I recently fell behind with some rent payments, which I'm now paying back. My Landlord issued a claim for possession through the courts and the hearing date is in April, however, today I received a form 6a from the Landlord and I'm really confused! Does this go hand in hand with the Court hearing? It appears tactics have changed. How do I stand with a 6a as it states 'no fault possession. The Court claim says it's due to rent arrears. Please could anyone shed some light on it for me?

I am the owner of a car and my wife the driver. On 31/03/15 my wife met her friend on for a meal one evening and parked side by side with her on what they thought was a free car parking space at the side of the Croma Italian restaurant in Prestwich , Manchester. neither of them saw any signage and plus it was about 7:30pm in the evenings wasn't expecting to pay parking. Apparently there were signs according to excel? After now numerous letters from excel parking, zenith, rossendale (all ignored). We have a letter from BW legal - a final notice saying that as i have ignored the last letter offering a discount of £80 they now have been instructed to commence proceedings in county court if i do not pay with 10 days of the letter date . The letter is dated 9th may 2016 and I received it on the 14th may. The letter states i have to pay £54 excel costs plus £100 fine. - Remember i am not the driver (I'm the owner). I have never corresponded to parking charges before and they always stop after a year or so but these seem more "legal" and possibly I'm now entering a reality whereby they will take court action? Q. has anyone had this "final notice" letter and when or how did you deal with it?

In May 2015, I started a thread on this forum regarding a debtor (Mr OR) who had followed advice from the internet and had issued an injunction against a local authority after his vehicle had been clamped by a bailiff. The debtor considered that his vehicle should have been exempt as it was subject to finance. Unfortunately, his injunction failed as the Judge ruled that there could be a ‘beneficial’ interest in the vehicle. Mr OR was ordered to pay the local authorities costs of £3,200. This was in addition to his own costs (the fee for the injunction alone was £395). A link to this popular thread is below. So far, it has received almost 13,000 views. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?445251-Goods-on-HP-a-Judge-says-they-can-be-sold(1-Viewing )-nbsp In Sept 2015, I started a similar thread on here to warn members of the public that if they have a vehicle that is subject to finance, they need to ensure that they provide evidence that there is no ‘beneficial interest' in the vehicle. Even that thread has received almost 6,500 views !! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?451273-Vehicles-on-HP-can-be-sold-by-a-bailiff.-Evidence-must-be-provided-that-there-is-no-beneficial-interest. Unfortunately, a couple of months ago, another debtor (Mr MH) also issued an injunction to prevent an enforcement company selling his vehicle (a mini cab). This vehicle was also subject to ‘hire purchase’. The difference with this case, was that the ‘value’ of the vehicle was approx £14,500, and the amount required to settle the obligation under the hire purchase contract was just £6,300 (leaving an ‘equitable interest’ of approx £8,200). The debtor lost his case in court on 16th August. He was also ordered to pay the local authorities legal costs of £3,400. He was refused permission to appeal. Neither the debtor or his legal representative have made an application to appeal and accordingly, given the importance of this subject, the enforcement company have given me permission to provide an outline of the case in the hope that it may help other debtors to avoid making the same mistake. PS: I will not be giving the name of the debtor, the local authority or the enforcement company. The facts of the case are all that is important.

In a nutshell. I had a business in Glasgow but now live in Manchester. A summons was raised for liability against me in Glagow and I attended the hearing. I was v close to having it struck out there but a request was made for a position statement from me and then a reply from the council. Before adjournment I asked about my costs as the travel alone was close to 200 miles each way plus time to get there. I mentioned this is court and the advisor did mention "Ex Parti costs" if I won but to be fair, I didnt understand but it sounded like I could claim this back if won. The council have emailed me and muttered this that and the other but said " "the Council will oppose an application and case law does allow public bodies to pursue legal proceedings “without fear of exposure to undue financial prejudice if the decision is successfully challenged.” So they are saying they can drag me 400 miles twice and theres nothing I can do about it. I was going to instruct a solicitor because I struggled to speak at the hearing but now they are saying even if I win, I wont get my costs. Is this true? Also on the day, they issued 600 summons at cost of £60. £36,000 for 1 morning s attendance. Thanks

