Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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 2232 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...