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

Council tax & liability order


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4294 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

Good morning everyone,

 

on Saturday my friend received this letter:

 

636092c4cd79t.jpg

 

This letter was sent to him by the Council of the area where he lived more than 5 years ago. He is sure that he doesn't have to pay that tax and he's got his reasons.

On Monday he's going to phone the Council and tell them that he disagrees with what's happening

 

Can anyone please advice which steps should he tell to challenge the decision of the court/Council?

 

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pug

 

Your friend needs to get this resolved and to state his reasons why he is not liable.Your upload is a Liability Notice which must be obtained within the required 6 years period to negate the question of the debt ever becoming Statute barred.They now have this and could chase forever.

 

Regards

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Pug

 

Your friend needs to get this resolved and to state his reasons why he is not liable.Your upload is a Liability Notice which must be obtained within the required 6 years period to negate the question of the debt ever becoming Statute barred.They now have this and could chase forever.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Thanks Andy,

 

As far as I got he needs to phone them on Monday and state his reasons why he is not liable, am I right.

 

By the way, he's going to go abroad for several weeks on holidays(on the 20th of July) , can he be sure that when he returns from holidays all his belongings, furniture and the rest of his stuff will remain safe on its place and no bailiffs did brake into his house while he is not in and took his things away to recover the debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does he think he's not liable.

 

Because he never agreed with the LL that he would pay Council Tax. The Land Lord provided the Council with a piece of paper signed by my friend.

My friend says that he did sign the paper, but the amount £600 per month was written in by the LL after my friend had signed the paper. The LL asked him to sign it quickly as he was in a hurry at that moment. He says they actually agreed he would rent a room for £300, and there were some other people living in another room. The LL didn't give him a copy of this paper, and my friend was really surprised to know that the Council has the paper with such a rent amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was your friend or any of the others getting Housing Benefit?

 

No, he wasn't. But now (he lives at different address for several years) he's been getting housing benefits (for about couple of years)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because he never agreed with the LL that he would pay Council Tax. The Land Lord provided the Council with a piece of paper signed by my friend.

 

Its not up to the landlord and tenant to decide who is paying the council tax - council tax liability is set in law (section 6 of the local government finance act 1992) . Any agreement is purely personal and a matter only between the landlord and tenant.

 

 

He says they actually agreed he would rent a room for £300, and there were some other people living in another room.

 

The property being a HMO is a different matter to agreeing with the LL as to who will pay the council tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not up to the landlord and tenant to decide who is paying the council tax - council tax liability is set in law (section 6 of the local government finance act 1992) . Any agreement is purely personal and a matter only between the landlord and tenant.

 

Do you know how my friend can appeal against the Magistrate Court's decision ?

 

 

The property being a HMO is a different matter to agreeing with the LL as to who will pay the council tax.

 

You know, I am the person who lived after my friend in that property for several years. I was one of the persons who lived there. Gas and electricity bills were paid in my name. But it was actually a HMO, and some persons who lived there can confirm that we lived in different rooms with locks on the doors, we were unrelated to each other and shared common kitchen, bathroom and toilet.

I had no written agreement with the LL as well as the rest of the guys who lived there. Everyone paid their part of the rent into his account.

I am pretty sure that the LL will try to make the Council chase me in order to make me pay the CT for several years period, around 5 years time. I moved out of his property in 2012 march. What do you think his chances are to make me liable?

It was a HMO(though he will tell them that I was a sole tenant of the whole flat) and by the way most of the time I was a full time student(up to august 2011).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how my friend can appeal against the Magistrate Court's decision ?

 

He needs to appeal to a valuation tribunal, liability disputes are outside of the magistrates remit when it comes to issues like this,

 

I am pretty sure that the LL will try to make the Council chase me in order to make me pay the CT for several years period, around 5 years time. I moved out of his property in 2012 march. What do you think his chances are to make me liable?

 

Providing you can gather evidence if you need to then you should be Ok - it may be worth contacting the council anyway (and possibly advise them about it having been an HMO at other times...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

He needs to appeal to a valuation tribunal, liability disputes are outside of the magistrates remit when it comes to issues like this,

 

Thanx. Can he do this in written form himself, I mean without any lawyers? What should he do first?

 

 

Providing you can gather evidence if you need to then you should be Ok - it may be worth contacting the council anyway (and possibly advise them about it having been an HMO at other times...)

I don't want to contact the Council myself as I don't know if the LL has already started smth against me or not. I don't want to attract their attention to my person.

As to the evidence, I've got detailed video of the flat showing the locks on both of the doors. Written statement from one of the tenants stating that we are unrelated, have separate oral agreements with the LL and share common kitchen and toilet/bathroom. Some of the tenants whom I'm able to track will confirm the same things when necessary.

And I have my visas(I was an overseas student) clearly proving my fulltime student status for several years' period.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...