Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Telford & Wrekin council reopening old council tax cases...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5441 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 all,

just a bit of inside info for anyone who might have lived in this area at any time.

Telford & Wrekin council have been going through their archives recently and finding old unpaid council tax cases going back as far as the early 90s!

They are sending these directly to a bailiff company (or more than 1, I'm unsure).

I personally think they are just trying to make some quick money or someone there is being really picky.

However, a lot of these cases have no information in their files at all so they have no way of proving they are legitimate. They don't have the dates of the missed council tax so my thought is they literally just have a list of names and an amount owed by each. They're basically trying it on.

 

What to do if you have one? Fight it with the council as soon as you hear about it, ask for proof and exact dates of when council tax was missed, if they can't provide it then there is no way they can force you to pay. Ask for a manager. Threaten legal action if necessary.

Also, important - Ask them to contact the bailiff company to put the case on hold while it is investigated, otherwise you will have a bailiff at your door for a debt you know nothing about. In my experience, if the council contact the bailiff company then they have to put the case on hold because they are effectively just working for the council.

 

Oh and there is of course this very useful post about cases over 6 years:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bailiffs-sheriff-officers/195735-council-tax-bill-over.html

 

In the case of telford, I still think it is easier to ask them for proof first.

 

I hope this helps someone out there!

Edited by consumer_justice
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...