If you are issued a section 21 notice, and there is no hearing, there is no way to contest costs. The judge has discretion to award costs or not. I was issued a section 21 because I would not accept a rent increase. No other issues with the tenancy. Costs were awarded. Whether a section 21 is issued or not is completely at the landlords discretion. Then forcing a tenant who is otherwise not in breach of the tenancy to bear that cost seems to be a violation of the consumer contracts act, 2015. I want to take that to small claims. Do I have a case? As I understand it, small claims will be loath to overturn costs orders, but section 21 is an "administrative procedure". Perhaps the costs are "administrative" also, and not strictly awarded court costs?

http://news.sky.com/story/car-insurance-costs-rising-five-times-faster-than-train-fares-10740471

For many years I've religiously renewed my breakdown coverage because it's very cheap - £15. During that period I think I've used them only once before, but recently I punctured five miles from home. Ordinarily I would put the spare on myself but, Sod's Law, only that morning had lent someone my repair kit and didn't have it back yet. Rather than walk home, I decided to use breakdown. When I rang, they told me they couldn't find my details and said I hadn't renewed, but I was adamant that I had. They agreed to send someone in good faith providing my details could be clarified (I was also given the impression that if there had been a problem with the renewal, it could be rectified). As it was, it took them four hours to get to me (had I known it would be that long, I'd have walked home!). This prompted them to, the following day, ring me and offer £50 compensation. Now I've received a threatening letter saying I didn't renew and they want paying for everything. I'm assuming they mean the £50 and the cost of the (third party) breakdown guy. They haven't put a figure on this but I dread to think what it is. Having now checked, I found that I haven't a renewal policy. Further investigation shows that I sent them a cheque (which I have proof off) but, again Sod's Law kicking in, the £15 cheque that was subsequently cashed on my bank statement, and that I therefore assumed was for the renewal, was actually a late cheque that I'd written three months earlier, cashed late. So what now? I know that I sent them the cheque, so feel like I'm being punished because they lost the cheque. I know that I won't be able to afford whatever figure they come out with, and most certainly wouldn't have willy nilly rang for a breakdown guy to come out had I not thought I had coverage. Thanks in advance.

Hi everyone, So my good friends at Capquest have been nipping at my backside again, this time using the wrong account number, creditor, agreement and more. You would have to see it to believe it. That aside it the final account they decided upon has been proved statute barred and they have discontinued. In the meantime in an attempt to defend the ever moving claim I've paid for duplicate bank statements, made a court application and taken advice from a solicitor. A report to the FOS and FCA are probably in order, but does anyone know if a claimant in a "small" claim they are protected from the costs of discontinuance. I read CPR 38.6.(1) to mean I can claim those costs. Thanks! uteb

Over the past five years or so I have made frequent threads on the forum concerning complaints that were made to the court about bailiffs (Form 4 Complaints) and the many times that courts did not find the bailiff at fault and ordered that the person MAKING THE COMPLAINT must pay the bailiffs legal costs in challenging the complaint against him. The worst case that I reported about concerned a debtor who had been ordered to pay over £20,000 !!!! In April 2014 when new bailiff regulations took effect, a new complaint procedure was implemented and 'Form 4' complaint forms were done away with and a new form (EAC2) was introduced. Crucially, the new regulations specifically state that the court can make a finding that the person making the complaint can be ordered to pay the bailiffs costs. During October I received enquiries from THREE individuals who had been ordered to pay costs. In the worst case, a lady was ordered to pay £3,000. Another lady was ordered to pay £1,500 and a gentleman ordered to pay £900. Worryingly, in two of the enquiries, the individuals had submitted an EAC2 Complaint to the County Court where the bailiff was certificated on the very SAME DAY as the bailiff visit. It simply beggars belief that anyone would do this without first making a complaint to the enforcement company or creditor (usually the local authority). Worst still, in one of the cases (the lady who was ordered to pay £3,000), she was a SOLICITOR !!! In EACH case, the person making the complaint had not known that the PURPOSE of the complaint was to seek the Judges agreement that the bailiff was not a 'fit and proper' person to hold a bailiff certificate. If anyone considers that a bailiff has done something wrong, then the FIRST step should be to make a complaint to the company that he works for. If their reply is not satisfactory, then a further complaint can be made to the local authority etc If a bailiff has a complaint made against him to the County Court, he will know that the Judge has to consider whether or not to remove his certificate from him. If so, this will lead to his immediate unemployment. It is for this reason that the bailiff will ALWAYS have legal representation and if the court do not find fault, they can....and do.....order the complainant to pay these costs.

