Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. Thanks for the replies. I've been thinking it through and talking about this to a colleague. I think its pretty borderline with HMRC - we are pretty sure that if the sum of the discount exceeds the original service charge then it is clear cut income. I think that as long as we dont 'invoice' the management company and the discount is offered 'voluntarily' then I doubt you would have to pay income tax. As with any company it is up to them to decide what, if any discount they should offer to their customers. Hopefully it would just be viewed as discounting the liability rather than being recognised as income.
  2. Hi Thanks - i think you have misunderstood slightly. We dont want to get involved in the day to day stuff - the management company we employ would continue to do this, mainly because of the points you raise. What we would like to take on is the gardening and vacuuming of communal areas and nothing more. The management company have budgeted £3,100 for this year but we would just like greater control in being able to do this ourselves (each flat owns 1 share of the company). However those who would get involved can not do this for nothing but we reckon for perhaps £1,000 in terms of time and materials cost. We are just not sure whether the tax man would recognise this as income and therefore be taxable or whether as its just to discount our service charge bill is outside the scope (however those who do not contribute do not receive any discount by the management company)?
  3. Hi - not strictly a lettings issue but best home I could find... We are a block of 24 apartments that pay an annual service charge to a management company to look after communal areas. A few of the residents are unhappy with the excessive cost of things like cleaning and the poor workmanship. Some of us are thinking about clubbing together to take this on ourselves as we could do a better job for less. As only a few apartments would club together we are reluctant to take anything on as a freebie. We were thinking that those who have contributed could then be offered a 'discount' on future service charge bills. Our thinking is that we then wouldnt have to pay income tax on the value of work done. Everyone would then benefit as overall the amount of service charge we all pay will reduce, but those who have contributed to the upkeep receive an extra discount in recognitiion of this. The issue we just have is would the discount be treated as income? If so we will probably have to increase our costs by 20% to allow for this. It would still be a significant overall saving but obviously not as much as before.
  4. Hello, My partner received a student loan from SLC a few years ago to complete her degree. Since then she was working full time and had automatic payments being made direct to the SLC through her salary. Since September she has become a full time student again to do a masters (self funded). She has received a letter from SLC a few days ago pretty much stating that they are aware that no payments have been made and if she has returned to full time education evidence to how she is supporting herself - bank statements etc. If she doesnt reply within a month then she has been told that there will be financial penalties. She has called them yesterday but basically gave up trying to speak to a human. My initial reaction to the letter was that they have no right to the information but I know SLC works differently to other loans. My intention was to just supply a redacted copy of the bank statement i.e. remove all balances from the statement etc although I've got a feeling SLC are not going to like that. At best I'll supply a copy of her student status from the current uni. I'm sure she isnt the first person to have ever receive this type of letter. Is there anyone in the know?
  5. I think you and one or two others need to read the original post more carefully! If the concensus is that its up to the driver in 99% of cases as I get the feeling here then quite simply if I fancy a quick buck it would just be advantageous to throw yourself in front of a car as its never the pedestrians fault! The post now is irrelevant anyway - I have been informed that case law these days presents a simple test. What would have happened had the car been travelling at e.g. 5mph, would the accident still have occured? I have also been told that in this instance the pedestrian has ignored the highway code which although in itself is not law it is referred to in the traffic act. Simply put a pedestrian should use a designated crossing point where one exists. If you decide to cross you should do so where drivers are in a position to see you and should avoid crossing between parked cars. Finally Parked vehicles. If you have to cross between parked vehicles, use the outside edges of the vehicles as if they were the kerb. Stop there and make sure you can see all around and that the traffic can see you. Make sure there is a gap between any parked vehicles on the other side, so you can reach the pavement. Never cross the road in front of, or behind, any vehicle with its engine running, especially a large vehicle, as the driver may not be able to see you. Someone made reference to the car - I couldnt give a stuff about it. I just dont want to see someone potentially profit from their own negligence. In days gone it would have just been classed as an incident and everyone would have moved on in a situation such as this.
  6. Depends what you mean by smash - I dont mean into pieces. Just lots of cracks. I was told by the collision investigation unit that if he was hit at 30mph plus then he would have been flipped the other side of the vehicle. Apparantly even at 10 mph you would be flipped onto the windscreen. We may agree to differ on the term excessive speed!
  7. correct. If culpability is proven then I dont see the injury as being relevant. That said I will only follow this up if he makes a claim first.
  8. I didnt want to mention earlier but one of the witnesses was an off duty police officer so I think their statement would be more accurate than most! Re speed its a difficult one, it seems that had the speed been 10 mph then the accident would have still occured. I think a deal of pragmatism is required, as for instance I can run a half marathon faster than 10mph which would render the car useless!
  9. Mossy - thanks my view too is to leave it unless he claims. Jon - Was a footpath either side so you wouldnt expect a pedestrian to cross there any more than anywhere else. It is a known busy road which is why there is a designated crossing a few tens of metres away. I take your point though but if someone walks out in front of the car about 5 metres ahead of you there is very little you can do in those circumstances. Thankfully there are three witnesses who all say the same thing. I'm not sure I agree with you that in the eyes of the law the principal (guess it depends what you mean by principal!) road user is the pedestrian, but in any case I believe the law states it is assumed that the vehicle driver is in the right and is up to the claimant to prove negligence, not the other way round.
  10. Hello - first post so apologies if its in the wrong place! My partner was involved in a car accident where she hit a pedestrian. Without going into the finer points there were three witnesses, all of whom support my partner stating that he just walked out on her and that there was nothing she could do. Essentially there were three lanes of traffic two of which were gridlocked, he weaved between the the first two lanes but didnt realise the third lane was still moving and walked straight out into the lane without looking. We also had the police come round to take photographs of the car who also confirmed that it was a low speed accident - about 20mph in his opinion. The only damage was the windscreen which was smashed, but the rest of the car was fine. The gentleman was not so lucky, more so as he was 70 - a fractured leg, minor head injury, and possibly some spinal issues although we dont know whether that is just precautionary. My partner has just paid £70 excess to replace the windscreen and the insurers are not counting it as a claim as the moment as there is no damage to the car itself (so she doesnt need to pay the full excess). However she is worried that in this day and age we will be faced with a personal injury claim. I was wondering whether there is anything preventing us from claiming the excess back from the gentleman plus costs of the recovery (could be up to £180). My partner was also going onto a course that day which was another £100 plus other indirect costs. I am prepared to write this off and just put it down to one of those things even though all the evidence points to his negligence. I am just a bit concerned that if a speculative injury claim comes in we could be put into a weaker position by not claiming first. The alternative is to claim against him personally but is that just callous?
  • Create New...