may agree to pay out of his benefit of course.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

We need more imfo from, the debtor.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the monies are being paid in the correct manner (date, reference number and amount) as shown on an ongoing demand notice the payments should be allocated to that amount as it's easily identifiable - the council have no excuse for not allocating the payments correctly. They have no powers to prevent a person from paying an ongoing council tax charge and potentially force a liability order on the amount due to their actions - if it wasn't clear where the payments were for, and the OP hadn't identified what they were for, then it would be a different matter. Unless the right to instalments is lost then the council have no option but to apply an instalment plan as per legislation.

 

The OP needs to contact the local authority and ask why the monies are being allocated incorrectly - if the payments are easily identifiable then it's certainly a case where a formal complaint followed, potentially by a LGO complaint, would be the way to go.

 

The deductions from ESA are certainly on a balance subject to a liability order otherwise an attachment of benefit order could not be issued - it cannot be done on a voluntary basis (unless the council have a liability order and you ask them nicely if they would use that method of recovery)

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and if the older account was on a functioning attachment the authority should not be allocating additional payments to it.which is why i asked the question.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...