Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The digital bank has introduced three new plans - Extra, Perks and Max - replacing its existing Plus and Premium plans for new customers.View the full article
    • Agree it is not a modification that needs to be disclosed to Insurers as changing the seats has not changed the risk.  
    • Frpm David Frost and Robert Jenrick: 'Conservatives must show we respect the votes in 2016 and 2019 and not give the Opposition the chance to undo the benefits of leaving the EU'   Sweep away the Brexit gloom – or Labour will unravel a huge gain ARCHIVE.PH archived 22 Apr 2024 05:47:50 UTC  
    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
  • 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

council tax liability order but council tax paid as part of rent


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2229 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

It mentions the word council tax and the promise to pay it in the wording, how much more plain can it get?

 

Even if you ignored the council tax legislation for a moment and look at it contractually. You made a contractual agreement with the landlord only. A contractual agreement between two parties cannot bind a third party unless that third party have agreed to be -the council haven't.

 

All this is going around in circles anyway as your agreement with the landlord cannot override statute, the council are only able to follow what legislation says is the case. You need to sort out your liability with the council and then pursue the landlord yourself for any monies he may owe you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the person in the statutory periodic tenancy expired and served with a Notice Requiring Possession' still live in the property and liable for council tax? or are they homeless as the council awarded a status of homelessness still owe council tax? When would it be reasonable to presume they did not owe council tax a sit seems they can now owe council tax whilst being deemed resident in two different properties,(whether they are or not ) one of which they are evicted form. It seems that "cease to be resident in the property" is open to interpretation and may extend long after the tenant thinks they have left .

 

It seems now that the tenancy agreement may not have been valid because of Being let to a tenant while the landlord is residing in the same property?

Edited by oldbag
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Housing Act 1988 defines several main criteria for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to be set up:

 

  • The property must be let as separate accommodation
  • The property must be the tenant’s main or principal home
  • The tenant should be an individual

However, there are some circumstances in which a shorthold tenancy cannot be used. For example, when a property is:

 

  • Being let for a very high rent (more than £100,000 per year)
  • Being let for a very low rent / at no cost
  • Being let as a holiday home
  • Being let to a tenant while the landlord is residing in the same property
  • Being let with more than two acres of agricultural land or an agricultural tenancy
  • Being let under a tenancy which began prior to the 15 January 1989, or which was formerly a protected tenancy
  • Being let to a private limited company
  • Owned by the Crown or a government department

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this at https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/43739-council-tax

Whoever is registered to pay the council tax, is the one that has to pay it,

so if it's not you, the council will have to go after the tenant for council tax ,

and does not concern you.

Unless you are still registered to pay the council, in which case, unless you

stipulated that the rent included council tax, or an extra payment was

required, you cant ask for council tax if you are the ones down to pay.

 

in which case, unless you stipulated the the rent included council tax, and in my case that was done at 3(b) of an assured shorthold tenancy that became a periodic.

Edited by oldbag
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this at https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/43739-council-tax

Whoever is registered to pay the council tax, is the one that has to pay it,

so if it's not you, the council will have to go after the tenant for council tax ,

and does not concern you.

Unless you are still registered to pay the council, in which case, unless you

stipulated that the rent included council tax, or an extra payment was

required, you cant ask for council tax if you are the ones down to pay.

 

in which case, unless you stipulated the the rent included council tax, and in my case that was done at 3(b) of an assured shorthold tenancy that became a periodic.

 

The person who is registered on the council tax account will pay by virtue of the fact that the council will chase the person shown on the council tax account until they get sufficient evidence that they are not liable - this will always be the case. The determination is made under legislation not a 'the landlord said he will pay agreement'.

 

Does the person in the statutory periodic tenancy expired and served with a Notice Requiring Possession' still live in the property and liable for council tax? or are they homeless as the council awarded a status of homelessness still owe council tax?

You can be called whatever you like - what matters are the facts of the situation. Being termed homeless or not make no difference - only the facts of the situation as they apply to council tax.

 

When would it be reasonable to presume they did not owe council tax a sit seems they can now owe council tax whilst being deemed resident in two different properties,(whether they are or not ) one of which they are evicted form. It seems that "cease to be resident in the property" is open to interpretation and may extend long after the tenant thinks they have left .

As I have already said, resident is a specific term for council tax purposes- you cannot try to reinvent the term. The fact is that a person may be liable for council tax on more than one property at a time - providing the right criteria are met in legislation then a person can be liable on a property since 1993 yet never been resident (or even lived in it).

 

At the end of the day there's only so many times you can be told that a personal agreement etc makes no difference. If you want to ignore discussing the correct issues with the council then they are simply going to continue to chase you for the money and you will go around in circles again. You may or may not be liable for the period in question, it depends on the exact circumstances and how legislation applies under s6, but simply arguing the landlord had an agreement to pay will not make the issue go away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...