Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • a chargeback via a paypal account used in an ebay sale doesn't usually result in funds being sucked from your bank account,  just that you attain a paypal negative balance. as you saying the money was taken by paypal from your bank account without you authorising this? or is it directly the buyers name that is shown? regarding the chargeback but either way you bank account HAS been debited? dx  
    • what solicitor is the PAPLOC from? then just search xxxx snotty letter dx  
    • moved to the debt self help forum. plenty of like threads here to read along with the ones you've done so far..good work. last thing you ever want to do is look at any kind of IVO/BK or anything alike concerning consumer debt, never do that, turns unsecured debts into secured ones in many instances. your best bet for now is p'haps looks at  Options for dealing with your debts: Breathing Space (Debt Respite Scheme) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) sadly you have to go thru one of the free debt charities to invoke that but DON'T be tempted to also open up a DMP with them, just get the Breathing Space done. get that in place that gives you at leasy 60 days buffer you've also goto to realise you'll probably get a default once breathing space is in place, bit if not it might pay you to withhold payments even after BS then p'haps re start payments once a DN for each debt is issued and registered. at least that way, whatever happens in 6yrs the debt will drop off dx  
    • Hello, I am a private seller and recently sold a pair of trainers on eBay.  Everything seemed fine until just after the eBay 30 day mbg had expired.  The buyer contacted me with photos showing me that both shoes had ripped.  He wanted his money back, and after refusing to refund him, he then left me retaliatory and defamatory feedback on my profile to the effect that I had sold him fake trainers (this was removed by eBay).  He then initiated a chargeback via Paypal.  Invariably, the outcome was in his favour, and I have now been charged for the cost of the trainers.  I would have also been stung for the chargeback fee, but eBay refunded this.  Incidentally, I do have the email receipt of the trainers from when I bought them from a well-established and bona fide online retailer.  The susbequent conversation with eBay followed its predictable course, i.e. the chargeback is out of their hands etc. I have been in contact with citizens advice, and my bank.  Citizens advice told me that as a private seller I'm responsible for the "Title and description" of the goods, but not the performance, or the fitness for purpose.  To me it is clear; if you receive something that's not as described, you don't then use the goods, and more than 30 days later claim 'not as described'.  In my mind, this makes the claim fraudulent.  He's used the 'they're fake' card to give credence to a 'not as described' claim here, obviously, without any evidence.  My understanding is that the chargeback is unlawful, because the trainers were shipped as described.  However, I read something on an eBay forum regarding sellers having no statutory rights, i.e. no right to appeal against a chargeback decision, or to complain to the financial ombudsman.  Does this mean that if my bank disputes the charge on my behalf, it will be to no avail, even if it's recognisably a fraudulent chargeback?  I have reported it via the Action fraud website. Any advice, anyone?  Would be most grateful!
    • Thank you, I have drafted my letters and started to complete the reply form, printed from this site and not using the one they provided.    2 questions, on the forum link it says to tick box D & I, the reason for box D will be given on my thread, what would my answer be to "I dispute the debt"?  Do I send anything for the Vodafone debt they have included?  I've only done 118 loan s. 77 & capital one credit cards so. 78    Thank you  
  • 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

Why are the council above the law?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4340 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

If other agencies I pay bills to acted like SCC they would be seen as bullies and reported to the FSA. I have today recieved a summons from SCC for the privilege of paying them £150 in April and £150 in May, but as I didn't pay on the day they want it as I pay when I have the money, they issued me a summons and added £48 costs. Year after year I pay in full before the next years bill is due, but that seems to make no difference in how I am treated.

 

I wanted to turn up at court as you would in this situation with any other agency and asked where my papers were to send in a defence. There was no Claim Form or particulars of claim. They really didn't want me to turn up at court, despite saying this was what I wanted to do. They make Dick Turpin look like a pussycat.

 

If I haven't been served with the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim then they have not effected service on me I am told.

