Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • 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 Summons and Charges!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4119 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

Any advice very welcome. Like many others I try and keep up to date with my council tax but fell foul of missing some payments this year by the date they weere due. However, I never missed dates by very much and it only happened a couple of months. Anyhow as at the end of November I was ahead of my payments so I only owed the final installment for this year. I should have paid that in January but my Mum was ill and I visited her at same time that last payment was due in Jan. Tbh I totally forgot about it. When I logged on line at start of this week to pay I saw I had been awarded 'Costs' of £136!!

 

I contacted the council and dealt with a very un-pleasantlittle upstart. After pointing out I had now cleared all I owed and asked for an explaination of said charges all I was told was they had only been added in last 48hrs and I had to pay them there and then.

 

I pointed out that I had recieved no communication since October from the Council so could they explain what these charges were for? I was advised they are for owing us council tax. After going away to check I was told a summons was 'in the' post, Charges are just that charges and was I going to pay now or what?

 

Again I asked for an explaination and breakdown of charges and was told 'they are just charges' you have to pay. For the umpteenth time I pointed out I owed nothin and was then told 'you cant escape em' and if you dont pay now the court will let us send in the bayliffs. When I pointed out they never needed to go to cout as I was upto date I was told 'It dont work like that' and charges are no different to owed tax!

 

Subsequently I have been told that in actual fact the 'charges' they would never break down are made up of three elements - cost of summons, cost of liability order and councils costs.

 

If that is so are they not comitting fraud by demanding money that is not due before any summons hearing? Additionally are they allowed to get a liability order when I am up to date with what is owed upto April 2013? I have heard some councils dont persue liability orders if no tax is owing by date of the hearing? Can anything be done about these costs?:|

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mind naming your council?

 

Do you know the proportion of the three elements, i.e., summons, liability order and councils costs?

 

£3 is paid to the Magistrates' court per liability order application (at summons stage), so council costs are effectively £133. Not reasonable in my opinion, especially considering there may well be 1,000's of these rubber stamped at the same court hearing.

 

.....I pointed out that I had recieved no communication since October from the Council so could they explain what these charges were for? I was advised they are for owing us council tax. After going away to check I was told a summons was 'in the' post, Charges are just that charges and was I going to pay now or what?......

 

This seems odd, why are they sending a summons after the alleged court hearing that you knew nothing about?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the hearing goes ahead, could go to it if can. you could be surprised. that would put a spanner in their works. instead of a 'rubber stamp' they'll have to actually conduct a proper hearing. :)

Edited by Ford
Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds as if they have picked up a trick from the bailiff company's they work so closely with and have pre-loaded the charges to your account. Depending on which council it is they may have contracted their customer fronting services to a company called Capita who, in turn, own bailiff companys including Equita - and you see how their training methods could be 'we say you owe it so you must do and there's nothing we can do!'

 

If I were you I'd wait for the letter to arrive and see exactly what it says - it's either going to be that you're behind with your CT payments and have until xx date to bring it up to date or they'll apply for a liability order with costs of £XX or it will be that as you didn't keep up with the payment they have already applied for, and been granted, a liability order against you hence the added costs.

 

Until you get the letter there isn't much you can do but, if it's the first one, you could turn up at the court and show them proof that your account has been cleared; if it's the second one then that's more difficult and those more experienced than I will be able to advise but I think if the court date was before you cleared the account you'll end up ha ing to pay.

 

Feebee_71

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also meant to say, some councils (mine included) have a policy whereby they send out reminder letters after the first missed/late payment and perhaps after a second episode of lake payment but don't send out further reminders and simply go for recovery action (applying for the liability order) which allow them to add costs and start enforcement action. My council also jump quickly if its the last couple of payments that are late!!

 

Feebee_71

Link to post
Share on other sites

some councils (mine included) have a policy whereby they send out reminder letters after the first missed/late payment and perhaps after a second episode of lake payment but don't send out further reminders and simply go for recovery action (applying for the liability order) which allow them to add costs and start enforcement action.

 

That's not policy, that's legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...