Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This must be part of the new tactic from Evri.  They know they are going to lose. They take it to the wire and then don't bother to turn up in order to save themselves costs and of course they don't give a damn about the cost to the British taxpayer and the extra court delays they cause. This is a nasty dishonest company – but rather in line with all of the parcel delivery industry which knows that their insurance requirements are unlawful. They know that their prohibited items are for the most part unfair terms. They know for the most part that a "safe place" is exactly what it means – are not left on somebody's doorstep in full view. They know that obtaining a signature means that they have to show the signature not simply claim that they received a signature. They are making huge profits especially from their unlawful and unenforceable insurance requirement. Although this is less valuable than the PPI scandal, in terms of the number of people who are affected nationwide, PPI pales into insignificance. I hope the paralegals working for Evri are proud of themselves and they tell their families what they have done during the day when they go home.
    • Your PCN does not comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9[2][a] (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The only time on the PCN is 17.14. That is only  a time for there to be a period there would have to be a start and and end time mentioned. of course they do show the ANPR arrival and departures  times but that is not the parking period and their times are on the photographs not on the PCN. They also failed to comply with S.9[2][f] as they omitted to say that they could only pursue the keeper if they complied with the Act. That means that they can only pursue the driver as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. As they do not know who was driving and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will struggle to win. Especially as so many people are able to legally drive your car and you haven't appealed giving them no indication therefore of who was driving. Small nitpicking point-the date of Infringement was 22/04/2024. They appear to be saying that they can charge an extra amount [up to £70 ] if they have to use a debt collector. You do not have a contract with a debt collector so they cannot add that cost. You paid for four hours so it can only be the 15 minutes they are complaining about. You are entitled to a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of the parking period which would be easier to explain if the car park had been bigger. However if you allow for two minutes to park and two minutes to leave that gives you one minute to account for. Things like being held on the way out by cars in front waiting to get on to Northgate or even your own car being held up trying to get on to Northgate at a busy time. then other considerations like having to stop to allow pedestrians to walk in front of you or being held up by another car doing a u turn in front of your car. you would have to check with the driver and see if they could account for an extra one minute things like a disabled passenger or having to strap in a child . I am not advocating lying since that could lead to serious problems [like jail time] but there can be an awful lot of minor things that can cause a hold up of a minute even the engine not starting straight away or another car being badly parked as examples. Sadly you cannot include the 5 minute Consideration period as both IPC and BPA fail to comply with the convention that you can include that time with the Grace period.  
    • Defence struck out not case struck out...you have judgment  Well done topic title updated Regard's Please consider making a donation if not already to support us to help others.   Andy.   .
    • Hi all, I wanted to update you and thank you all for your help. I am delighted announce that after the case was struck out due to no response from Evri, judgement was issued after I submitted the forms and I was just about to take it to warrant.  today I received an email from the claims department requesting my bank details to make payment for my full award. The process has been long since the initial proceedings  in January i must say your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated.  
    • Quote of the century "Farage pops up when the country’s at a low ebb; like a kind of political herpes" - Frankie Boyle Updates
  • 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

Unpaid Council Tax - Court date 2 days' time


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4901 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

I need some advice please.

I previously owned a house with my ex. He moved out, I tried to get a mortgage to buy him out, I had everything in place but he dragged his heels so it fell through for me.

He stopped paying his share of the mortgage, so we fell into arrears.

2 years later he got a court order to make me vacate the house so he could sell it. His solicitor demanded I hand in a set of keys for him. He gained access and changed the locks, from this point I was unable to access the house.

In Feb 09 I was forced to go bankrupt because of my ex.

I am now being chased by the council for the council tax from May 2009 to June 2010.

I have explained my case but all I get told is that we are joint and severally liable for the debt.

I do not know if they are chasing him as they asked me today if I could give them a forwarding address for him.

I have a court date of this Thursday.

I do not think it is fair or reasonable to be expected to pay this as the house basically got taken away from me.

Do I need to go to court?

Can anyone give me any advice on this matter?

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, if it was just unoccupied but still furnished then they should have reduced it by 10%, if it was both unoccupied and unfurnished then it would be exempt for 6 months meaning you pay nothing for that period. Did either of you ever live alone in the property? If you did then you were entitled to a 25% reduction for that period. Do you both still own the property? Or did you both own it until it was sold - neither of you bought the other out?

 

2 years later he got a court order to make me vacate the house so he could sell it. His solicitor demanded I hand in a set of keys for him. He gained access and changed the locks, from this point I was unable to access the house. I don't know if this would make any difference except for meaning that the place was unoccupied, as stated above. Whether you are living in a property or not, if you are responsible for it (i.e. you are still on a tenancy or the owner then you still have to pay the CT.

In Feb 09 I was forced to go bankrupt because of my ex. This could potentially be relevant to the debt, however I am not sure I'm afraid. I definitely know that bankruptcies can, and do, affect the amount to be paid back but because you went bankrupt before this debt was due that might make a difference.

I am now being chased by the council for the council tax from May 2009 to June 2010.

I have explained my case but all I get told is that we are joint and severally liable for the debt. Unfortunately this does give the council the right to either puruse both, or just one, of you for the whole debt.

I do not know if they are chasing him as they asked me today if I could give them a forwarding address for him. If you have one then make sure you provide it. I don't know how hard the council will look for your ex

I have a court date of this Thursday.

I do not think it is fair or reasonable to be expected to pay this as the house basically got taken away from me.

Do I need to go to court? Presumably you've had a summons? If so then no, you don't need to go. All the council does is obtain a liability order, which will be granted. There is nothing to contest so no point in going. It's also worth noting that council tax debts have no effect on your credit rating.

 

Sorry that I can't answer all your questions, I hope it helps a bit nonetheless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Strikes me as completely unfair that a partner can serve an eviction notice on their former partner and that former partner can still be held liable for council tax even though they no longer have access or legal rights to enter the property and the "evicting party" doesn't pay it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I said, I don't know if that would make any difference. It could do, but I personally don't know if it would I'm afraid, hopefully someone else can answer that part better than I can. There are many aspects of CT which are unfair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a heirarchy of liability and as the op and her ex are both owners of the house and neither live there that puts them at the same point of the heirarchy and as they debt is jointly and severally liable then the Council can pursue her solely for the debt if they are unable to locate her ex.

 

If he was living at the property that would put them on different points of the heirarchy with him above her but no one is living there.

 

Linda - you could take him to Court for his share of the money but the costs involved might not be worth and even if you get a Court order I understand it can still be an uphill battle to get the money paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...