 

I have to write and appeal to have the 'Authority costs' of £45 and 'court costs' of £3 removed. Surely these charges cannot ligitimately be demanded?

 

I am incensed by this action and the fact that they can get away with this and there is no agency that they have to answer to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately the council seems to have acted within the law. The Council Tax is either payable in full at the start of the year or in 10 monthly instalments (commonly known as the "statutory instalment scheme"), or alternately the council can, but isn't obliged to, enter into an agreement with the payer.

 

Once two instalments go unpaid, the right to pay by instalments is lost and whole amount of council tax becomes payable within 14 days, after which the council can seek a liability order from the magistrates court. Theres no reason why you can not appear in court, however unless you have a compelling defence the court is obliged to issue the LO and award costs against you.

 

You have a number of recourses if you feel that the council has acted improperly or illegal, such as making a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, seeking a Judicial Review at the High Court or, making a complaint to your elected County, District or Borough Councillor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not that you have not missed payments but that you did not pay them by the correct date. We'll assume your supposed payment date is 1st of each month - to pay by this date you actually have to pay some 5 working days previously so that you have paid in cleared funds by the 1st. In reality most Councils do allow a little leeway but only by about a week or so. The only thing the Magistrates are allowed to consider is whether or not you are liable to pay Council Tax, your circumstances and ability to pay do not come into it. To object as to whether you are liable or not is very narrow.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Write a formal letter of complaint to the council, give them 14 days to reply and copy it to the magistrates, if possible go to the council office and ask to see a senior maanger - they did that to me last year despite being told they would get paid in full out of my redundancy, and they tried this route but I went in there with paperwork, insisted they listened to the call I had made and read the letter handed in when they first said I had missed a payment and they backed down. I also pointed out I would NOT be liable due to being unemployed from January and they still insisted I had to pay for January to April until otherwise found out - now claiming back that 'overpayment' from them!

 

I live a five minute walk from the council offices so I can hassle them easily should it be necessary!

 

Also did the same with the water board and ended up with the chairman's office dealing with the way they chased for their debts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most if not all councils use computerised systems - reminders and summonses are automatically generated after a certain trigger points. An email or letter to the council should clear up the matter, and withdrawal of the costs.

 

If not you should appear at the Magistrates Court and demonstrate that you paid the instalments each month, or that you paid the reminder notice within the prescribed time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are another a couple of reasons why this might also be happening:

 

1 - The Council use the issue of Liability Orders as another income stream. Average cost to the Council of issuing a LO is £3-00, cost to the ratepayer can be up to £150-00.

 

2 - Your Council may have outsourced all their admin including revenues to a private company like Capita. The issuing then of a LO will be very quickly followed by a visit from the Bailiff - normally Equita or Ross&Roberts - both of which are owned by Capita.

 

This is a very dirty business.

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I haven't been served with the Claim Form and the Particulars of Claim then they have not effected service on me I am told.

 

That would be correct if it was for a CCJ but Council Tax uses a Liability Order granted by a Magistrates Court (as per the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) regs 1992)

 

I have today received a summons from SCC for the privilege of paying them £150 in April and £150 in May, but as I didn't pay on the day they want it as I pay when I have the money, they issued me a summons and added £48 costs

 

Thats the way Council Tax legislation works - for it to have progressed to a Summons you mustn't have paid the amount shown on the Reminder within 7 days.

 

I have to write and appeal to have the 'Authority costs' of £45 and 'court costs' of £3 removed. Surely these charges cannot legitimately be demanded?

They can be , when the Liability Order is granted the court will grant the costs - even if you pay all but the costs the costs are fully recoverable under the Liability Order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It also makes the Council look squeaky clean in the eyes of the Government when they can reveal very high collection rates on council tax when it comes to getting their allocation of funds for other areas, making them seem very efficient.

 

In reality it is using the courts as a first line of debt collecting which is against the OFT Guidelines in Debt Collecting, perhaps this could be why the OFT is NOT getting stronger powers to close down delinquent debt collecting firms.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warrants granted by a court for coucil tax often happen before the claimed debtor is aware.

