Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • That is a big improvement Dave and I do agree that it s best to leave it till the last moment to prevent VCS from countering your WS. [usually using doubtful logic that can't be easily argued against in a Court atmosphere] However my first post [no. 32] about the contract is the one that really exposes Jake's flummery and calls into  question jost how close he comes to committing perjury. And that is what hopefully VCS will not want questioned by a Judge. 
    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
  • 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 and dishonest housemates - small claims court?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5281 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 everyone and seasons greetings!!

 

I'm hoping you all can help me with this, on behalf of my boyfriend who was in a really terrible house situation earlier this year.

 

I won't bore you with too much of the details in context, but he lived with what he thought were 3 good friends, however for various reasons they fell out shortly after/during moving into their new house around about March 2009.

 

Two were students but had to drop out of uni because they were using student loans to pay their rent and not their fees, thus they were technically not liable for council tax. I am not sure if the council has updated their records to reflect this. My boyfriend and the other housemate were the only ones liable for council tax on record, although at the time they were all supposed to be splitting it equally amongst them.

 

After an intense few months (July 2009 I think), he had to move out because - without getting too personal - they are completely inhuman, irrational and pretty much psychotic!!

 

The £500 deposit he paid for the house itself was not given back to him, because they all ganged up and said that he owed it to them for bills. So, the girl who replaced him did not pay him the deposit and the agency didn't have to return it either because it was a joint tenancy. The kind hearted (too kind sometimes) guy that he is, he said fine, as long as it got him out of the house.

 

6 months later and it's obvious that once again they used his money not for bills, but to fuel their ridiculous unemployed, takeaway and drugged up lifestyle, as they managed to get his new address so that a council tax bill of £800 could be sent to him.

 

I'm not sure of the details such as the date of the bill, but it was for £600, and had £200 added as a late charge. Apparently it has been taken to court twice, although this is the first he has heard of it because he was not made aware of the letters in the first place. The bill has his name and the third (non student) housemate's name on it.

 

How on earth does he get out of this mess?? It isn't his bill to pay in the first place, but how do you prove it? Someone suggested that a small step in this would be to remove the £200 surplus, because he wasn't told about the bill initially, thus it is unfair to add a late charge. He is talking about going to small claims court, but who knows what this would involve?

 

I doubt this has any legal standing, but they did all force him to sign a silly 'contract' stating what the £500 would be used for, and it details the bills that they were supposed to pay with it. I'm pretty sure it said council tax on it and all four housemates signed this.

 

Would really appreciate your advice on this one, these vindictive girls caused a lot of personal problems for him and more than anything I want to see him move on and leave that messy past behind! :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't his bill to pay in the first place, but how do you prove it?

 

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by this - is the bill for dates when he was there, or not? If the bill covers a period when he was living there, then clearly he is liable. If he's given his housemates money which was supposed to be paid for council tax and they've spent it on something else then that is a seperate issue - the key thing here is that unless he has paid the council tax directly to the council, then as far as they are concerned he is still liable for this. He needs to contact them immediately to discuss this, as ultimately if he doesn't pay the consequences could be quite serious, it could even go as far as imprisonment for not paying council tax (although this would be an extreme measure).

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In hindsight he should have obtained a receipt showing that the money was to be used for paying utilities including council tax.

If there is a proof of a deposit receipt maybe the OP should consider a small claims against the former housemates.

Unfortunately we got caught by a landlord many years ago who kept our deposit on the flimsest of excuses and at the time we had no recourse. In the eighties £250 was a lot of money to loose!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify exactly what you mean by this - is the bill for dates when he was there, or not? If the bill covers a period when he was living there, then clearly he is liable. If he's given his housemates money which was supposed to be paid for council tax and they've spent it on something else then that is a seperate issue - the key thing here is that unless he has paid the council tax directly to the council, then as far as they are concerned he is still liable for this. He needs to contact them immediately to discuss this, as ultimately if he doesn't pay the consequences could be quite serious, it could even go as far as imprisonment for not paying council tax (although this would be an extreme measure).

 

Thanks for your input.

 

As far as I know, the bill is for the dates he was living there. You are right, he is liable because his name is on the bill. The issue is that the housemates used his money for themselves and not the bill. He did contact the council and they basically said as far as their concerned he lived there and he needs to pay it.

 

It's not looking too good is it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In hindsight he should have obtained a receipt showing that the money was to be used for paying utilities including council tax.

If there is a proof of a deposit receipt maybe the OP should consider a small claims against the former housemates.

Unfortunately we got caught by a landlord many years ago who kept our deposit on the flimsest of excuses and at the time we had no recourse. In the eighties £250 was a lot of money to loose!

 

Thanks for the advice.

 

So if there is a proof of deposit receipt, even though it is a joint tenancy, he'd have a chance of getting it back? As the agency at the time said it was for them to discuss amongst themselves, as long as the agency received the correct amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...