Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this and the attached documents. It all looks fine. The worry about their confidentiality statement. This is normal practice and they probably don't even understand what it really means. They can't impose a legal duty of confidence upon you in this way and there is no reason in equity why you should be bound by a moral duty of confidence – for instance, you didn't eavesdrop this information only didn't find an obviously confidential document belonging to someone else on the street. I'm a little bit concerned about their claim that they have a contractual term with Packlink she expressly excludes third-party rights. I understand from the Cagger above that this has occurred elsewhere but I haven't seen it and certainly I'm not aware that has been relied upon in court yet. We shall certainly start advising people who come here to sue in negligence as well as contract by way of alternative
    • Ok many thanks and we need to meet the 16th May deadline ? I send this to the claimant and which court (as we haven't heard from the court yet) ? I will look at this tonight as I am really restricted at work. Could I post up a draft for you to look at ? Really appreciate any help as feeling very anxious.    
    • I would just say, ask your most challenging friend to review the emails. Are they really inferring or is your perception clouded because of your mental state? For example; asking a question is not an inference. I say this so you don't waste the court's time with minor hurts or imagined slights;  they want the significant elements. Otherwise their perception of you may be negative from the offset. 
    • Thank you. Was the value which was declared to the courier the same value as that which you are claiming? The letter of claim is a bit wordy but it does the job. However I would delete any references to mediation or any invitation to them to make proposals for some kind of settled solution. We would normally be advising people to refuse mediation that I believe that there is a new system which is just coming in where mediation becomes compulsory. With the old system, you could choose whether or not have mediation and you would have to agree to keep matters confidential and also agree that you are prepared to compromise. If these are the requirements of the new mediation system then I would suggest that you say that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to sign up to a confidentiality agreement. In terms of compromising – the money is yours and there is no reason why should give up a penny. On this action you will be attempting to enforce your third party rights as you do not have a direct contract with EVRi. You should also sue them in negligence as an alternative on the basis that they are due a duty of care and that they failed in their duty and that the loss of the parcel was a reasonably foreseeable consequence which has caused you financial loss. As I think I said earlier, they won't respond to this or at least they won't agree to pay you are any reimbursement. This means that you will deftly have to issue the claim on day 15 which is in another five days. Have you registered with the MoneyClaim online County Court website? You need to do that the start drafting your claim. I suggest that you post your particulars of claim here before you click them off so that we can see and let you know if we think there should be any changes. Finally, you say that you are taking advice from a government website. You should realise that we are volunteers here. We don't get paid but the people who run the government website to get paid. We are very happy to help you. We help everybody completely free of charge but if you are taking advice from some other source then you should stick with them rather than ride two horses at the same time. It will only cause difficulties and conflicting advice and confusion.  
  • 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 4876 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...