hi all, i need some help with solicitors fees. i took my civil claim for a used car i purchased to a solicitor as i was not getting anywhere with the car dealer i purchased from. long story short, the solicitor had my file for 3 years, ran the case into the ground, i paid £17k in costs, the solicitor then came off file when i refused to pay any further money. now the solicitors firm want another £8000. in the end the solicitor did absolutely nothing for me, i didn't win the case nor did i lose it. the dealer in the end repaired the car and gave it back to me, for the privilege i paid a solicitor £17k. what i don't understand is, if my case had no prospect of winning why did they pursue it down the fast track route, instead of offering me legal advice, i was always asked, what i want to do, it was extremely reactive in nature. there would have been a better chance to pursue the defendant for costs in relation to make the car road worthy, the repair would have cost between £2000-£3000 maximum and we could have pursued it smalls claims. they are threatening court action if i don't pay and i really need to know what i can do?? i have been bled dry and dont have any more money to pay another solicitor. really hope someone can help me

I wonder if anyone can help? I received a PCN for parking in a disable bay at a private residential underground car park. I challenged this through both the appeal routes (parking operator and The IAS) based mainly on lack of clear signage at the bay. The ground markings are small and painted in red which were not visible while reversing in to the space and not visible once parked. There was a sign on a pillar however this was high up and to the side of the space and again not visible when reversing. My argument is that signage should have been directly behind the space in keeping with signs at other disabled bays in the car park. There was a perfectly pillar immediately behind the bay that a sign could have been attached to. I believe the current signage is unsatisfactory and amounts to "predatory tactics". What are people's thoughts? I also wonder what thoughts people have on on terms and conditions signage at the car park stating that the parking operator is a member of the BPA and appeals are heard by POPLAR when it transpires that they are not as they a new members of the IPC who use the IAS to hear appeals Does this incorrect signage have any baring on the arguments I can make at Court?

I instructed a solicitor in a personal injury claim some time ago with myself and my son as claimants, my partner was a passenger in the car, but did not wish to make a claim. I have had favourable outcomes / settlements for both me and my son and I thought the matter was finished. Last week we discovered that a ccj has been registered against my partner for £4k+. On enquiry to the court it turns out that my solicitor included my partner in the original claim, completely unbeknown to her, and the judgement is for something called a default costs order, claimed by the original defendant. My solicitor has never had any contact with my partner, not one phone call, letter or email. He did however imply in a phone conversation I had with him earlier that he thinsk "we may have put her on the claim at the beginning", although he has to get the file out of storage to check exactly what has happenend. My questions are these. Is it possible for a solicitor to be instructed without ever having contact with the client? What is the best way to deal with the CCJ which theoretically could be enforced at any time? (It is now over 28 days old) Is there any way other than requsting it is set aside, which costs £275 and is by no means a certainty? Thanks for any help FF

Hello all, In 2010 we had a CCJ granted against us for an unpaid invoice. It was for £5200 and we accepted the amount. The creditor secured a charging order for the amount. We wrote to the creditor in 2014 and were advised the outstanding amount was £4300. The creditor sent us a statement at that point which showed that prior to lodging the claim with the courts they had added £600 to the account for recoverable fixed costs. We did not know about this £600 figure until 4 years after the CCJ and charging order. We are now in a position to clear the debt of £4300. We wrote to the creditor again and they sent us a figure of £8000. We are going to write to them asking for a breakdown. Is it possible to have the CCJ figure looked at again by the courts? It seems as though this figure of £600 was added to the amount to allow them to receive interest on the debt. When the court cases (CCJ and CO) were heard they only managed to recover court fees. Any help will be appreciated.

Hi Not me but posting for a friend he received court papers for a business debt the debt was paid off on receiving the papers but they want the court costs i take it he has to pay these, he left this late now he has 1 day to acknowledge the debt via money claim online Thanks in advance

Afternoon all. First time poster here looking for advice. I am leaving my current employer to take up a post with another company. I am currently undertaking a distance learning course (half of which has been deferred to 2017 due to personal circumstances), which has not yet finished, so under a signed training agreement I am liable for the full balance of the outstanding costs. I held a meeting with my current employer to attempt to set up a repayment plan, as the balance outstanding is over £3,000 and I am not in a position to pay this immediately, but I have informed that my current employer intends to issue me with an invoice for the full amount upon my last day, with an expectation for the full balance to be repaid within 30 days. I have offered to re-pay the balance with 12 monthly payments, but they will not accept this. I have also attempted to explain that I do not have this money available, and that I am more than willing to repay as per a repayment plan. The HR manager also questioned me regarding my lifestyle, and advised that I should take a bank loan to repay the sum owed, which I found rather unprofessional. What are options around this?