 

Its not an impartial tribunal, just a rubber stamping job.

 

AFAIR for this reason these 'debts' are not respected outwith the UK.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In reality it is using the courts as a first line of debt collecting which is against the OFT Guidelines in Debt Collecting, perhaps this could be why the OFT is NOT getting stronger powers to close down delinquent debt collecting firms.....

 

This is my issue, if anyone else I make regular payments to did this it could be reported to FSA as a bullying tactic and against the fair trading guidelines, but councils appear to make their own laws and can act in whatever way they please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but councils appear to make their own laws and can act in whatever way they please.

 

The council don't make the law, that's down to central government. The council is as bound to work with the law as you are so they can't choose how to apply it other than as how its written.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been a few posts recently about people using a sort of "in your face(book)" type protests, where they flood the company's FB and Twitter accounts with complaints - in addition to the guy posting yesterday who bought a car that failed - then sat outside the garage warning potential customers, until the garage called the police - who then told the garage to refund his money (though their cheque bounced).

 

There is no "procedure" for this approach - and I would suspect it could be applied as well to public bodies - and you would have greater control compared to businesses as you can submit FoI requests, which in turn could not be declined as "administration of justice".

 

I suspect the internet, just like it has with this forum, can empower far more people than we have yet realised.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The council don't make the law, that's down to central government. The council is as bound to work with the law as you are so they can't choose how to apply it other than as how its written.

 

The only reason that central government can get away with this racket is because there are plenty of people (CEO's of councils comes to mind) who are prepared to screw a large percentage of the council taxpaying public in exchange for their six figure salaries, paid for by those they are screwing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently paying 51% of my income by an attachment of earnings order on my salary to pay back council tax arrears which built up because when I was unemployed and on JSA. I was on "rapid reclaim" which the council determined as being "back to work" though I only had occasional casual work and my income was at benefit level. My beef is that the legal charges are £1600. Has anyone successfully challenged legal charges because this figure seems excessive and unrelated to actual work done? Can they impose punitive legal charges or are they bound merely to pass on the actual costs of legal action? I am considering asking for a breakdown of their bill and taking them to the Ombudsman if they refuse and I would be interested to know if anyone has been down this route. I wish I had been allowed to go to court to argue the "rapid reclaim" point but I was told that I would not be allowed to speak to the judge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never ever believe what the council tell you about court, they do not like people turning up at court as it costs them a lot of money and they would look very very silly if you could prove you had 0 liability for the case anyway.

 

Put a formal complaint into the council to kick start the process and then go to the Local Government Ombudsman, they can look into this, you could also get a full printout of your liability from the council website (so I believe, I've managed to get it for somebody).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently paying 51% of my income by an attachment of earnings order on my salary to pay back council tax arrears which built up because when I was unemployed and on JSA. I was on "rapid reclaim" which the council determined as being "back to work" though I only had occasional casual work and my income was at benefit level. My beef is that the legal charges are £1600. Has anyone successfully challenged legal charges because this figure seems excessive and unrelated to actual work done? Can they impose punitive legal charges or are they bound merely to pass on the actual costs of legal action? I am considering asking for a breakdown of their bill and taking them to the Ombudsman if they refuse and I would be interested to know if anyone has been down this route. I wish I had been allowed to go to court to argue the "rapid reclaim" point but I was told that I would not be allowed to speak to the judge.

 

This sounds as if you have more than 1 Liability Order and have even been summonsed for a Committal Hearing. Be interested to know more. You need to speak to someone at the Council and ask the following

 

questions:

1 - how many Liability Orders they have against you

2 - the dates they were obtained

3 - the addresses they were for

4 - the period of time each covers

5 - how much each one was for

6 - how much is still outstanding

7 - the dates they were passed on for enforcement

8 - the dates & amounts of any payments

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

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...