Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
  • 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 
        • Like
      • 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 - landlord's rights


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5010 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!

I am the new landlady, just few weeks before have rented out my first house. The agreement I have signed with the tenants is AST agreement. In the agreement I stated that the landlady (me) is responsible for all bills including Council Tax. This is easier for me as I will be sure that all the bills are paid in full and on time and there are no debts on my property address. But when I emailed to the Council to inform them of my tenants names, moving in/out dates the Council said that they will open new account onto the tenants name and they will have to pay the Council Tax. My question is - do I (the landlady and the owner) have the rights to pay the Council Tax myself from my bank account?

P.S. The property is let as a whole, me (the landlady) not living in the property.

 

Does anyone know for sure what my rights are in this situation?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can pay the council tax for anybody.

 

I know this because recently there was a local pensioner around here who refused to pay the council tax. But someone paid it before she went to prison. She was *really* annoyed that someone had paid it for her without her permission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What benifit was there in informing the council that tenants had moved in?

 

The problem with having an account in your tenants name and you paying is, you have no right to claim any over payments and the tenants have every right to claim back your money as an overpayment should they decide to do a moonlight flick.

 

I would ring the council back and tell them its fallen through and you arent moving.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What benifit was there in informing the council that tenants had moved in?

 

The problem with having an account in your tenants name and you paying is, you have no right to claim any over payments and the tenants have every right to claim back your money as an overpayment should they decide to do a moonlight flick.

 

I would ring the council back and tell them its fallen through and you arent moving.

 

there was no benefit for me personally but as far as i know this is legal requirement to tell the truth to the council ))) my main residence is at different address now, i had to tell the council i moved out. And my tenants have all the rights to stay legally at the property they rent from me. This is why I told the council about changes.

I am just not sure if i could show the council tax payments (which is in the name of tenants) as my legal expenses to reduce the income tax... And the rent amount in the AST agreement was inclusive of council tax but now it appears that my tenants have to pay it separately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see why you can't continue to offset the payments against your tax bill. Keep copies of the bills and the contract as evidence in the unlikely event you get checked out by the tax man.

 

Less unlikely than a moonlight flit would be the tenants becoming entitled to a reduction in council tax as part of their benefits and not informing you. Ring the council and ask them what their policy is with regard to them possibly sending you the bills (even while keeping your tenants responsible for the bills).

Link to post
Share on other sites

there was no benefit for me personally but as far as i know this is legal requirement to tell the truth to the council )))

 

There would be no untruth in registering yourself at your new address AND still paying the council tax at the old address.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would ring the council back and tell them its fallen through and you arent moving," was clearly encouraging Ilonkapay to tell an untruth.

 

She can certainly claim any legitimate expenses against income for tax purposes If the tenancy agreement says that LL pays council tax, then that is a legitimate expense.

 

It's also verging on the insane in my view. The LL has no duty to pay CT if there are tenants, so why do it when your tenants may not pay you? Moreover, what if CT rises by 10% next year (whatever PM Camelrun says)? Does the tenancy agreement say that you can increase the rent by that much?

 

This job is difficult enough without inviting trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I would ring the council back and tell them its fallen through and you arent moving," was clearly encouraging Ilonkapay to tell an untruth.

 

She can certainly claim any legitimate expenses against income for tax purposes If the tenancy agreement says that LL pays council tax, then that is a legitimate expense.

 

It's also verging on the insane in my view. The LL has no duty to pay CT if there are tenants, so why do it when your tenants may not pay you? Moreover, what if CT rises by 10% next year (whatever PM Camelrun says)? Does the tenancy agreement say that you can increase the rent by that much?

 

This job is difficult enough without inviting trouble.

 

Thanks for reply! yes, the agreement says that LL is responsible for all the bills including CT. As far as i heard CT is frozen for the next 3 years?!!! And there will be no increase. Or am I wrong? Anyway I should not have any problems with my tenants because I know them from my previous place of work. They are not "troubles" )))))) However the time will show the truth ))

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no obligation for you to give the name of the tenants living at the address. If you have said in the AST that you are responsible for the bills - then you are. You just register with the council as the owner of the property and pay the council tax. How do you intend to ensure that you get the cash from the tenants- or are you including the bills in the rent?

 

As a landlord, I have to say I think you have made a mistake here. Your tenants should be responsible for all bills - the contract is then between the utility (or the council, for council tax) and the tenant - and is nothing to do with you. You will see threads where the electricity or gas company etc. try to get the landlord to pay for bills left unpaid by tenants - but this a try-on - the contract is between the utility and the tenant, and as such is nothing to do with the landlord. Your tenants now have no incentive to be careful with their use of gas, electricity, water etc.

 

Many people still think that a property is credit checked - this is not the case - it is the person who is credit checked so the idea that a property can be "black-listed" is totally out of date.

Kentish Lass

Information given is based on my knowledge and experience and is not to be considered as legal advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilonkapav: As you say, you are a new landlady. I just hope that your trust in your tenants proves correct. My experience over the past three years has made me very cynical about tenants.

 

I have previously had dealings with all sorts of people - including criminals and even gangsters and murderers - but that had not prepared me for the lying and cheating that I have encountered from apparently decent tenants. Be decent and helpful to people who are in difficulties, let them run up arrears that they promise to catch up on, and they do a moonlight flit, leaving you without money or remedy. That's not just once, not just the unemployed.

 

The councils have to pay Local Housing Allowance to tenants in most cases, but don't care a hoot if the tenants don't pay the landlord - and many of them think that paying the rent is a pretty low priority - "I had to pay the catalogue people" I was told only last week.

 

I very strongly advise you that at the six month point - assuming they are still there - you draw up a new AST agreement that makes them responsible for CT and all utilities. Then make sure that the council and utility companies transfer the accounts to the tenants. You really have opened yourself up to great financial danger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...