Hi New member here, i am hoping i get some advice here. My Wife had started a job at a medical spa which does botox , skin facials. She worked there in May 2016, my wife started work but they were paying her such a low wage , she was reluctant to take the position, but she took it. The woman in charge had no idea how to run a medical spa at all and started to use the 12plus years knowledge my wife has . Before my wife had started work the woman had said to my wife that if my wife leaves within two years she would have to pay back any training costs. My wife started work but never signed any contract stating that she would have pay anything back , even the offer letter had no reference to this. My wife went on two half days of training for laser training but never got a certificate of any sort. This woman boss would contradict any ideas my wife brought up, my wife after a month wanted to discuss her wage as it was just not satisfactory of the work and experience she has. So my wife called a meeting with the woman boss and presented this to her, the woman boss did not even entertain the prospect of raising her salary at all. So my wife decided to leave before all her ideas were going to be used, the woman boss has now sent a letter asking my wife to pay back training costs for the two days, but nothing was signed and not even a job description was given to my wife. I think personally this woman is bitter that my wife had the guts to leave and she is now asking for money to feed her own ego. Any advice would be helpful, thanks

Hi there, friend of mine has been dealing with cabot for a CC, she has ignored them for some time recently been receiving letters regarding going to court from their solicitors stating the amount court costs would be, she is not worried about that as she knows it will be statues barred very soon but she has just checked her file on Clear score and the amount has been increased by the amount of court costs described in their last letter. Can they do this, add the costs on to her cra file before it's even been to court? Many thanks.

Last October, my then landlord compelled me to leave this property by threatening to ‘make your life hell’ if I stayed, as he was unhappy about me threatening to pay my final rent with part of my unregistered deposit. I loaded up my car with some of my belongings, gave the landlord back his key (as he'd threatened to change the locks), and agreed with my landlord that I’d arrange with him to return to collect my remaining belongings. My negotiations to retrieve my belongings didn’t run smoothly: - He repeatedly insulted me during the exchanges. - He was restrictive in terms of when I could attend to collect my stuff. - He imposed deadlines of when the items needed to be collected by, even though I'd told him that my work shifts meant I couldn’t attend at the times and dates he specified. - He told me that he’d only allow me to attend if I accepted a ridiculously low out of court settlement for the money he owed me for my deposit and unspent rent (but later relented). He and I finally agreed on a time and a date for me to collect my belongings, a couple of weeks after the eviction. He cancelled at the last minute, due to having lost his keys to the flat, without so much as apologizing. This was the final straw, particularly as I’d booked a day off work to attend. I told him that I’d be forfeiting my belongings. In response, he asked me never to contact him again. I’ve recently launched legal action against him, suing him for my deposit, my unspent rent and the distress and inconvenience his illegal eviction has caused. In response, he’s counter-suing me for £11 a day for storage costs, for between when I left and the date of the hearing! Does he have a case? Thanks, Jeff

The ABLE GROUP provide property maintenance services, ie glaziers, locksmiths, plumbers, electricians, drainage, gas, heating, pest control, etc. Please note however: If you need any such services, I suggest you look elsewhere. I have had the most horrendous experience with them and I hope my post helps others avoid going through the same horror story. Booked them to clear my house external drains, was quoted £114 to have them 4 drains unblocked. On the 7th of April, their Eng. came out, informed that the drains were now in good working order. My other half took his word for it and why not... They are supposed to be the specialists. After weeks of rain, I took time during last sunny weekend to clear the garden in prep. for the Summer and noticed that two drains had not been touched at all and were still blocked. Called their Customer Service, a few days ago, no reply. Called today and they refuse point blank to rectify the issue unless I pay again £114.00. What an outrage this company is really. I am absolutely furious with this disgusting bunch of dodgy people, taking the mickey. My advice to anyone is very simple: Learn from my experience and definitely engage an alternative company.

