Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'loophole'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 13 results

  1. My daughter parked for too long and received a penalty notice. She forgot to tell me as I am the owner, so after 28 days I received a "notice to the owner" demanding I pay the full £70. I think that I should be afforded the same rights as the driver who could pay 50% within 14 days (£35) I checked the applicable regs which are currently the "Civil Enforcement of Parking Contravention (England) General regulations 2007" to see if I could appeal and in particular I was looking for the point at which the owner is notified to make my case. This also meant I had to understand what exactly was meant by "owner" and the regs helpfully define this for you at the beginning as follows. “owner” in relation to a vehicle includes any person who falls to be treated as the owner of the vehicle by virtue of regulation 5(3); Now it seems to me that this is wrong 5(3) only refers to persons who hire vehicles, it should refer to 5(2) which then includes 5(3) as follows. 5(2) In a case not falling within paragraph (3), the penalty charge shall be payable by the person who was the owner of the vehicle involved in the contravention at the material time. 5(3) Where— (a) the vehicle is a mechanically propelled vehicle which was, at the material time, hired from a vehicle-hire firm under a hiring agreement; (b) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served in respect of any parking contravention involving the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; and © in response to a notice to owner served on him, the owner of the vehicle made representations on the ground specified regulation 4(4)(d) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations and the enforcement authority accepted those representations,the penalty charge shall be payable by the person by whom the vehicle was hired and that person shall be treated as if he were the owner of the vehicle at the material time for the purposes of these Regulations. Note that the Representations and Appeals regs 4(4)d above also has the same reference back to the general regs 5(3) - and not 5(2). So my question for all the legal eagles is can the charge be applied since my daughter did not hire the vehicle? Also should my rights as the owner afford me the chance to pay 50%? All comments welcome, I'm sure 5(2) still applies and I'm stuffed either way, but it would be interesting to see where my analysis went wrong! I'll clarify my thoughts a little more: With respect to clause 5(2) my daughter nor I fall within 5(3) so the first part is true, however, the second part says that the charge is payable by "the person who was the owner" and "owner" is defined as 5(3) so strictly all applicable owners are persons who only hire vehicles. Crazy, no! I'm sure this will be blown out of the water - but interesting mistake I think! T
  2. 'The culture secretary has vowed to end the iPlayer "loophole" soon, so those watching catch-up TV do not get "a free ride"....John Whittingdale said the licence fee would be extended so it no longer just applied to live television viewers.' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-35708623
  3. I have just been to court where the landlord tried to use a section 21 notice. at court it was a meeting for a directions hearing. the Judge struck out the landlords s21 claim because he had left important information regrding bonds etc out of the document, he got the dates wrong and the judge also noticed the irregularities between tenancy documents. ie, that there were two tenancy versions submitted to court. the judge mentioned involving forensics and discrepancies with signatures on the documents. there are two more versions of the tenancy agreement/s that the court didnt see. i was represented by a housing charity. we disagreed about the bond and the tenancy/s. I paid a bond and at the time of signing the tenancys, i was lead to believe that I had my own tenancy. i feel that the judge can see the foul play but the housing charity can't, or won't see it. the landlord is now saying it is a joint tenancy. if it is a joint tenancy, i will be liable for huge debts he took a bond from me and did not protect it. his accounting is riddled with errors and inconsistencies. he wount provide me with full accounting, just his made up versions which dont tally. how can it be a joint tenancy when there are multiple versions of the agreement/s?
  4. Hi All, Came across this article and thought it might be useful. . Where are we heading? Please find it at the link below Dot http://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/tax-disc-loophole-leaves-angry-drivers-facing-massive-fines/ar-AAaMvme?ocid=mailsignoutmd
  5. Really appreciate anyones help here!! I ordered an iPad quite a while back now back in 2013 from Very. It never arrived and I only got an empty box. I complained to very.co.uk and they would not refund me. I contacted my bank and they suggested I raised a chargeback and I got my money back. I kept getting letters from Very stating I owe them the amount and if I do not pay I will be contacted by a debt company. I contacted my bank and was told not to pay the debt as I had not received the device. I now have a letter stating I have a default notice because of this amount from Very and NDR debt company. I contacted very again and the debt company, no one is helping me and my credit is still being affected by this. Whoever I speak to I keep getting turned away. I then contacted the head office of Very (Shop Direct) and explained the situation. They replied saying I didn't reply to letters or emails (I did) and that because of the length of time they will not re investigate and I still need to pay the debt and that it may effect my credit score. I emailed and called and tweeted them. They stated that the item was sent out. I then contacted the head office and they investigated and concluded that nothing could be done. I reported it to the FOS 2 weeks ago when i received a default notice letter. I did not do anything before that as i was advised by my bank to ignore letters and to not pay anything. What do i do?! I never got the item so why should I pay the debt?! My bank even says do not pay it. Any info would be great!
