Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well, that's it then. Clear proof of the rubbish cameras. Clear proof of double dipping. G24 won't be getting a penny. Belt & braces, I would write to the address LFI has found, include the evidence of double dipping, and ask Fraser Group to call their dogs off.
    • LOL. after sending Perch capital a CCA request with a stapled £1 PO attached (x2) Their lapdog Legal team TM Legal have sent me two letters today saying "due to a recent payment on the account, your account is open to legal/enforcement action" so i guess they have tried to apply that payment to the account to run the statue bar along. dirty tactics lol.
    • I have initiated the breathing space so ill wait. from re reading everything this what i understand BS gives me 60 days break from the creditors during these 60 days they may contact me and will most likely default I need to wait until after a default notice to see whether the OC will keep the debt or sell it off If kept by the OC then i should attempt a plan or pay some token payment? If sold to DCA then don't pay and after 6 years it will leave my credit report once the DN is registered with a date. DCA may start a CCJ but unlikely, if they do come back here. last question, do you know roughly how long this will all take? in terms of defaults/default notice, potential CCJ? Would you say I have 12 months plus from when the BS ends?
    • Well, it's up to you. Years & years & years ago the forum used to suggest appealing to POPLA, but then AFAIK POPLA's remit was changed and it became much more biased in favour of the PPCs. One of the problems with taking that route is that the onus will fall on you to prove your appeal, while if you do nothing the onus is on MET to start legal action which experience teaches they are very, very reluctant to do. If you go down the POPLA route I would think your ace would be insufficient signage.  Are you able to go back there and get photos of their rubbish, entrapping signs?
    • The first clearly visible sign as you pull in to the car park states “McDonald’s Customers Only 60 minutes” The next clearly visible sign is an almost identical sign outside Starbucks which states “60 minutes free stay for customers only” There are other signs towards the rear of the car park (away from the outlets) that have the terms and conditions on them in very small print.
  • 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 Reduction Scheme


tommy456
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4006 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 wasn't sure where this belongs,I'm sure it can be moved if need be,

 

As all those who have been claiming Council Tax benefit from their Local Authority will know that as of April 13, the majority of LA's in the UK will no longer be paying council Tax Benefit, This is because of Government cuts to LA's in part, Those LA's who are still paying council tax benefit to their residents who qualify are now a minority,The rest of LA's are demanding payment of 20%+ of the council tax bill, as their reduction scheme leaves this shortfall meaning that the claimant is now liable for council tax

 

How can Government or LA's get away with this,? surely it's a breech of our human rights, as it could be seen as another way to persecute the poor and vulnerable & likely to cause them severe hardship which is unnecessary, Currently there are a couple of options available to those who now find themselves in debt to their LA's most operate a Discretionary HousingPayments /Exceptional Hardship Funds, Where they may ammend the ammount you are liable for,but payments from this fund will be limitedm

the other alternative is to appeal the decision to your LA, if they refuse to uphold the appeal you can then take your appeal to the Valuation Tribunal http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk

/CTReduction.aspx Their scope is limited but they can rule that you should only pay say £10.00 per year instead of several hundred pounds

 

The only other option would be for a large group of people who are affected by this to bring a judicial review at the high court, as in particular if you are claiming ESA or JSA the ammount that you recieve is what the law says that you need to live off, now define "live off" to me it means to meet day to day living costs, such as food,fuel to cook that food ,ect ect, and doesn't include council tax

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't sure where this belongs,I'm sure it can be moved if need be,

 

As all those who have been claiming Council Tax benefit from their Local Authority will know that as of April 13, the majority of LA's in the UK will no longer be paying council Tax Benefit, This is because of Government cuts to LA's in part, Those LA's who are still paying council tax benefit to their residents who qualify are now a minority,The rest of LA's are demanding payment of 20%+ of the council tax bill, as their reduction scheme leaves this shortfall meaning that the claimant is now liable for council tax

 

The CTB scheme ceased to exist on 1 April 2013 for all LAs, from that date each LA has implemented a local reduction scheme, these individual schemes do vary widely

 

How can Government or LA's get away with this,? surely it's a breech of our human rights, as it could be seen as another way to persecute the poor and vulnerable & likely to cause them severe hardship which is unnecessary, Currently there are a couple of options available to those who now find themselves in debt to their LA's most operate a Discretionary HousingPayments /Exceptional Hardship Funds, Where they may ammend the ammount you are liable for,but payments from this fund will be limitedm

 

Discretionary Housing Payments only apply to rental costs and cannot be paid towards council tax costs, although LAs do have a discretion to reduce any CT payer's council tax bill further, however as the LA is not being provided with any moneys to fund this, it is unlikely to be used in many circumstances

 

the other alternative is to appeal the decision to your LA, if they refuse to uphold the appeal you can then take your appeal to the Valuation Tribunal http://www.valuationtribunal.gov.uk

/CTReduction.aspx Their scope is limited but they can rule that you should only pay say £10.00 per year instead of several hundred pounds