If you buy an item online and pay with Paypal they have a promotion where if you change your mind they will pay the return shipping costs. It runs to the 31st August and can be used 4 times up to a value of £15 each time. You need to opt in and it appears to be valid for all Paypal users. https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/refunded-returns Terms and conditions: https://www.paypal.com/uk/webapps/mpp/refunded-returns/general-conditions

Hi everyone, Any help or advise on where to go on this would be most welcome please as it's a battle I've been fighting for just over 6 years, without a break, and I NEED to get the Pension Service to put right the ultra vires decision (on the wrong legislation) and recieve the back pay owed. I am 110% correct in my findings from both DMG and legislation, the Pension Service are completely wrong and no-one will look at it. I list below a copy of the letter I have last sent, a brief outline of events leading to the wrongful withdrawal, by the Pension Service (PS), of allowable housing costs, with evidence. Brief Background History As a result of a divorce and Court proceedings an order was issued for me to acquire my ex-husband’s share in the house within a specified time limit of the Divorce. We had a joint mortgage for £30000 on our home. I had to remortgage (i) to redeem the original mortgage balance of £27108 and (ii) add £22500 equity acquisition to be paid to my ex-husband’s solicitors within a Court-specified time limit and (iii) to cover legal aid and other acquisition costs involved. However the costs amount was not only unknown but unexpectedly delayed until late 2008 because of solicitor errors. There was absolutely no problem with IS and they let me know that acquiring my ex-husband’s equity share in the house was an allowable housing cost. I received housing costs as Support for Mortgage Interest (SMI), paid direct to lender, as part of IS. The relevant letter from Wendy Steele, IS Decision Maker dated 02.06.06 quoted: “The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, No. 1967, Sch 3, para 4(6)(a), 15(1), 16(2), DMG 29825”. After my having to involve the Law Society regarding solicitor error and resulting Legal Services Commission (LSC) error, they were resolved in my favour and as a result the LSC wrote and apologised for their error and issued the amount of legal costs to be paid back for legal aid of £5875. There was also a £500 arrangement fee and £350 broker’s fee which had to be added to the legal aid bill of £5875 making basic acquisition costs of £6725. In August 2007, on reaching age 60, I was transferred from Income Support to Pension Credit and housing costs, including the equity acquisition of my ex-husband’s share of the home, remained the same without question, as confirmed in writing by the Pension Service (PS) State Pension Credit Regs, Schedule 2, para 11, DMG 78407 – 78410. However they failed to allow the full original mortgage redemption of £27,108 because evidence had been burned by my ex-husband so I had no proof of full allowable costs, e.g. conservatory (est) £4200). Only £17776.66 was allowed as per receipt evidence. Since the beginning of the re-mortgage IS (and later the PS) were advised of the delay in submitting legal costs because of solicitor and LSC errors but after the acquisition costs were established, late 2008, I requested that the PS added these costs to my SMI now that the matter was resolved and the amount was known. I repeated the request for acquisition costs to be added several times between late 2008 and July 2009 because each request was ignored. In response to yet another request to add costs, in July 2009 “Abdul” (no surname given), instead of adding acquisition costs to SMI, informed me that I was not allowed to acquire an interest in my home and that SMI for it was stopped! The reason given was that the PS had made a mistake. This error of one lone PS employee caused the whole fiasco from which I have suffered very badly. His error opposed all correctly decided housing costs by IS and PS Decision Makers and all other current Government information whether written or online and Case Law and this miscarriage of justice to my very great detriment has not been addressed or corrected! I appealed which was denied. I telephoned IS who were at a loss as to know why the PS had stopped SMI because acquiring an interest in my home was an allowable housing cost. Buying out an ex-partner (my case) is even exampled in detail in Decision Makers Guides (DMGs) (78405, 78407, 78409) and clearly specified in other Government information and Case law. I have struggled without ceasing to get this miscarriage of justice corrected whilst my financial situation has become more and more extremely serious. This goes against the very reason for the legislation being passed in the first place. I repeatedly requested specific responses to the following because these were all correctly applicable to my case as initially determined by both IS and the PS: (i) the relevant legislation (SPC Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11), (ii) the relevant DMGs 78405, 78407, 78409, (iii) all current online and documented Government information and (iv) all relevant Case Law The specific responses were not addressed and, because of my persistence in trying to get the PS unlawful disallowance of legislated housing costs reversed, I was told by the PS that I would no longer be responded to except by way of acknowledgement of my correspondence. I have been disgracefully treated, dismissed and ignored over a long period of time. I have been denied any opportunity