Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • as you mention the bpa sounds like its a scummy private car park lot blue badges mean nothing on private land anyway.............. so a failure to display something that is meaningless on private land anyway is a money grabbing scam moved to the private parking forum dx dx
    • who is it from  a council or a private parking company?
    • As per the heading, received a parking charge for failure to display a blue badge in a disabled bay on a retail park.  I am a blue badge holder, disabled/wheelchair user with a Motability vehicle. I received the charge as 'notice to keeper' I was not the driver. I don't have a valid driving license so use a carer. The notice arrived a week after the alleged incident. It states that as the 'driver' failed to pay the charge in full  hence, it is now the keepers responsibility ( the notice was dated 2 days after the alleged infringement and as no notice to driver was on the vehicle, I don't know how they expect the driver to be able to either pay or dispute the charge if they are not aware of it) Anyway, really looking for help how to reply. I cannot remember if the badge was correctly displayed or not. Photos taken of car miss a bit where I store my badge if not displayed so it would be possible to see a badge even if not 'correctly displayed" . It was a bit of a sh**ty day weather wise, gusty and raining  (as seen on the photos which reminded me of the actual day) so it is possible that badge blew to the floor as the driver was helping me out of the car into wheelchair. There is no windscreen photo showing that a PCN to "Driver" was stuck on the window either. The car park is free. There are no Parking Signs at all near the disabled bays that one could read to adhere to any terms and conditions. The whole row of disabled bays - of which are there many only state badge holders ( does not stipulate Blue Badge Holders) The notice states that the parking company is a member of the BPA and Operating in accordance with the British Parking Association's Code of Practice. The BPA, section 19.1 State that at least one parking sign should be near the disabled bays, in a position that can be easily  read by by a disabled person without leaving their car in order to decide to be bound by such terms. We returned to look for signage on the retail park and could not find one sign that was near the bays. The only sign we could find was high up on a pole but not near the bays. Someone had to get out of the car and stand on tip toes to be able to take a photo of a sign. I would be grateful if someone could help or point me in the right direction. It is now  15 days since the alleged incident and 7 days since I received the notice.
  • 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
      • 162 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

Repeat Part Time Student facing issues regarding council tax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4486 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'm currently in my second year of study at the university of winchester and unfortunately due to failing a double module. I am having to resit my double module on a part time basis. I have recently (well in the past month of two) found out that students who repeat a module and who plan to return to full time study are exempt from council tax. now when I went to the council tax office regarding the issue they state that a part time student is someone who does under 12 hours of study and that's there legistation on the matter. So I have also gone to my finance department at the university of winchester and it looks like there saying the same thing on the matter. Even though I have shown the both this letter and no one seems prepared to do anything about it which is really unfair when I have proof that I shouldn't be getting charged.

 

Any help would be greatfully recieved.

 

Many Thanks

Steve

 

Dear Steve Earl

 

I refer to your email and the student certificate provided.

 

In light of the information provided you do qualify to be disregarded as a full time student for council tax purposes. I have awarded a student exemption and a revised bill for zero will follow shortly.

 

I am sorry for the inconvenience you have been caused, If you have nay further queries then please contact me.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Mrs Lesley Thompson

Taxation Officer

Winchester City Council

Colebrook Street

Winchester

SO23 9LJ

T 01962 848 288

F 01962 841 365

 

 

 

From: counciltax

Sent: 19 December 2011 12:30

To: David McConville

Subject: FW: Council Tax

 

 

 

From: Steven Earl [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: 16 December 2011 18:50

To: counciltax

Subject: Council Tax

 

Dear Winchester City Council

 

I'm writing to you regarding the issue of council tax that has affected me. I am a full time student registered on a full time course and I have failed one of my modules. It is because of this that I am being classed as a part time student which doesn't seem to be correct. Firstly repeating modules shouldn't class me as a part time student because I am still enrolled on a full time course.

 

Secondly I bring your attention to this document that I have found online which continues to back up the fact that I am indeed a full time student.

 

A student undertaking a period of part-time repeat study within a full-time course should be regarded as a student for council tax purposes by virtue of the definition of “student” as provided by article 4, paragraph 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992, as amended by the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1996. Article 4 provides that “student” means a person who is to be regarded as (among other things) a person undertaking a full-time course of education, as according to paragraph 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 to the Order.

 

Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Council Tax (Discount Disregards) Order 1992 defines full-time study thus:

A full time course of education is… one (a) which subsists of at least one academic year of the educational establishments concerned or, in the case of an educational establishment which does not have academic years, for at least one calendar year, (b) which persons undertaking it are normally required by the educational establishment concerned to attend (whether at premises of the establishment or otherwise) for periods of at least 24 weeks in each academic year or calendar year… during which it subsists, and © the nature of which is such that a person undertaking it would normally require to undertake periods of study, tuition or work experience which together amount in each such academic year to an average of 21 hours a week during the periods of attendance mentioned in… (b)… in the year.

The argument that the period and length of attendance required (24 weeks and 21 hours) mean that part-time repeaters do not fall into the definition of student is a simplistic reading of the above: the key word in paragraph 4 is ‘normally’.

 

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the above Order (as amended by the subsequent Order of 1996) states that a person is to be regarded as undertaking a full-time course of education on a particular day if:

(a) on that day he is enrolled for the purpose of attending such a course with [a university] and (b) the day falls within the period beginning with the day on which he begins the course and ending with the day on which he ceases to undertake it, and a person is to be regarded as ceasing to undertake a course of education for the purpose of this paragraph if he has completed it, abandoned it or is no longer permitted by the educational establishment to attend it.

 

As a part-time repeater you have not completed your course, and nor have you abandoned it or in any way been prevented by the uni from attending, it follows that you are still undertaking a full time course of education. Indeed, the explanatory note to paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 1 (as given in the amended form above) states that “the amendment… enables students to qualify even during a period where they are not attending the course”.

