Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
    • The streaming giant also said it added 9.3 million subscribers in the first three months of the year.View the full article
  • 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 enforcement


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4174 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 have a query relating to the enforcement of council tax liability

 

A friend of mine is being pursued by the local authority who have a liability order

 

the friend is retired and not claiming any council tax benefit,

and does not want to claim the benefit they get by tolerably on their pension,

they hate the benefit system and its bureaucracy and intrusive quest for one's personal information

 

The local authority had sent a form requesting details of income and outgoings and have tried to encourage the making of a claim to council tax benefit

which my friend does not want to do.

the home is not owned but rented from a social landlord and there are no assets to speak of

the bailiff has been unable to gain entry and the local authority has resorted to writing a letter and sending the means inquiry form.

The friend is pointed out the local authority that even if the case goes back to court

the maximum deduction from old age pension is less than the weekly amount already offered to clear the debt

 

It very much looks at the moment as though the local authority are really pushing my friends to making a Housing benefit claim.

They say they will not accept the amount specified for a deduction from old age pension because it is not enough money and they have a duty to collect the tax.

 

So the question really is this.

Although a person can be taken back to court and an assessment made of whether they have wilfully refused to pay,

to which in theory they could be sent to prison,

can the decision not to claim council tax benefit be stretched by interpretation to amount to a wilful refusal to pay?

 

I can appreciate that the court might be displeased that a person will not claim the benefit

but I would have thought the assessment of wilful refusal has to be based on the means that person has rather than the means they could potentially have

 

It would look to me that if a person's decision not to claim council tax benefit is outside of the ambit of an assessment of wilful refusal,

then there is much the local authority can do apart from carry on sending bailiffs

 

I would imagine that it's so rarely the case that a person would not claim housing benefit that those making the legislation did not factor in this possibility

 

Any advice about this would be greatly welcomed

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claiming benefits information is being sent to help your friend not penalise him. To be stubbborn and let that stubborness get him ito trouble is silly and unless he has something to hide I can't see any reason why he doesn't claim his entitlement.

 

If the forms being sent are to assess for an attachement of earnings, it is a legal requirement to fill them in and return them.

 

A return to court would be because of willfull refusal to pay and they can ask for a commital to prison for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying. It's no good saying the person is being stubborn. The fact is

there are elderly people who will not make claims

my question is whether or not an individual's decision not to claim a state benefit

can be used to say that they are wilfully refusing to pay

my question concerns whether wilful refusal relates to actual means

or potential means

my question concerns whether or not the person can be sent to prison

by the courts because they will not claim council tax benefit

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it wall have nothing to do with claiming benefits at all and the question probably wouldn't even be asked. All they could say, if it did come up, is much the same as I did, he is stubborn and should claim it if he is entitled.

You can't be forced to take benefits if you don't want them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...