to represent myself at any interview, local or otherwise despite repeatedly explaining the extremely severe financial difficulties and anxiety/distress caused to me by the PSby the refusal to address the specific issues raised which would have resulted in reinstatement of my housing costs. Would you very kindly urgently look at the simple and uncomplicated facts relevant to my claimant category (residential homeowner acquiring an interest in my home) and the applicable legislation relevant to it, SPC Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11, the DMGs that apply to Schedule 2, para 11, 78405, 78407, 78409 and if necessary confirmatory Government information and Case Law and reinstate my housing costs from the unlawful disallowance. I am happy to supply any information and/or documents should they be required. To avoid any complication in looking at the above request, I would add that I am not and never have been a renter and therefore I have never been in receipt of housing benefit via the local council. I have only re-mortgaged once to acquire my ex-husband’s share in my home by Court Order. My case is very simple and straightforward: I am a residential homeowner acquiring an interest in my home which is an allowable housing cost as per: State Pension Credit Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11: Loans on residential property 11.—(1) A loan qualifies under this paragraph where the loan was taken out to defray monies applied for any of the following purposes— (a)acquiring an interest in the dwelling occupied as the home; or (b)paying off another loan to the extent that the other loan would have qualified under head (a) above had the loan not been paid off. (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, references to a loan include also a reference to money borrowed under a hire purchase agreement for any purpose specified in heads (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (l). (3) Where a loan is applied only in part for the purposes specified in heads (a) and (b) of sub-paragraph (1), only that portion of the loan which is applied for that purpose shall qualify under this paragraph. The mandatory guidance referenced to the legislation above and which Decision Makers are obliged to follow is DMGs, 78405 – 78409 as copied below. Note: The suspension of IS from 6th March 2006 to 10th May 2006 referred to above (on the screenshot from the Pension Service dated 2010) was due to the remortgage funds being released through my bank to pay my ex-husbands solicitors for the acquisition. This is normal banking procedure and the money was paid out immediately. A decision maker decided that the remortgage funds constituted savings and therefore I wasn’t entitled to any Income Support or housing costs. This inappropriate decision was readily acknowledged by the people I spoke to at the IS department but I still had to go through the process of Tribunal to get this folly reversed by 10th May. None of the above circumstances (screen-shot) relates to a residential homeowner acquiring an interest in the home. That legislation is found in SPC Regs 2002, Schedule 2, para 11 and DMGs 78405, 78407, 78409. None of the DMG in the PS screenshot refer to acquiring an interest in the home or to Schedule 2, para 11. The DMGs which reference para 11 have been omitted by the PS and the PS Decision Maker has justified his error with irrelevant and unreferenced DMGs and faulty reasoning based on legislation totally inapplicable and irrelevant to my case. This Decision Maker’s faulty reasoning can be seen on examination. He stated above that increases are only allowable in points 1-5 listed. This is an error and the descriptions of points 1 and 2 above especially shows no understanding of the legislation. In point 1 above there is no increase in housing costs in a relevant period (1994/5 legislation brought in to prevent up-marketing by a full homeowner taking out a loan (e.g. change of lender, equity release) to either stay in the same home or move to a different one. The housing costs payable currently will not be increased. There is no relevance to acquiring an interest in the home in this provision of Schedule 2, para 5(7)(a)(b). This legislation is not interchangeable with Schedule 2, para 11 and cannot be applied to para 11. DMGs clearly reference each one and neither is interchangeable. In point 2 above there is no increase in housing costs in a relevant period (1994/5 legislation brought in to prevent up-marketing by changing from renting to buying in a relevant period. If a renter acquires an interest (becomes owner/co-owner Rent to Buy Scheme especially) then he must qualify by being in receipt of housing benefit payable to renters via the local council the week before the acquisition and the amount of SMI payable direct to lender will not exceed the amount of housing benefit previously paid via the local council. There will not be an increase in housing costs allowable. This legislation is not interchangeable with Schedule 2, para 11 and cannot be applied to para 11. DMGs clearly reference each one and neither is interchangeable. In points 3 and 4 above the circumstances have to be individually determined by the Decision Makers and some increase in housing costs can be allowable. In point 5 above other housing costs specifically exclude involvement of para 11 (residential homeowners acquiring an interest in the home) and there is no reference to para 11 in the relevant DMG. Many thanks and I would be so grateful for any help on how to get this sorted as I'm just hitting my head on a brick wall with every letter written. TPP x

