Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am getting conflicting advice from friends about this issue. I am hoping somebody can end my confusion. A couple of weeks ago I took my Mum out for her birthday. Another driver scratched the front passenger side near the bumper of my car as it was parked up. There are no dents just quite severe paint work damage. He scraped his car against mine. The other driver drove off. Luckily there was 2 witnesses who got the other drivers reg number. Cut a log story short the other driver said he didn’t realise he damaged the paintwork on my car. He has however admitted liability. His insurance is paying out. Last Thursday my car was taken away to have the paintwork done. Today I been told my car has been put down as a total loss (not a write off).  As it is only paintwork damage and not body work or mechanical damage, I don't understand why it has been put down as a total loss. I have been told by the insurers I can either write the car off and receive payment to the value of the car or I can take a lower payment and get the car repaired myself.   I am getting conflicting advice from friends. Some are saying if I keep my car and get the repairs done myself the car will then be classed as a category S or category M and I will no longer be able get insurance on the car as it will be classed as written off. As it is only paintwork damage and not body work or mechanical damage, I don't understand that. My questions are  If I take the payment to get the paintwork repair done myself will I still be able to insure my car when the insurance is up for renewal? If I take the payment to get the paintwork repair done myself will my current insurance policy be voided? If my car does get classed as category M or S will the stop me from selling it on the future? Thanks
    • Yes, it is just for Tesco. But as that manager explained, those two spaces on that ground are now rented by the electric company. "What appeal?  Private parking companies never, ever, ever accept appeals - ever." What is my next move then, please? Just wait for them to issue me with whatever it is they issue, and then what? 
    • so how are you doing OP?  Letter of claim ready?
    • @fusionrox please create your own thread by clicking the button at the top of the website
    • He’s still At it from a bungalow on Haslingden Road. Changed name to Bamberbridge cars with a Preston based phone number (01772) but dodgy dealings at the bungalow are still a go.
  • 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 Summons - Incorrect info


TheChillPill
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6003 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

Hi folks, first post here so please forgive me if this is the wrong place to post.

 

I purchased a property recently, and completed on 19th September. Upon moving in, there was a council tax bill waiting with a liability 'from' date 5 weeks previous, which also had my surname incorrect (though similar - as though it had been misheard over the phone).

 

I immediately replied by letter stating that completion had taken place on the 19th September, that I was entitled to a single person discount and that the surname was incorrect.

 

I heard nothing more until today. I have received a summons, for the same original amount, again with an incorrect surname and 'from' date.

 

I called the council earlier, explained the same as I did in my previous letter (which they claim to not have receipt of) and requested the bill be reissued so I can make the correct payment.

 

Amazingly, they are refusing to withdraw the summons. I queried the fact that the summons has the wrong name and wrong liability period, and he stated 'they would just amend the existing one'.

 

Whilst I have no issue paying council tax (well, I do, but I accept it has to be done) - I do have an issue with paying more than I'm liable for, and for a period I didn't even own the property.

 

Furthermore, he would not tell me how much the correct amount would be - so I either take a guess myself and pay that, or overpay.

 

Ideally I would like to put all this before the magistrates during the hearing, however taking a day off isn't really an option at the moment.

 

Does anyone know of any legal obligations of the council that may assist, or anything else that could help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry - I don't know the answer, but I've PM'd some people who might be able to help.

 

In the mean time, I REALLY suggest you contact the national debt line.

i will be off site for the next month or so. if you have any problems, feel free to report the post so a moderator can help you.

 

I am not a qualified or practicing lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The local authority have the power the cancel the current Liability Order on the grounds that it is incorrect. I have all the legislation at work and I can type some info about it tomorrow.

 

What you need to do is write to the local authority with evidence that they have it all wrong and point out that your next step will be a maladministration complaint with the local government ombudsman, if you speak to anyone on the 'phone ensure you take names, their position and their manager's name and position.

 

I'll post more tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to both of you for your replies.

 

sequenci - I look forward to whatever you are able to find, that would be a great help. Thanks for your time.

 

it's no problem. i dislike local authorities.

 

can you PM me tomorrow morning? i don't have any short term memory at the mo :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK!

 

Section 82 of The Local Government Act 2003 enable The Local Authority to apply to the Magistrates' Court to quash a liability order on the grounds that it should nopt have been made.

 

I must stress that *IF* a liability order could have been made for a lesser amount then the court can substitute the curren order for a lower amount and include it in the reasonable costs of obtaining the original order. A summons would have to be served upon you before any substituted order could be made.

 

Where the local authority accepts that a liability order should not have been made but refuses to apply to get in quashed you can consider a maladministration complaint to The Local Government Ombudsman

 

If you want to try and get the actual order set aside its a bit of a minefield. You might want to read up on:

 

Liverpool City Council v Pleroma Distribution

R (Brighton & Hove Justices) v Hamdan

R (On the application of Mathialagan) v Southwark LBC

R (On the application of Tull) v Camberwell Green Magistrates' Court and Labeth LBC

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...