Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

Help - Business Rates Not Paid - Bailiffs Called Yesterday


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4872 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 am new to this and asking on behalf of my parents.

They as a company both are directors(though no wages for 2 months)of a public house.Unfortunately due to a downturn intrade and weather business is bad and dad has not paid business rates since September and un beknown to us all adopted head in sand theory!

Baliffs arrived yesterday but were refused entry to the pub!

The bill is for business rates which is a company but the bill has only dad's name on it..........they have made a list of things from their house that they want to seize including their car....and some that were parked in the car park!(We understand they cannot take these).Can they take mum and dads personal belongings for a company debt and their car?They will go away if dad pays £3000 debt is £6500.

Help mum is devestated and dad seems like a broken man.Unfortunately i have no funds to bail them out or i would.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say they are a Company, what status do they trade as - Ltd, Sole, Partnership, LLP?

 

have you confirmed with the Council how much the Liability Order is for - do not believe the Bailiffs figures? Do they live on the premises? How is the list of goods arrived at they want to take if the Bailiff has been denied access?

 

PT

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am new to this and asking on behalf of my parents.

They as a company both are directors(though no wages for 2 months)of a public house.Unfortunately due to a downturn intrade and weather business is bad and dad has not paid business rates since September and un beknown to us all adopted head in sand theory!

Baliffs arrived yesterday but were refused entry to the pub!

The bill is for business rates which is a company but the bill has only dad's name on it..........they have made a list of things from their house that they want to seize including their car....and some that were parked in the car park!(We understand they cannot take these).Can they take mum and dads personal belongings for a company debt and their car?They will go away if dad pays £3000 debt is £6500.

Help mum is devestated and dad seems like a broken man.Unfortunately i have no funds to bail them out or i would.

 

You say that Mum and Dad are Directors. I would therefore assume that the company trades as LTD. If so, a bailif cannot take any goods that belong to them personally. With levying upon cars in a car park...NO WAY AT ALL!! This would appear to be an invalid levy.

 

I run an advice service providing bailiff advice to the public and it is so very worrying that we are receiving so many enquiries from people that run public houses as they are finding a huge downturn in trade since the effects of the recession have taken hold.

 

However, from many that I have come across, it has been seen that a lot of Pubs are owned by a Brewery who also own all of the goods and assets inside to include drink and beverages. These items would therefore be exempt from seizure.

 

If you can find out any more, please both post as there is always somebody here to help.

Edited by tomtubby
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,thanks have contacted council figures are correct not made up by baliffs.Mum and Dad live in cottage next to pub,they were denied ascess to pub to list but went into cottageand made listings including car on pub car park.....dad signed this(i know he has probably cooked his own goose here).The company is listed as ltd!Hope this helps.

 

Thank you.

Only now does he decided to take his head out of the sand!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly you need to check the Liability Order an see if the Limited Company is the rate payer and not your parents!

 

If this is the case your father needs to write to the Bailiff, immediately, advising he owns the assets the Bailiff has described in his walking possession agreement. The Bailiff would then need to revert to the creditor to ascertain whether they accept the 3rd party claim over the goods. They have a limited time to do this, 7 days I believe!

 

I recall when tenants move into pubs they purchase the fixtures and fittings from the brewery, they make up the in-goings on a tenancy. You need to clarify whether the Limited company or your parents personally paid these funds. If your parents paid the money they will not be available to the bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,thanks have contacted council figures are correct not made up by baliffs.Mum and Dad live in cottage next to pub,they were denied ascess to pub to list but went into cottageand made listings including car on pub car park.....dad signed this(i know he has probably cooked his own goose here).The company is listed as ltd!Hope this helps.

 

Thank you.

Only now does he decided to take his head out of the sand!

 

I am pretty confident that they cannot go into the private living accommodation to levy upon goods. I will check with this in the morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the occupant, the lease holder who owes the rates. This will be the LTD company.

You need to go back to the council and point out their error.

Send some evidence, there must surely be some written communication - an agreement or lease from the brewery somewhere.

 

Once they are aware they should issue a new bill / liability order.

 

This is not the same as getting the name wrong, like chasing' Mr Smith' at an address where only Mrs Smith still lives. In that case they could just change the name on the liability order.

Not so in this case, they are NOT the occupant, the occupant's spouse, co-habitee or jointly liable in ANY way.

The Ltd company is a separate legal entity, so much so, that even if you are the sole director of a LTD company, the money in its bank account etc., is NOT yours, its the company's.

Same goes for debts and liabilities.

 

It's common for pubs to reincorporate, close down and open up (the same day) as a new debt free company.

Some people say it's morally dubious, i would say that a £6000 tax on bothering to soldier on running an unprofitable, vital part of the community was immoral, but what do i know...

 

Those 'cleverer' than you and i would have no problem seeing the pubs boarded up, then sold on as a 'development opportunity', because that's just what we need - more over priced studio flats.

Yeah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole purpose of trading as a ltd company is to protect personal assets. If the liability order is in the company name then none of your parents goods can be seized unless his car is registered as part of the buisness. If your parents are named and not the limited company then the bailiff can remove any of their goods to cover the debt and fees.

 

Speak to the brewery as they can often help and will provide a list of fixtures and fittings.

 

Ring the council to clarify the name on the bill if its wrong tell them ...produce the lease and they will have to re bill the company and cancel the bailiffs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There arent actually that many brewery owned estates these days-many are owned by property management companies...in the trade known as pub co's

If the pub is run as a tie,then any stock that has not been paid for on account is effectively still belonging to the supplier.

Its a sad sign of the times that so many licencees are facing this sort of action,and is even more prolific as councils face budget defecits.

Thes days its essential for publicans facing these issues have inventories in place.

Its the aggro and stress that go with these instances.

If bailiffs had to work even 10% as hard as licencees to earn a living-they would throw in the towel very fast.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There arent actually that many brewery owned estates these days-many are owned by property management companies...in the trade known as pub co's

If the pub is run as a tie,then any stock that has not been paid for on account is effectively still belonging to the supplier.

Its a sad sign of the times that so many licencees are facing this sort of action,and is even more prolific as councils face budget defecits.

Thes days its essential for publicans facing these issues have inventories in place.

Its the aggro and stress that go with these instances.

If bailiffs had to work even 10% as hard as licencees to earn a living-they would throw in the towel very fast.

 

Martin.....excellent response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...