Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • 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

Liability for council tax - living together or not?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4113 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 thank you in advance for any advice. I can't seem to find any info dealing with this. CAB are about as useful as a wax cooker.

 

I will leave out place names - so i can't be identified.

 

I am a full time student in X council. I rent a flat as somewhere to sleep on the days I have lectures. I also have a home in Y council. I am married. The X council asked me to tell them who is resident at my flat in X council. I said, I am married, my wife will visit me, what does 'resident' mean? how many days can my wife stay before being classed as resident? They didn't answer and just decided that my wife is therefore resident. They promptly sent a bill giving me the 25% discount for being a student but said my wife must pay because they assume my wife must be resident.

 

My wife is unemployed, although, we pay council tax in Y council, as we are too lazy to claim for council tax credit. But, paying in 2 councils was a bit much, so we assumed that if the council charges council tax for my wife in council X, then it can also give council tax credit. The council tax credit was refused because my wife couldn't prove she is resident at the flat in X council. Well Duh! we told the council she isn't - they said they assume she is.

 

So, now they say, that 'oooo your wife is most definitely resident because she said she was, in this application for council tax credit' - ignoring of course that it was refused on the grounds she cannot prove she is resident!

 

Basically, apologies for the long post. But what is the legal basis for this? can the council charge me council tax purely because i am married? they have said i need to prove that my wife is not resident here. but i am not really sure how to do that. (they won't provide a definition of what residence means)

 

i understand that as the leaseholder i need to pay council tax (but of course i am a full-time student so am entitled to pay no council tax)

 

who is in the right here? do i really have to pay council tax for myself and my wife in both councils? seems a bit harsh. they talk about the 'main address' and the flat is neither mine nor my wife's main address in many respects. our belongings are at our main address in Y council, our bank statements go there, we do everything there. the flat is purely a crash pad for a few weeks during term time.

 

any idea how to approach the council. i feel a bit insain repeating the same thing to them and getting the same moronic response.

 

 

 

thanks again!

 

if i just ignore the council tax letters what will they do? will i get taken to court? how will a court view what i have written here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Hi, hope I can help you a bit. You will usually pay Council Tax on the property which is your & your wife's "sole or main residence", theres no exact definition but previous court cases have given general guidance things which should be taken account include where you spend most of your time, security of tenure, intention to return, where your registered to vote, where your doctor is, where your mail goes, etc. Which from what you've said is at the property in Council Y, where you should have a 25% discount as a student.

 

The property in Council X would then be your second home. I'm not completely certain by you should get the 'Class N' student household exemption at the property, if not then a discount between 50% to 0% depending on the council for furnished second homes.

 

If you ignore their letters they will assume your not contesting the liability and expect you to pay. You'll only get taken to court if you fail to pay the instalments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Be careful because what the council will do is think you are both resident at your main address in council Y and charge you upto 100% for an empty property in council X. You'll end up paying in full twice.

 

Bonkers I know - basically means every student in the land doesn't actually live at their student address (because it arguably isn't permanent enough), should claim their student discount at their parents' address and pay upto 100% for an empty property where their university is.

 

Would be interesting to read what happened?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based upon the information, you have supplied, it appears that: -

 

  1. Y is the main residence for both you and your wife
  2. You would be entitled to 25% discount on Y assuming no other adults resident
  3. You or your wife may be entitled to Council Tax Benefit for Y as a couple - depending upon your income
  4. X is a second home
  5. You would be entitled to second home discount on X - the amount of discount for second homes varies from Council to Council - and can range between 0% and 50%
  6. You would not be eligible for Council Tax Benefit for X

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

just realised this thread is nearly 12 months old - god knows why it has been resurrected

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...