 

the VT will have to follow the rules of your LA's local scheme, so they can only change the reduction if the LA has made a mistake in calculating your reduction, they can't ignore the LA's rules

 

The only other option would be for a large group of people who are affected by this to bring a judicial review at the high court, as in particular if you are claiming ESA or JSA the ammount that you recieve is what the law says that you need to live off, now define "live off" to me it means to meet day to day living costs, such as food,fuel to cook that food ,ect ect, and doesn't include council tax

 

there have already been 2 JR challenges - Haringey and Sheffield - both have failed

 

http://blacktrianglecampaign.org/2013/02/10/judge-rules-against-council-tax-challenge-by-single-mum-plunged-into-abject-poverty-in-haringey/

http://www.solicitorsjournal.com/node/15575

http://www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13540%3Aclaimants-seek-to-take-council-tax-reduction-challenge-to-supreme-court&catid=56%3Alitigation-articles&Itemid=24

Edited by id6052

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

do you think this could actually work though?

 

My view would be no, and the cases id6052 mentions support this. By removing CTB, the government has, in effect, changed "the amount of money the law says you need to live on."

 

The applicable amount for benefit purposes is meant to cover a person's needs, and those needs include paying the bills. That's why, for example, someone may need to pay £5 per week in child support, or a few pounds towards gas or electricity debts.

 

Don't get me wrong - I think this is odious. But I do think that the "amount the law says you need to live on" is variable and includes the payment of taxes.

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

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well there are several councils that are protecting their most vulnerable & the percentage that each council is expecting their most needy & vulnerable to pay also varies too, With a system like this this has to be very wrong,

 

Also it's a very ill thought out scheme, as the majority of those who are affected by the changes, there will probably be only a small proportion of them paying it, most can't or wont pay,

 

They probably wouldn't have goods for a bailiff to sell to settle the debt, that's assuming they where able to gain access in the first place, then you have all the legal fees which would be substantially more than the original debt that they are disputing , This so far has been a very short sighted /blinkered approach by those clowns we have for a government , this could very easily fail within the 12mths if people stick to their guns and refuse to pay councils will start to write the debts off as uncollectable

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2013/mar/20/council-tax-benefit-reform-who-what-where

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why that article is saying Scotland and Wales are fully funded under the new scheme because that's not true. I'm in Scotland and received my first CTB Reduction bill last month. It was 30% of what would be the full amount.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why that article is saying Scotland and Wales are fully funded under the new scheme because that's not true. I'm in Scotland and received my first CTB Reduction bill last month. It was 30% of what would be the full amount.

 

In Scotland, there is a proportion of the Council Tax that covers water charges, because water provision is not privatised here. That is not covered by CTR, and was not covered by the old CTB either.

 

It makes sense if you think about it: people in England pay water bills whereas we do not - it's rolled into our Council Tax. Of course, our CT is correspondingly higher, but it would seem unfair that Scottish people on benefits get their water costs paid but English people do not. I have no knowledge of how the system works in Wales.

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

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well either way it works out around the same percentage, is called "the reduction scheme" and is not fully funded regardless of whether it's for water or whatever else :)

 

It's "fully funded" to the extent that everything that was covered before the change is still covered after it. The SG hasn't actually increased the funding, but it has maintained it.

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

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I buggered up my first installment of the council tax shortfall by absent mindedly paying the required amount into the arrears account for my last tenancy, this came to light today when I received a demand letter from my LA for two installments on penalty of an eventual summons.

 

I am trying to get through to the relevant department to see if they will transfer the payment, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

EDIT, just got an e mail response from my LA 'due to the high volume of e mails we are receiving at present, please allow 20 days for a response' oh well, back on to the phone then.

Edited by osdset

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The guardian article also says that some LA'Sare asking for £3.55 per week for a property in council tax band C, I know of people in my town that are expected to pay around that amount who live in a Band A property , and I know of a neighbouring LA that is charging more,

 

On another note that is sort of related, I think that LA's should value rented properties differently,and introduce a new CT band that would mean a huge price drop in the CT rate for those who cannot get on the property ladder thank's to thatcher's legacy,

 

further examples of how this scheme is unfair and needs scrapping ASAP and if a change in law is required then so be it, all because the Con dims are so out of touch with the real world around them,safe in the little bubble paid for by the tax payer talk about waste of resources they need to take a long hard look at themselves, and ask are they really fit for purpose? maybe the public should be given a vote on that like next week or month, not the next general election, that will be too late,

Edited by tommy456
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your average Con Dem minister would take a long hard look............and then pat themselves on the back for doing such a stirling job. These people are so removed from the reality of everyday life they might as well hail from a distant galaxy.

 

Cameron surrounds himself with old Etonians so he can swap flagellation techniques with his chums ' theres nothing like a damn good thrashing to focus the mind dear boy!' IDS sees himself as a latter day Flashman holding the backside of welfare against a roaring fire, it's a shame mater and pater did not have the funds to dress little Ian up in top hat and tails and send him to the 'right' schools which no doubt accounts for his inferiority complex.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...