Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • 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 
        • 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

Wheres the money gone ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5252 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

Please can someone explain where all the money collected by the councils for parking fines that was to be used for road maintenance has gone ? We are told that fines pay for this so why are the councils whining about the cost of gritting and potholes , perhaps the fines should be increased .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can someone explain where all the money collected by the councils for parking fines that was to be used for road maintenance has gone ? We are told that fines pay for this so why are the councils whining about the cost of gritting and potholes , perhaps the fines should be increased .

 

If you knew how much it cost to maintain the roads you would realise the contribution towards it from parking fines is a drop in the ocean.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When water gets in cracks in the road and freezes it expands causing the road to break up. For cold weather the Council obviously allows for an average amount of bad weather with a contingency for emegencies but prolonged bad weather has to come out of Council reserve funds. If you bring Parking revenue in to the equation obviously during this period income from both paid for parking and fines is minimal and staff still need to be paid which add to the burden on an already tight budget.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When water gets in cracks in the road and freezes it expands causing the road to break up. For cold weather the Council obviously allows for an average amount of bad weather with a contingency for emegencies but prolonged bad weather has to come out of Council reserve funds. If you bring Parking revenue in to the equation obviously during this period income from both paid for parking and fines is minimal and staff still need to be paid which add to the burden on an already tight budget.

 

I was told that the reason potholes 'pop' was that contractors no longer use Hot tar to seal the infill , as was the case in days of old.

You know and i know from previous chats that some councils make substantial profits from parking revenue . If those councils were to be short of grit or whine about potholes with their expanded cash sums that would be in excusable IMO .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can someone explain where all the money collected by the councils for parking fines that was to be used for road maintenance has gone ? We are told that fines pay for this so why are the councils whining about the cost of gritting and potholes , perhaps the fines should be increased .

 

If you write to your local council they will give you figures as to how much revenue they gain from parking and where it is spent.

 

To be honest, it won't change anything except satisfy your curiosity.

 

Trouble is, lots of people have, for years now, been quite against any rises in taxtation, and begrudged paying tax at all. Yet they also want super public services. It will take a really radical shift in government priorities to change the situation, and that's not likely in the near future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told that the reason potholes 'pop' was that contractors no longer use Hot tar to seal the infill , as was the case in days of old.

You know and i know from previous chats that some councils make substantial profits from parking revenue . If those councils were to be short of grit or whine about potholes with their expanded cash sums that would be in excusable IMO .

 

The vast majority of Councils don't make a noticeable profit from parking many barely break even. Usually the figures quoted are income which as most people with half a brain would realise is not the same. I live in Surrey and along with 99 other local authorities make an operating loss on parking. Iin 2007/08 Surrey in fact lost £776,000 before capital expenditure and £2,012,000 if you include capital expenditure as they see parking as a service. Strangely these figures are not usually in the papers as they would probably not sell as many copies as 'millions fined by thieving Councils'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of Councils don't make a noticeable profit from parking many barely break even. Usually the figures quoted are income which as most people with half a brain would realise is not the same. I live in Surrey and along with 99 other local authorities make an operating loss on parking. Iin 2007/08 Surrey in fact lost £776,000 before capital expenditure and £2,012,000 if you include capital expenditure as they see parking as a service. Strangely these figures are not usually in the papers as they would probably not sell as many copies as 'millions fined by thieving Councils'.

 

Thats why I said 'some' councils , mostly the London ones make massive profits e.g,Westminster , Camden , Hammersmith and Fulham and a Surrey one Richmond ,just some examples , they have no excuses as we well know .

Edited by noddyaccount
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Road Fund License fee should cover it with cash to spare but of course Brown and his motley crew need it to cover their expenses

 

Totally ridiculous statement when you consider how much is spent on roads, as an example just to widen the M25 at jct 10 in 2007 cost £75 million. There are 240,000 miles of local roads. You would need around 180,000 tonnes of salt to grit them all once (assuming a rate of 0.75 tonnes per mile). As it costs in the region of £25-£30 per tonne of salt, it would therefore cost around £5m to grit all the roads once and £15m to grit them three times. Currently, councils only grit around 40% of local roads (96,000 miles) during severe weather. It would therefore cost £1.8m to grit all 96,000 miles once.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally ridiculous statement when you consider how much is spent on roads, as an example just to widen the M25 at jct 10 in 2007 cost £75 million. There are 240,000 miles of local roads. You would need around 180,000 tonnes of salt to grit them all once (assuming a rate of 0.75 tonnes per mile). As it costs in the region of £25-£30 per tonne of salt, it would therefore cost around £5m to grit all the roads once and £15m to grit them three times. Currently, councils only grit around 40% of local roads (96,000 miles) during severe weather. It would therefore cost £1.8m to grit all 96,000 miles once.

