Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2408 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 there, this is my first post so apologies if this dilemma is elsewhere. I did do a search first but couldn't find anything similar.

 

I received a single person discount declaration form asking to update/verify my circumstances. This spd has been in effect since 2014.

 

The house in question was bought be myself and my partner, and was a complete refurb. We was exempt from paying any council tax for the first 28 days and after that was moved onto a spd even though nobody was living in the property (due to the heavy renovation being done); This took around 12 months to complete.

 

As stated earlier I had registered for the spd. Once the work was completed my partner moved into the house but I remained at my mothers house (due to the fact that we are not married). Although the spd and council tax had remained in my name.

 

I called the council to explain the situation and they're now saying the following:

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2014 - 2015 as the spd is on the basis that someone living in the property (even though it was empty)

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2015 - 2017 based on the fact that my partner was living there alone and the council tax was in my name

 

If anyone could advise what I should do I'd be greatly appreciative

 

Thanks you in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. My partner called them and thats how they discovered that nobody was living there between 2014 - 2015. Is it most likely that the call was being recorded? I know they asked him for a reference number

 

I have always been named on the bill at my mothers. I never notified the council until now because of the SPD form.

 

I have all my post going to my mothers and my partner has his post going to the address in dispute.

 

I wasn't aware of the Local Government Ombudsman, I will give them a call tomorrow. Im hoping I can receive some advice here first

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spoke to the ombudsman and they said its not something they can take on, and they suggested valuation tribunal as you did...I get the feeling that this whole mess is going to cost me grands

The process is free unless you wish to take on some external assistance that you pay for - other than that the only cost is your time.

 

What doesn't go in your favour is that you registered for a single person discount knowing that no-one was resident - most councils won't but there an increasing number are pursuing people for claiming discounts fraudulently and taking action against them.

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2014 - 2015 as the spd is on the basis that someone living in the property (even though it was empty)

That would be correct - the local authority probably offers a 0% reduction for the period in question on an unoccupied property.

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2015 - 2017 based on the fact that my partner was living there alone and the council tax was in my name

Because you've told them you were liable and then you're saying only your partner was resident but at present have given no proof you were resident elsewhere - It appears the root cause is the lack of information being passed to the council so they have had to try and sort the liability based on what information they have.

 

Thanks for the reply. My partner called them and thats how they discovered that nobody was living there between 2014 - 2015. Is it most likely that the call was being recorded? I know they asked him for a reference number

Highly likely these days.

 

Certainly try the valuation tribunal but you're going to have to provide sufficient evidence that you were resident elsewhere to the tribunal and due to the incorrect information being given previously the benefit of any doubt will tend to go in the council's favour rather than yours.

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks alreadyexists and ss002d6252. Do you think I should hang on and wait to see what the council will do? As it stands the information for the 2014-2015 period was only mentioned from my partner and thinking back to that period he exaggerated the refurb period. He would of been staying a few nights especially on the weekends as he was doing all the work!

 

I can easily supply information to the council by electoral role, car insurance and bank statements, work letters that prove where my residence was/is; As can my partner.

 

Or maybe I should call the council myself and find out what the situation is?

 

I know Im trying to second guess here which is a massive stress

Link to post
Share on other sites

they will undoubtedly take the line that they are entitled to do their worst when a property is empty after a qualifying period and that can mean charging you more than the normal CT amount if they wish ( second home money grab). The fact you partner was there some of the time and on his own is irrelevant as your declaration was different to this. Likewise living with mum makes your home a second home in their mind because by making that assumption they get more money for nothing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks alreadyexists and ss002d6252. Do you think I should hang on and wait to see what the council will do? As it stands the information for the 2014-2015 period was only mentioned from my partner and thinking back to that period he exaggerated the refurb period. He would of been staying a few nights especially on the weekends as he was doing all the work!

 

I can easily supply information to the council by electoral role, car insurance and bank statements, work letters that prove where my residence was/is; As can my partner.

 

Or maybe I should call the council myself and find out what the situation is?

 

I know Im trying to second guess here which is a massive stress

 

I would say to ring them and try to ascertain the full situation as it stands at the moment as far as they are aware. I always say to establish exactly what the council's view of the situation, is what they're doing now and what they plan to do. That way the full position can be established and a plan made as to what to do next.

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...