Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I googled "prescribed disability" to see where it is defined for the purposes of S.92. I found HMRC's definition, which included deafness. I don't  think anyone is saying deaf people cant drive, though! digging deeper,  Is it that “prescribed disability” (for the purposes of S.88 and S.92) is defined at: The Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1999 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations consolidate with amendments the Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) Regulations 1996...   ….. and sleep apnoea / increased daytime sleepiness is NOT included there directly as a condition but only becomes prescribed under “liability to sudden attacks of disabling giddiness or fainting” (but falling asleep isn't fainting!), so it isn’t defined there as a “prescribed disability”  Yet, under S.92(2)(b) RTA 1988 “ any other disability likely to cause the driving of a vehicle by him in pursuance of a licence to be a source of danger to the public" So (IMHO) sleep apnea / daytime sleepiness MIGHT be a prescribed disability, but only if it causes likelihood of "driving being a source of danger to the public" : which is where meeting / not meeting the medical standard of fitness to drive comes into play?  
    • You can counter a Judges's question on why you didn't respond by pointing out that any company that charges you with stopping at a zebra crossing is likely to be of a criminal mentality and so unlikely to cancel the PCN plus you didn't want to give away any knowledge you had at that time that could allow them to counteract your claim if it went to Court. There are many ways in which you can see off their stupid claim-you will see them in other threads  where our members have been caught by Met at other airports as well as Bristol.  Time and again they take motorists to Court for "NO Stopping" apparently completely forgetting that the have lost doing that because no stopping is prohibitory and cannot form a contract. Yet they keep on issuing PCNs because so many people just pay up . Crazy . You can see what chuckleheads they are when you read their Claim form which is pursuing you as the driver or the keeper. they don't seem to understand that on airport land because of the Bye laws, the keeper is never liable.   
    • The video-sharing app told the BBC that a "very limited" number of accounts had been compromised.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.View the full article
    • The King is the second monarch to appear on Bank of England notes which will be fed gradually into the system.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 Court Summons - Liability Dispute


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3413 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

Hello,

 

Just received a Court Summons letter for unpaid Council Tax, but I believe that I'm not liable.

 

My wife and I rented a flat from a private landlord from June 2013 to January 2015.

 

 

We have a copy of our Tenancy Agreement which states clearly that "the rent is inclusive of gas, electricity and Council Tax".

 

A Council Tax bill arrived in July 2014 but was ignored (in hindsight, probably should have dealt with it).

 

 

Another Council Tax bill arrived in December 2014.

 

 

This time I wrote an email to the Council stating "we're not liable - see attached Tenancy Agreement to see we're not liable".

 

 

The Council wrote an email back stating

 

 

"you are liable as your name appears on the bill".

 

 

wrote an email back stating

 

 

"we're not liable, did you even look at the Tenancy Agreement, under no circumstance will we pay unless a Judge insists we must".

 

Note that the Council only wants Council Tax for the period July 2014 to January 2015.

 

I have two concerns.

 

Firstly, it's clear something changed in the summer of 2014.

I worry that the Court may say something along the lines of:

"the Tenancy Agreement terms were changed by the landlord,

so that rent was exclusive of Council Tax, landlord didn't inform you

- you need to pay the Council Tax and sue the landlord separately".

 

 

Is this something that's legally possible?

 

And Secondly, I worry that if the Council finally realise I'm not liable,

that they will continue to seek payment for Costs of £86 which appear on the Court Summons letter.

 

 

They may say:

"you didn't inform us about the liability dispute until the Costs had already been added so you have to pay".

 

 

Whereas I would argue that my emails sent in December should have been enough to see that I wasn't liable. Do I have a case?

 

I have booked an appointment with the Council so will hopefully try to sort it out.

 

 

Affordability isn't an issue as we would be able to pay in full if required.

 

Any advice will be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its a std rubberstamp liability order

 

 

the costs will go against who owes the tax.

 

 

if you paid your landlord for CTAX, then it his problem.

nothing they can do to you.

 

 

just send them proof that's all you need to do.

 

 

it doesn't get recorded anywhere and doesn't hurt you either.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply.

 

Problem is that I did send them proof but they effectively ignored it.

 

 

I'm thinking that instead of sending a 'nice' email, I should have sent them a strongly worded letter disputing the liability,

which may have encouraged the Council to act rather than blindly continuing down their chosen path.

 

I have a face-to-face appointment on Tuesday, where I will present for a second time the Tenancy Agreement.

 

 

Hopefully this time they will take it on board.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, yes good idea. CEO letter time?

 

 

don't suppose theres anyway you've got other proof too?

 

 

list of payments might not be a bad idea?

 

 

it will ultimately fall to the landlord.

 

 

I'm also wondering if a statutory declaration might not be in oder before bailiffs get involved?

 

 

councils CTAX dept not run by capita is it?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done my research regarding this issue, and I think I finally understand it.

 

The Council sees me, as the tenant, as liable for the Council Tax. The fact that I have a Tenancy Agreement showing that rent includes Council Tax is irrelevant. If the Landlord refuses to pay the Council Tax, I will have to pay the Council Tax and then separately sue the Landlord for breach of contract in the small claims court.

 

I find it shocking that this information is not displayed on Council websites. Most Council's don't make any mention of this, despite the fact that there will be many tenants with inclusive Council Tax arrangements. They will end up in the exact same situation as me due to lack of basic information.

 

I have only found two Councils that address the issue. One is Barnsley Council, and here is a question from their FAQ:

 

 

Why have you sent me a bill when I already pay rent inclusive of Council Tax to my landlord?

 

Council Tax legislation requires us to issue a bill to the occupier of a property regardless of any agreement which may exist between the occupier and the landlord.

 

You may wish to contact your landlord either to arrange that they pay direct to the council on your behalf, or to renegotiate your rent agreement to remove the Council Tax element. However, either way, if the account is not kept up to date, action will have to be taken against you, not your landlord, because you are the person who is liable.

 

 

 

It would seem that instead of pleading with the Council to see sense, I should have been reminding the Landlord of his responsibilities.

 

The Landlord has been informed of the situation, so I shall just have to sit back and see if he resolves it. If not, then I will have to make the payment myself and then sue him which I'm more than happy to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Council sees me, as the tenant, as liable for the Council Tax. The fact that I have a Tenancy Agreement showing that rent includes Council Tax is irrelevant. If the Landlord refuses to pay the Council Tax, I will have to pay the Council Tax and then separately sue the Landlord for breach of contract in the small claims court.

 

Quite correct. The council have to bill in line with legislation regardless of any agreement with the landlord (which almost always send badly with one side not paying).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...