 

Westmiser council alone made 90 million pounds from parking last year , more than enough .

Think of the savings to the economy as a whole , lost productivity etc, lost wages , lost parking revenue to the councils themselves , not to mention the cost in lives and injuries.

It is a short sighted false economy , from the people who are meant to serve us , not themselves , the public servants have been at their masters drinks cabinets again .

Edited by noddyaccount
Link to post
Share on other sites

Westmiser council alone made 90 million pounds from parking last year , more than enough .

Think of the savings to the economy as a whole , lost productivity etc, lost wages , lost parking revenue to the councils themselves , not to mention the cost in lives and injuries.

It is a short sighted false economy , from the people who are meant to serve us , not themselves , the public servants have been at their masters drinks cabinets again .

 

I don't think Westminster will be sending money to Barnsley to pay for gritting somehow. Its curious how Westminster is always trotted out as an 'example' of how much Councils make from parking when its location and use make it far from typical. I'm sure Councils are aware of the loss to the economy but I doubt if they enable Sainsbury etc to open they will get anything from Sainsbury to pay for the grit. You obviously have no understanding of how Councils are funded, I'm sure when Libraries, Schools, Social care are all cut next year because you've blown the entire budget on two weeks gritting you would reconsider your point of view. In order to grit all roads rather than just main roads would cost an additional £425 million do you really want that on your Council tax bill? Most accidents are from pedestrians falling over which has nothing to do with gritting roads and to grit footways would cost £600 million. I'm sure if your Council tax bill goes up 25% you will be happy because you know you could still drive to the shops in the snow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Westminster will be sending money to Barnsley to pay for gritting somehow. Its curious how Westminster is always trotted out as an 'example' of how much Councils make from parking when its location and use make it far from typical. I'm sure Councils are aware of the loss to the economy but I doubt if they enable Sainsbury etc to open they will get anything from Sainsbury to pay for the grit. You obviously have no understanding of how Councils are funded, I'm sure when Libraries, Schools, Social care are all cut next year because you've blown the entire budget on two weeks gritting you would reconsider your point of view. In order to grit all roads rather than just main roads would cost an additional £425 million do you really want that on your Council tax bill? Most accidents are from pedestrians falling over which has nothing to do with gritting roads and to grit footways would cost £600 million. I'm sure if your Council tax bill goes up 25% you will be happy because you know you could still drive to the shops in the snow.

 

£ 425 million a year , not taking into account council parking excess would be less than £50/year per household . Losses to the ecomomy are much more than that , maybe central Govt should cover any shortfall .

As for the Council funding i advocate a cull of management types or target pathfinders as I imagine they are called , press officers and other overpaid executives a.s.a.p . Why do hospitals , sorry health trusts whatever the imagineers call them today{sack them too } , need press officers for example , are Doctors not able to talk . Sack all 'spin doctors' {paid liars}, I am sorry if you come into any of the above categories , but not very much .

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are no "management types" who will buy the grit, ensure it is delivered, ensure that the gritters are ready to go at the right time, ensure that the gritting has been done, and deal with the no-win-no-fee lawyers when the injury claims for people slipping over start coming in.

 

Yes, get rid of press officers. My company are currently under siege because the press officer said something that the company experts told them not to say :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are no "management types" who will buy the grit, ensure it is delivered, ensure that the gritters are ready to go at the right time, ensure that the gritting has been done, and deal with the no-win-no-fee lawyers when the injury claims for people slipping over start coming in.

 

Yes, get rid of press officers. My company are currently under siege because the press officer said something that the company experts told them not to say :rolleyes:

Keep the managers in the old true sense of the word , absolutely , people who lead preferably by example and even better who have come up through the ranks and know the work they are directing . I meant get rid of the quangocrats , performance junkies and fast track graduate graspers out to make their bones .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey up lad, barnsla az spent loads on its brass gettin its lines a sign reight, but if tha guz to co-op i penistone them bayz ant painted reight on't rooad, same es them isdabled bays darn frum t'arnall.We ad jcb art yisterday on old goods yard, ar cant mak me mind up if 'wor fer safti or sozs the cud get the brass in ont park wots tha recon?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey up lad, barnsla az spent loads on its brass gettin its lines a sign reight, but if tha guz to co-op i penistone them bayz ant painted reight on't rooad, same es them isdabled bays darn frum t'arnall.We ad jcb art yisterday on old goods yard, ar cant mak me mind up if 'wor fer safti or sozs the cud get the brass in ont park wots tha recon?

 

Penistone every time , I think ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...