Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5319 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 have recently received a bill and summons for two amounts of outstanding council tax. One relates to 12/3/2001-18/7/2002 and the other for 1/4/2002-31/3/2003.

 

As i understand it no one is expected by law to keep records relating back further than 6 years?

 

My girlfriend paid the first period through an attachment of earnings and the company is no longer trading so cant help with documents to prove this. We have been paying the baliffs ever since with many charges for things they didnt do, like visits that never happened.

 

Can they enforce this bill. Sorry to leave it so late, the hearing is tommorow 23/4/2009 at 14:15pm. Wish id found this site sooner.

 

any help is most appreciated.:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the following will assist you....but PLEASE do ensure that you go to the Magistrates Court and do let us know on the forums what happens tomorrow.....

 

 

 

 

Under Regulation 34(3) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 it states the following:

 

"The council should not go to the magistrate’s court and ask for a liability order for council tax if the application is made more than six years after the council tax became due. This is under Regulation 34(3) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992"

 

 

Liability Orders and the 6 year rule.

 

The Limitations Act 1980 imposes various time limits on different classes of

 

 

proceedings these are:

  • six years for sums due under contract,
  • six years for tortious claims,
  • three years for personal injury cases
  • twelve years for recovery of land.

Whilst the six year rule applies to the right of a billing authority to obtain a liability order under reg.34(6) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 SI 613, there is no express time limit for the collection and enforcement of local taxes once a liability order has been obtained.

 

Nevertheless, some Magistrates (no doubt guided by their clerk to the court) considered the overriding duty is to exercise discretion reasonably.

 

Some are concerned that with debts going back more than 6 years (even if the billing authority can demonstrate recovery throughout) could be considered an abuse of legal process.

 

Three years is the maximum period over which a committal postponement should run. The legal ruling for this is in re: R. v. Newcastle Upon Tyne Justices ex parte Devine (QBD) (1998).

 

Orders requiring more than three years to pay become irrecoverable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

jsut giving your thread a gentle nudge.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the answer again...

 

I hope that the following will assist you....but PLEASE do ensure that you go to the Magistrates Court and do let us know on the forums what happens tomorrow.....

 

 

 

 

Under Regulation 34(3) of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 it states the following:

 

"The council should not go to the magistrate’s court and ask for a liability order for council tax if the application is made more than six years after the council tax became due. This is under Regulation 34(3) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992"

 

 

Liability Orders and the 6 year rule.

 

The Limitations Act 1980 imposes various time limits on different classes of

 

 

proceedings these are:

  • six years for sums due under contract,
  • six years for tortious claims,
  • three years for personal injury cases
  • twelve years for recovery of land.

Whilst the six year rule applies to the right of a billing authority to obtain a liability order under reg.34(6) Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 SI 613, there is no express time limit for the collection and enforcement of local taxes once a liability order has been obtained.

 

Nevertheless, some Magistrates (no doubt guided by their clerk to the court) considered the overriding duty is to exercise discretion reasonably.

 

Some are concerned that with debts going back more than 6 years (even if the billing authority can demonstrate recovery throughout) could be considered an abuse of legal process.

 

Three years is the maximum period over which a committal postponement should run. The legal ruling for this is in re: R. v. Newcastle Upon Tyne Justices ex parte Devine (QBD) (199:cool:.

 

Orders requiring more than three years to pay become irrecoverable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I posted a similar query to this and was advised that council tax bills are exempt from the 'statue barred' rule:confused:

This has lead to the bill being paid, and a wrangle with bailiff fees and credit card charges:(

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon attending court the Clerk picked up on the fact that the debts were over 6 years old and the council woman returned with the following explanation.

I was a student at the time and their computer had taken off my student discount for an unknown reason. She wanted me to find out all the dates i attended college and get back to her asap.

I explained that I was claiming benefits a would and could not waste money phoning round the university when they had already had the info and it was over 6 years old anyway.

She phoned last Friday and I missed the call :rolleyes:. So far no follow-up.

Will keep posted on the outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don't normally agree with opening up old threads but this one is important because MANY local authorities (possibly in an attempt to raise additional revenue) are going back into very OLD cases and passing these accounts to bailiffs to enforce. Within the past 2 weeks we have seen cases from 1990 and 1991 !!!

 

Although as mentioned in my previous thread a local authority should be aware of the limitation period for obtaining a Liability Order we are seeing many more cases where they obtained a Liability Order 9 years ago and which they are passing to the bailiff again to enforce. There is case law on this regarding a period of 4 YEARS elapsing from issuing the Liability Order and Distress !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is case law on this regarding a period of 4 YEARS elapsing from issuing the Liability Order and Distress !!!

 

Could you clarify this point TT?

 

Cheers:)

 

Fwog

Link to post
Share on other sites

and pushin it abit,

 

anthing similar for summary warrants for scotland?

 

Ida x

Please contact a member of the site team if you are offered help off the forum for a a paid or no win no fee service.

 

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

Click here to donate through PayPal (opens in a new window)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Although as mentioned in my previous thread a local authority should be aware of the limitation period for obtaining a Liability Order we are seeing many more cases where they obtained a Liability Order 9 years ago and which they are passing to the bailiff again to enforce. There is case law on this regarding a period of 4 YEARS elapsing from issuing the Liability Order and Distress !!!

This is exactly what's happening to me. the council claim that they got a Liability Order in November of 2000 and, unless I pay within a week, they will take enforcement action.

 

I can't seem to find anything on the internet about Thameside Magistrates Court and Thameside Metropolitan MBC v Ex Parte Coleman & Davenport 1988. From the title it doesn't seem to be an appeal court hearing so I'm not sure that it sets a precedent, but what was the ruling?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been searching this site as I am in the same situation. I moved from one council to a neighbouring one over 5 years ago. I had paid all council tax to previous council but out of the blue reciced a letter saying I owe £1,500 in upaid tax. I wrote to the council after trying to ring them on over 34 occasions with no reply. I explained it had been paid in full. I have now received an equita baliff letter demanding full amount. Help what can I do Since it is so long ago I havnt kept any receipts. I never received a liability order either. Why after so long have they done this?:-x

 

Welcome to our forums, you may wish to start your own 'thread' as you'll get a great deal more assistance this way. If you're unsure on how to do this let us know. Can you remember how you paid the tax originally?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:confused:

jsut giving your thread a gentle nudge.

Hello,

I am looking for some legal advice re my brother's council tax

He bought a house in 1998 in Glasgow, he has never received a council tax bill for the house.

He did contact the council dept about this on 4 occasions but he still never received any bills or demands for arrears. he has no copies of letters or dates of telephone calls to them.

it is now 11 years down the line and he has never paid any council tax, I am worried that he will be in serious trouble if they find out he hasn't paid.

also if he ever wanted to sell his house would not paying the council tax affect his right to sell.

i have encouraged him to go and see a lawyer re this as i am sure the council are liable as well for not processing his details.

can you please give me any advice on this matter

Thanks

Tracey

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fiona

Sorry I am not sure about this one I think though if the council can prove he has lived at this address they can take action at any time not sure about scottish law though:evil: The councils are all incompetent they make me angry !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...