A few days ago a vitally important judgment was released concerning (once again) the matter of Liability Order 'costs'. This particular case was an appeal and was heard in the High Court but unlike in the recent case of the Reverend Nicolson, this particular local authority (East Northamptonshire District Council) had prepared a schedule of standardised costs of the type encouraged by Judge Andrews in the Reverend's case (paragraph 46). The claimant; Edward Williams represented himself and his appeal concerned (amongst other points) the following: One: That the summons served was an abuse of process because within it, it included an amount of costs (£75). He contended that the Regulations make no provision for the summons to include an amount by way of costs and that costs could only become due once, and if, a liability order were made Two: That including the amount of costs on the face of the summons was an abuse because it was an unlawful demand for money which the local authority had no right to make at that time. He contended that the costs were not due and owing at the date of the summons . He pointed out that the complaint on which the summons was based made no reference to the costs of £75. He submitted that it was an unfair manipulation of the Court process to include an amount for costs on the face of the summons, particularly when the only real summons cost was £3. He suggested that the recipient of a summons would be misled into believing that the costs of £75 were fixed and could not be debated or challenged. Three: He wanted to appeal the earlier decision regarding the sum of £75 and whether the costs had been 'reasonably incurred'. Most importantly; (and this is of significance to all local authorities who had been waiting for this case to be heard), Mr Williams considered that when compiling a schedule of costs, East Northamptonshire Council were wrong to include figures for: Information and Technology costs. Chip and Pin costs. Pension deficit funding.

Today I received a claim letter from Northampton County Court against myself. It was for 11k. The claimant is Hoist Portfolio Holding and the solicitor if Howard Cohen, Leeds. I originally took out the loan as a cahoot flexi loan i believe, who were then took over by santander and now sold off to Hoist. I'm planning to CCA Hoist, and send a CPR31.14 request to Howard Cohen. Is there anything else I should do? Also, if they send me back the documents I requesed, what could my defence be if the documents look enforceable?

In 2015 there was a important and high profile Judicial Review regarding the serious matter of summons costs in relation to a Liability Order for council tax arrears. The case was that of the Reverend Paul Nicholson v Tottenham Magistrates and the London Borough of Haringey. In short, the court rules that Tottenham Magistrate's should not have allowed London Borough of Haringey to claim summons costs of £125 for each Liability Order given that the court did not have sufficient information before them to reach a proper judicial determination as to whether or not the costs claimed represented costs reasonably incurred by the Council in obtaining the liability order; 
The court found that Tottenham Magistrates Court erred in law by failing to make further inquiries into how the £125 was calculated. Accordingly, J Andrews ruled that the costs claimed were unlawful. Following Reverend Nicholson's court success, there have been a lot of developments. Firstly, Haringey's Council's external auditors; Grant Thornton reviewed the level of costs, and, unlike the position before the Judicial Review where Haringey charged a fee of £125, the auditors instructed the council to charge separate costs of £102 for a summons and to reduce the charge for a liability order issued by Tottenham Magistrates to £110 from £125. Most importantly, Haringey Council have refused to make Grant Thornton's report public. The judgement made clear that it related only to London Borough of Haringey and was specific only to Reverend Nicholson's case. Accordingly, whist it may allow him to claim a refund for any earlier years, it did not assist the many thousands (approx 20,000) of Haringey residents who had been overcharged every year since 2008. It was with this in mind, that the Reverend made a further application to the High Court. The basis of this new application being that he wished to challenge Grant Thornton's decision not to apply to the court for a declaration that an item of account is contrary to law under section 17(1) of the Audit Commission Act 1998. The Reverend considers that an audit is a public interest activity. Secondly, the Reverend wanted everyone who has been overcharged since 2008 to be repaid. His appeal was heard in the Divisional Court last Thursday (24th February). A copy of the press release and background to his dispute with Haringey Council is below. I will address the outcome of the appeal in a separate post. http://www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.o...paul-nicolson/

Can someone please clarify exactly what Form I am supposed to complete for a section 214 claim against a landlord for non-protection of deposit monies. Is it N1 or N281? I obviously need to do it the cheapest way possible. I am also representing myself. Thank you.