Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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 
        • 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 tax debt - who is responsible to pay


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1944 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 would not like other people to think that just because a wife or husband owes a particular item that it cannot be seized because IT CAN.

 

 

No it can't. It must be jointly owned by the wife and husband, a marriage does not mean that all possessions become jointly owned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but ctax is joint doesn't matter if they are not named on the demand, adult that lives there...

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously where joint and several liability for a debt exists it does not matter whether goods are jointly owned or not. Where joint and several liability does not exist for a debt, goods belonging to a spouse are not automatically considered to be jointly owned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But for ctax it is..so your post 9 is wrong.

 

Just because an adult living in the same property is not named on the ctax bill it does not mean they are not jointy liable..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

But for ctax it is..so your post 9 is wrong.

 

 

It's not wrong because the statement I replied to was a general statement and did not mention council tax or joint and several liability at all.

 

 

 

It is your post, number 2, which is wrong. It jumps to conclusions with no exploration at all.

 

 

 

Just because an adult living in the same property is not named on the ctax bill it does not mean they are not jointy liable..

 

 

And just because another adult lives in the same property as another adult does not mean they are jointly liable for a council tax debt either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you read here about ctax debts.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it can't. It must be jointly owned by the wife and husband, a marriage does not mean that all possessions become jointly owned.

 

 

Yes it does. Your finances are jointly entwined.

You actually form that contract when you say with all my worldly goods I endow. It also means debts.

Its made very clear in council tax legislation, the taking control of goods act and numerous court cases.

Unless you have a court ordered legal financial seperation whilst your in the process of a divorce the only seperation of finances happens when you get your decree absolute

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?490598-Council-tax-debt-equita-bailiffs-clamped-Mrs-car&p=5157778#post5157778

because she is not registered for voters etc at that address and doesnt live there

now go play elsewhere please this is disrupting the OP's thread.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will Goodfellow said:
In other words, you can't back up your claims.

 

HI

 

The council; tax regulations make it clear that a joint liability exists in regards of CT. However as far as the liability order is concerned the only persons liable or the debt(under that order) are the persons named on it.

 

However when the enforcement under schedule 12 commences the rules under that schedule apply. If you look up definition of goods under definitions, it also includes someone who has "an interest", in the goods goods of the other party may be taken.

 

(2)

In this Schedule—

(a)

references to goods of the debtor or another person are references to goods in which the debtor or that person has an interest, but

 

The problem with seizing goods like this, is that they are regarded as co-owned goods after auction and as such get the value of their interest first before anyone else is paid. This often leaves nothing for the creditor and apart from nuisance value is of little value.( part 50)

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

"just because another adult lives in the same property as another adult does not mean they are jointly liable for a council tax debt" is what I wrote. And that is the case, not all adults are liable to pay council tax even where they live in the same property, full-time students are not liable for example.

 

If two adults live together, one is a full-time student and one works full-time, only the person working full-time is liable. The adult working full time will be eligible for a 25% single person discount. There are a number of other scenarios in which that is the case. I am well aware of joint and several liability and when it arises.

 

It is siplistic to state that where adults live together they are jointly liable for council tax.

 

 

Schedule 12 states “interest” means a beneficial interest.

 

Which means any goods in which a debtor has a beneficial interest are subject to the warrant of control, that covers jointly owned goods. And is also the argument bailiffs use to seize vehicles on hire purchase, as where there is significant equity in an HP vehicle, that may be considered a beneficial interest.

 

Because two people are married does not mean that all goods become jointly owned nor does it mean there is a beneficial interest in each others goods. Also it does not meant that all finances are "jointly entwined" either.

 

Insolvency is the perfect example of that where one person in a married couple is insolvent but the other person isn't. In fact, it is impossible to make a joint insolvency application for any insolvency options which would not be the case if all finances were "jointly entwined".

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying two married people living in the same property do not have a joint interest in their goods(furniture tv etc). All it takes is for the debtor to be one of those people.

 

Now doesn't it.

 

The EA can only take goods of the debtor.

 

(a)

references to goods of the debtor or another person are references to goods in which the debtor or that person has an interest,

 

Really no need to complicate matters further

 

 

There seems to be an endemic problem regarding the separation of legislation which applies before enforcement and the TCE which applies during.