 

Finally, in 1996 the Department of the Environment stated in a Council Tax information letter than in their view, “a period of intercalation will remain within the period of a course... and therefore, provided that the person remains enrolled at the educational establishment, they will continue to fall within the definition of a full-time student."

 

Not only this but it doesn't seem right that Council Tax Benefit sees me as a full time student which doesn't make a lot of sense to me why council tax doesn't see me as a full time student. Being charged council tax and not being able to get any benefit to help pay it hardly seems fair. As well as this I have also been regarded as a full time student by student finance, the job centre which again makes me wonder why the council sees me as a part time student because I'm repeating modules where as these other organisations see me as a full-time student.

 

(P.S I have today handed in a form indicating my full time status and am hoping this resolves the issue)

 

Many Thanks

 

Steve

 

Click here to report this email as spam.

 

 

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressed individual. The information in this email may be confidential; if you have received it in error, please accept our apologies and notify the sender as soon as possible, and delete it from your system without distributing or copying any information contained within it. Under UK Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation, the contents of this email might have to be disclosed in response to a request. We check emails and attachments for viruses before they are sent, but you are advised to carry out your own virus checks. Winchester City Council cannot accept any responsibility for loss or damage caused by viruses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

15:39 (7 hours ago)

 

to 'revomutharock

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Steve Earl

 

Re: Full Time Student Status

 

I refer to my email below and apologise for the information previously supplied.

 

My decision has been overturned by my manager for the following reasons:

 

The paragraphs of the legislation referred to are two part - one that they have to be enrolled on a full time course of education and there is no dispute with that and the other is the interpretation of the word “normally”.

 

It is considered that the part time hours you are doing would not full into this category and this is borne out by a VT decision on 13.10.11, which needed to consider hours of study, and says “in relation to undertaking periods of study averaging 21 hours per week, the Panel finds the appellant does not fulfil the statutory requirement and therefore does not fall to be disregarded as a student for the purposes of the discount. The Panel notes that before and after the regulations were amended it remains the case that a person is “normally required” to undertake periods of study etc, that amount to an average of 21 hours per week. In the Panel’s mind, this conveys some sort of mandatory requirement usually applied by the educational establishment in respect of study time.”

 

There is also a High Court case, which dealt with an appeal about the attendance aspect of a course, but in the final summing up says “It is not surprising that Parliament wished to provide that people attending a course should be required to carry out a minimum of weekly study or work. Otherwise, it might be possible for a person to attend a course for many years and thus claim exemption from council tax, while exhibiting very little commitment to the course.”

 

As you are only retaking one module you do not meet the required hours of study. You have the right to appeal this decision and this should be by writing or emailing to the Local Taxes Section,[email protected], giving your reasons for appeal in the light of this response. Please ensure you clearly head your letter or email to indicate that it is an appeal. If you appeal the Council has 2 months to respond.

 

To anyone interested in my case I received a reply from Winchester City Council in which I cited a valuation tribunal case similar to that of my own.

 

Please quote reference number 56286290/56357216 when contacting this Department.

 

5 April 2011

 

 

Dear Mr Earl

 

Appeal Against Refusal of Council Tax Student Exemption

 

I refer to your letters regarding the above.

 

This matter has been given extensive consideration by the Council Tax Team, including senior managers and consultation has taken place with other authorities.

 

You are applying for this exemption based on the legislation stating that you must be enrolled on a full time course of education and the course normally consists of attendance/study/tuition of a minimum 21 hours per week, 24 weeks of an academic or calendar year. The Council does not dispute that you are enrolled on a full time course. However, from your correspondence you would appear to interpret the other criteria as providing the course normally consists of these hours/weeks, it doesn’t matter how few you actually do. The Council does not take this view, it believes you should have to do this minimum number of hours and weeks to qualify as full time.

 

You have also referred to yourself as an intercalating student, but this is not the case as you do attend university, intercalating students do not.

 

There are, as you have become aware, various Valuation Tribunal decisions in different locations and one Tribunal’s decision is not binding on another. Only a High Court case would fix the decision for all Local Authorities and I am afraid there has never been a relevant case taken to the High Court.

 

The Council therefore abides by it’s original decision that it does not consider you to be a full time student this academic year.

 

Now that your account at May Tree Close has been closed your liability to the Council is as follows:

 

Account 5628629 22 Sparkford Close £657.82

Account 56357216 7 May Tree Close £36.90

 

I am aware that the anomaly in legislation between Benefits and Council Tax puts you in a difficult position and it may be you have decided to return home because of this. I am happy to hold recovery action on your debts to the Council to give you extended time to pay, as I do not wish to burden you with additional costs, but I do want to put in place a payment plan so that you are making regular payments.

 

You may, however, decide to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal and if the Valuation Tribunal upholds your appeal the Council will, of course, cancel the charges. Your appeal must be in writing and made within 2 months of this letter.

 

I know you have been given this information before, but I am giving the Tribunal details below for your use:

 

Valuation Tribunal

2nd Floor, Black Lion House,

45 Whitechapel Road

LONDON

E1 1DU

 

Telephone: 0207247 3898

Email:

 

Once you have considered your options please let me know what you intend to do so that I can deal with your account accordingly.

 

 

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Mrs J Gosling

Taxation Team Leader

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've had quite a comprehensive reply from the council, as stated your only option is to appeal to the Valuation Tribunal. You'll have to demonstrate that your normally required to undertake the required number of weeks/hours.

 

The information you've been given regarding part-time students doesn't seem right, the regulations state you need to do on average more than 12 hours a week for at least 3 months. But must be aged under 20 years old.

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...