  6. The new enforcement regulations took effect on 6th April and within just 48 hours a query was raised on this forum (by Mikeymack) regarding advice being provided on a few other websites stating the following: "Paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken. It also stops further fees being charged". It was generally thought that the websites in question would change the advice after reading (and most importantly understanding) the new regulations. Sadly, this has not been the case and instead, the websites are almost routinely giving the following ‘advice’ to the public: "Pay the council what is still owing on the liability order less any payments already made. You can pay online, or at the council offices or deploy Magicians Choice" "If you want to get out of paying bailiffs fees then just pay the debt direct to the creditor. The law has a bit of a quirk, or loophole that lets you off the bailiffs fees if you pay the debt with the original creditor" "The law that sets statutory bailiffs fees for collecting unpaid council tax is Table 1 of Schedule 1 of the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014. It prescribes a fixed fee of £75. If distress has been executed (taking and selling your goods) or the process of making the levy has been started, there is a further fixed fee of £235" "However the law - paragraph 58(1) of Schedule 12 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 says when the debtor pays the debt in full then enforcement action must cease forthwith and no further enforcement steps can be taken" "This means bailiffs only get paid if they complete the entire enforcement process right through to the sale of goods, and only then, the fees are recovered from proceeds of that sale. Otherwise there is nothing that says you have to pay any bailiffs fees if you pay the debt at any time before your goods are sold" "Paragraph 31 of the Taking Control of Goods, National Standards says when enforcement action has ceased, the bailiff cannot enforce the recovery of fees"
  7. How to reduce your tax bill by thousands of pounds by arranging joint savings accounts carefully Savers can slash hundreds of pounds from their tax bill by using a little-known loophole relating to the treatment of joint accounts. The rules governing the payment of tax on joint deposits used to be fairly relaxed. Couples could decide which account holder paid the tax, in some cases allowing them to avoid deductions altogether. In 2011 a new regime was introduced, which tightened up procedures, making the management of these accounts more arduous. But you can still boost your income by up to 40pc if you get to grips with the new rules and learn to exploit them to the full. Here are our five top tips for cutting your tax bill while keeping your money safe and ensuring a top return. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/savings/10775097/Loophole-for-couples-to-cut-tax-on-savings.html
  8. ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/subprime-lender-swift-group-used-loophole-to-avoid-paying-74m-in-tax-8907683.html[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/subprime-lender-swift-group-used-loophole-to-avoid-paying-74m-in-tax-8907683.html?origin=internalSearch][/url]
  9. ... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/subprime-lender-swift-group-used-loophole-to-avoid-paying-74m-in-tax-8907683.html[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/subprime-lender-swift-group-used-loophole-to-avoid-paying-74m-in-tax-8907683.html?origin=internalSearch][/url]
  10. Hello there, I am having deductions made for child support from my ex partners JSA. However I believe that he is purposefully not signing on (i.e, missing appointments) or getting himself sanctioned so that payments cannot be made to me. I also believe that when his benefit is reinstated, the deductions are not made automatically by CSA, so my ex partner is paid more JSA than what he usually would be..Hence he's discovered a loophole in the system that he can continue to abuse. Can anyone shed light as to whether or not I'm correct? Also, if this is a loophole that he is abusing, can I sue him myself for the arrears that he currently has with CSA? Thanks.
  11. I imagine those in England could also exploit this loophole ! http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/100000-scots-to-cash-in-on-bedroom-tax-loophole.20243112
  12. I recently got burned by a high volume seller on eBay to the tune of 255 quid who's using a loop hole with eBay returns policy. I ordered a Set Top Box from a UK company on eBay and paid via a CC on Paypal. The STB appeared reconditioned, was sold as new, and had a couple of major faults. Spoke to the company asking for a full refund. The company asked me to return the STB using their pre-paid postage. Which I did (I know I should have sent the STB using my own tracking. Live and learn . A couple of weeks later and no communication from the company I opened an eBay dispute. eBay forced the company to respond. The company said that they would issue a full refund once I return the STB and that I should dispatch it using my own postage tracking. 30 days later and eBay sided with the company stating that I didn't have permission to return the STB and had no proof that the company had received it. Once eBay rejects a dispute, eBay and Paypal will no longer listen to appeals. I spoke to the Royal Mail who claimed to have no way of tracking individual items using pre-paid first class business mail, only the total amount. Given that I have no proof that the STB was dispatched there's no way I can raise this with my CC company or start a small claims court case. My question is this. Having gone through this sellers neutral and negative feedback on eBay it's clear the above scenario has happened to a good few other buyers. No doubt getting my money back is not an option? But I would like to highlight this companies actions to Trading Standards or another body? There's evidence in their feedback month on month that the following is taking place, is any of this grounds for prosecution under distance selling regulations or other UK consumer law? * selling reconditioned goods as new. * asking sellers to return items using their pre-paid postage then claiming the goods did not arrive. * refusing to refund consumers that paid for return postage themselves. * providing a phone number and email address that is ignored. I posted on eBay's forum highlighting the loophole. They deleted it on the grounds that it encouraged others to break their TOS. eBay's disputes team: 'Seller is not breaking TOS.' eBay's community team: 'The loophole clearly breaks TOS'. As a last throw of the dice I sent a long email to eBay asking them to apologise for the way we were treated and asking them to look into the loophole. They claim to respond within 48 hours. That was 2 weeks ago. As I say this is effecting 20-30 people a month on eBay and they're the ones that are able to leave feedback, eBay's feedback period expires after 45 days. The seller draws out the dispute process so there may well be many more that are effected. I wasn't able to leave feedback. Thanks for your help
  13. The protection of freedoms act guidance has revealed a huge loophole in the act: http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges/guidance-unpaid-parking-charges.pdf Section 6.3 schedule 4 sets out: The ticket must say : When and how the parking offence took place. Now the devil here is in the detail "offence" Offence is a legally defined term. parking on private land is not covered by any statutory instrument or regulations, the new act refers to recovering monies only. Now if the act stipulate the ticket must contain details of the offence to be valid, they have just give a cast iron copper bottomed defence in court. No offence has been committed. Therefore the ticket does not comply with the act. Legal wording is everything in law. No offence = non compliance = not proven. The defence under this new act must be to make the court state what offence occurred and under what primary legislation this offence is covered and what would be the penalty for this offence. And no Traffic regulations or off street parking placement orders are granted then no offence can take place. This has to be the best word in the whole legislation. It had to have a weak point and here it is. The point may need to be hammered to appeal high court, but it surely has to stand or turn the entire legal justice system on its head to accommodate one act. Opinions ?
×
×
  • Create New...