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

You actually form that contract when you say with all my worldly goods I endow.

 

That cannot be true.

 

Firstly marriage is not a contract as meant in contract law and the commitments made to each other in the ceremony are not enforceable in the courts. So the words, when used, are a religious duty not a legal one.

 

The words you quote are only said in Church of England marriages and then only if the 1662 Book of Common Prayer is used. They are not in most modern versions of the prayer book.

 

Civil marriages and partnerships do not require any such words.

 

So even if the words did mean what you claim there's no way of knowing which couples had made the commitment and which hadn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you are saying two married people living in the same property do not have a joint interest in their goods(furniture tv etc).

 

 

Yes. Because two people are married and living together does not mean they have a beneficial interest in the goods the other person owns.

 

 

 

As an example, a married couple exist, and they both own cars. They each saved for a car from their own wages, and paid for the car from their own bank account which is in the sole name of the car owner.

 

 

 

The car belongs to the person who bought the car, it is not jointly owned.

 

 

The husband has a credit card debt in his sole name and a CCJ, the bailiffs visit. There is no joint and several liability for the debt. The bailiff's clamp the wife's car. She proves she bought the car using a bank account in her sole name in to which her wages are paid, shows the receipt for the car and the bank statement, all in her name.

 

 

 

Are you saying that the bailiffs can legally seize the car and auction it off to pay the husband's debt because he has a 'beneficial interest'? Because that is not the case, the husband has no beneficial interest and the car is not jointly owned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We also should remember that the EA only has to believe that there is an interest, in the case of a married couple I think it would be difficult to prove he was at fault to hold such a belief.

 

I also think that most marriages and partnerships contribute to jointly held property one way or another, not that this would be tested.

 

You are trying to dig too deep here, it is a simple , everything depends on the circumstances, the bailiffs initial reaction will be that jointly used property is indicative of a joint interest, this seems reasonable. If the debtor wants to challenge they can later in court, the EA will not be sanctioned for the belief.

 

No one said anything about beneficial interest? Just common sense.

 

If someone wants to argue that there live partner has no interest in there joint goods, please go ahead.

 

Also again you are talking abput who is responsible for CT. That is not the issue, as far as the TCEA is concerned, it is about what is in the regs say, it may be anything a fine for instance. The TCEA is about enforcement, …...as repeatedly said :)

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

a discussion thread is now created

 

please post here not on the OP's thread now

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think that most marriages and partnerships contribute to jointly held property one way or another, not that this would be tested.

 

 

I agree, and where goods are jointly owned there is a beneficial interest but marriage does not mean that all goods are jointly owned between spouses.

 

 

All the non-debtor party whose goods were seized would need to do is show evidence that the goods aren't jointly owned but are solely owned and the goods should be released.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, and where goods are jointly owned there is a beneficial interest but marriage does not mean that all goods are jointly owned between spouses.

 

 

All the non-debtor party whose goods were seized would need to do is show evidence that the goods aren't jointly owned but are solely owned and the goods should be released.

 

Yes although that does not stop the goods being lawfully seized of course, and there is an issue of the amount of time goods were owned , it may be held that goods, even though initially bought by one party would become jointly owned over time and joint usage.

Pretty much in the hands of the judge. On the death of one party, the goods ,unless otherwise stated would go to the other, beneficial interest?

 

Perhaps this is an issue which all debtors should be aware of not just CT debtors, but it is something which they should keep in mind .

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

The OP has stated his partner is not resident at the property with him so she cannot be held jointly liable for the council tax charge on the property under s6 or s9 of the LGFA 1992. If she had been resident she would have been jointly liable under s6 or s9 (except in the case of an odd situation under s9 but there's nothing to suggest that applies here). It looks like the council took all this in account and the liability order is correctly against the OP.

 

The above being said, the specific enforcement of the liability order by the enforcement agents is actioned separately to the legislation which lead up to the granting of the order. As can be seen in this case TACE (and it's surrounding legislation) does not always sit easily or nicely with council tax legislation.

 

A couple living separately may well have intertwined interest in goods sufficient to satisfy Schedule 12 but a look at each and every situation would be needed to make the determination of ownership.

 

Yes and it really is not a matter of the CT at all, but if there is evidence of co-ownership. perhaps section 85 claims would prove necessary to prove ownership or none ownership in this case.

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...