Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • nothing you can do can product against the very rare judge lottery syndrome.
    • not sure why you added the blue line I've highlighted? that's no in the we gave you.   as for your question... PRAC's roboclaim computer knows when the account was taken out, after all it raised the claim and checked everything carefully first before issuing the request via northants bulk courts equally inept roboclaim computer... 
    • I've been researching in preparation of compiling my particularised defence/WS.    I'm none too happy that some judges still seem to be siding with DCAs and seemingly brushing aside anything that we have assumed to be "necessary" for DCAs to have a winning case.    Reading a recent "summary" from another poster (another thread with case similar to mine - very old, illegible application form, no default notice, reliance on their own software to prove it was ever sent) and the judgment made in favour of the DCA and even suggesting that there was no "agreement with the DCA, they simply owned the debt, not the agreement"  Makes me very nervous.    Especially if cases like this will be judged on "probability" - the probability that if I signed the original application form, then I must have taken out the credit card and racked up the alleged debt as shown in statements enclosed in their WS (and dated some ten years later).   Is it ok to post some "evidence" I've found from elsewhere?    This is in line with my fears that regardless of how hard one tries to rebut the "lack of evidence" produced by DCAs for chasing these very old "alleged" debts, it does appear to come down to the luck of what judge you get on the day and how much they can be swayed by the DCA solicitor.    A quick Google search produced the following - from one case - this related to a credit agreement - which resulted in someone being made bankrupt - that person appealed the bankruptcy order on the grounds of defective credit agreement and default notice and this was the appeal judge's decision:   The necessary formalities for the entry into the regulated consumer credit agreement (which related to the debt in issue) were not complied with; The default notice served in respect of that credit agreement was defective.   The First Ground The Appellant argued that she did not receive the terms and conditions when she entered into the credit agreement and, accordingly, section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (“CCA”) had not been complied with and the agreement could not be enforced. The agreement had been entered in 1995 and, whilst it had provided a microfiche copy of the front page of the application, the Respondent had been unable to provide a copy of the terms.   Despite the terms not being produced, the District Judge had found that, in the circumstances, it was very likely that such terms existed and would have been provided to the Appellant when she entered into the Agreement. Mr Justice Mann held that this was a finding that the District Judge was entitled to make.   Further, Mr Justice Mann found that it was implicit from the District Judge’s findings that she considered that the terms and conditions not only existed but had been subscribed to by the Appellant’s signature and, consequently, the requirements of section 61 CCA were fulfilled. Mr Justice Mann held that this was also a justifiable finding which should not be interfered with on appeal.   The Second Ground The Appellant also argued that the default notice upon which the Respondent relied did not comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notice) Regulations 1989 because it stated the full balance of the account rather than the total of the missed payments. The Respondent argued that, as a result of the missed payments, it was contractually entitled to the entire balance subject to the service of the appropriate notice, a requirement which was fulfilled by the default notice itself and, consequently, the sum required to remedy the breach was the entire amount.   Mr Justice Mann agreed with the Respondent and the District Judge, holding that: “If by the time the default notice is served circumstances have arisen which entitle the lender to recover not merely sums which might be regarded as arrears, by which I assume is meant accumulated minimum payments, but also the whole of the sum, then they are entitled to claim that sum, and the sum to require to remedy the breach for non-payment of that sum is the payment of the whole sum due. The bank is not confined, at that stage, to claiming merely the amount of arrears if it has an accrued contractual right to have the whole of the sum.”   Do judgments like these not mean that a lot of what you guys do on here (and for which I and many others are VERY grateful) somewhat redundant. What is happening to judges just accepting "well, the terms must have been there if you signed it" -    Feeling quite nervous now.
    • we know it wasn't done to avoid enforcement we understand completely. but that doesn't take from away the fact that it happened   you can't appeal the pcn's on the basis that 'it was not his vehicle to levy upon'. the law clearly states otherwise.          
    • here is a question for you, is yu house divided up into a retail/business area  and domestic area for business rates purposes? If not why on earth are you paying business water rates? ceertainly not for tax purposes as you can claim any legit expense without having to reclassify your home as a business premises. i would be stopping this nonsense and goping back to whatever water supplier is the domestic one for your area. there is stuff all they can do to get the £40 from you whan you do that.
  • Our picks

jimbo45

To anybody who has paid Bailiff's VAT currently 15% not 17.5%

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3247 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi all

If you have paid Bailiff's for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER for any Bill whether Council tax, parking etc etc - please ensure that if VAT was added don't forget that this is CURRENTLY 15% and NOT 17.5%

 

I would almost wager a million dollars to a bucket of Horse s--te that a lot of Bills have been charged with 17.5% VAT instead of 15%.

 

People who usually pay the bailiff's are often too distressed etc to look for small details like this but overcharging TAX itself is a Fraudalent exercise and you should be able to do something about this.

 

Don't put up with the B/S that the order was issued before the VAT went down -- the VAT if it's chargeable at all can only be charged on the actual date of "Your Invoice".

 

Any lawyers here -- can we throw some FRAUD offences here for illegal Tax collection.

 

Note VAT rises again on 1 Jan 2010.

 

(Best of all for Council tax - don't pay Bailiff's - pay the council instead - eventually even if they refuse at first they have to take the Bill back so long as you haven't let the bailiff's in or arranged to pay them anything).

 

Cheers

jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi all

If you have paid Bailiff's for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER for any Bill whether Council tax, parking etc etc - please ensure that if VAT was added don't forget that this is CURRENTLY 15% and NOT 17.5%

 

I would almost wager a million dollars to a bucket of Horse s--te that a lot of Bills have been charged with 17.5% VAT instead of 15%.

 

People who usually pay the bailiff's are often too distressed etc to look for small details like this but overcharging TAX itself is a Fraudalent exercise and you should be able to do something about this.

 

Don't put up with the B/S that the order was issued before the VAT went down -- the VAT if it's chargeable at all can only be charged on the actual date of "Your Invoice".

 

Any lawyers here -- can we throw some FRAUD offences here for illegal Tax collection.

 

Note VAT rises again on 1 Jan 2010.

 

(Best of all for Council tax - don't pay Bailiff's - pay the council instead - eventually even if they refuse at first they have to take the Bill back so long as you haven't let the bailiff's in or arranged to pay them anything).

 

Cheers

jimbo

 

We have come across SO MANY similar cases and letters have been written to many bailiff companies to complain.

 

Once a complaint is made they do apply a refund..but what happens to people who have NEVER complained !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there

every piece of help should be posted -- even on this excellent Forum people aren't always aware of all the sneaky tricks these companies get up to.

 

Cheers

jimbo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of V.A.T,

 

Found this on a Milton Keynes council bailiff report

 

5 DETAILED FINDINGS

 

Performance Monitoring

 

5.2 The largest user of bailiff companies is the R&B service where two bailiff firms are used. In 2008/09 they recovered approximately £2.3M in unpaid taxes from a total overdue debt of £6.2M for which the debtors also incurred £453K in bailiffs’ fees. These fees are retained by bailiff firms however; the Council is subsequently invoiced for these fees and pays the appropriate VAT element. This is standard operating practice with local authorities nationwide..........

 

Does anyone know what the VAT element is, i.e. what percentage? It appears that the council tax payer is funding the Government more than meets the eye with the bailiff sc*m.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...