Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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

Hmrc mistake??


denysemarst1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3303 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

Hi Everyone,

 

Just to say I love this site, it packed with really helpful people, who have helped me sort out a situation.

 

I hoped I would find a forum dealing with HMRC and luckily I have, this time it is not about me, HMRC have been chasing my partner for years now, stating he has not filled in self assessment forms since 2004! They will not have it that none have been sent, which isn't surprising really as he is not a company director he is a shareholder and as far as we know he doesn't have to fill in self assessment forms. Just wondered if we are right?

 

Eventually HMRC made such a fuss, basically sending letters from all over the country, visits to the house and finally threatening to make him bankrupt, we have sent letters which have been ignored, finally we have asked our accountant to sort it out but I am ashamed to say we did pay them what they wanted because we hope when it gets sorted out they will refund this. They are truly a very incompetent organisation who have chased him relentlessly, can we make a complaint about this? If so to who?

 

Thanks to anyone who has any information on what we can do, we have paid these people about £18,000!!:jaw:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Everyone,

 

Just to say I love this site, it packed with really helpful people, who have helped me sort out a situation.

 

I hoped I would find a forum dealing with HMRC and luckily I have, this time it is not about me, HMRC have been chasing my partner for years now, stating he has not filled in self assessment forms since 2004! They will not have it that none have been sent, which isn't surprising really as he is not a company director he is a shareholder and as far as we know he doesn't have to fill in self assessment forms. Just wondered if we are right?

 

Eventually HMRC made such a fuss, basically sending letters from all over the country, visits to the house and finally threatening to make him bankrupt, we have sent letters which have been ignored, finally we have asked our accountant to sort it out but I am ashamed to say we did pay them what they wanted because we hope when it gets sorted out they will refund this. They are truly a very incompetent organisation who have chased him relentlessly, can we make a complaint about this? If so to who?

 

Thanks to anyone who has any information on what we can do, we have paid these people about £18,000!!:jaw:

 

If he is a shareholder : he may have received dividends, which have to be declared as income. If he is a higher / additional rate tax payer there may be tax due on dividends ..... Or if there are other reasons why HMRC believe he needs to complete a return

https://www.gov.uk/check-if-you-need-a-tax-return

 

Thus HMRC can ask for self-assessment returns, even if those returns then show no dividends / additional income.

 

So, for "as far as we know he doesn't have to fill in self assessment forms. Just wondered if we are right?", I can't agree you are right. If they've asked for the forms he is obliged to return them, even if you then confirm in them that he received no additional income (dividend or salary, from that company), unless he has discussed with HMRC that he believes he doesn't have to complete a return AND they have agreed (to which I'd say "& you have that in writing or recorded"!)

 

Looking at your most recent statement from HMRC (or, if now a zero balance the last statement that itemises what HMRC believes is owed), are (m)any of the entries

"SA Determination", or " Penalty for Late Return"?

 

If so, look at the thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440393-HMRC-harassment&p=4683974#post4683974

 

If there were determinations, depending on if you appealed them within HMRC's appeals timescales, they may have become fixed and legally binding.

 

"finally we have asked our accountant to sort it out" : if you have now received threats of distraint and / or bankruptcy and "HMRC have been chasing my partner for years now", have you previously raised this with your accountant?

What had your accountant said about:

a) SA returns and

b) any monies HMRC believe is due?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thank you for your reply, our accountant has spoken to me today and he believes that my partner should not be on self assessment, they have now been given authority to speak on behalf of my partner and are awaiting some information from HMRC to complete it. To answer your question on dividends, he does have small dividends, so maybe he will have to let them know in one form or another, but the accountant does not know why they have been chasing him for the period of time they are saying, because for two years of this there was no income from the business at all. Apparently they have agreed that they only want forms from 2010 now, I think we will just continue to let the accountant sort this out now, it's probably going to cost us a fortune (as they are not an inexpensive resource) but as we know nothing about this sort of this, it's probably best to leave it to the experts.

 

But thank you anyway for taking the time to reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without being notified, Hmrc are unlikely to know that there's been no income, and I really can't see why the accountant thinks SA is inappropriate but as the expert, you're probably best to let him handle it as you've said.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Thank you for your reply, our accountant has spoken to me today and he believes that my partner should not be on self assessment, they have now been given authority to speak on behalf of my partner and are awaiting some information from HMRC to complete it. To answer your question on dividends, he does have small dividends, so maybe he will have to let them know in one form or another, but the accountant does not know why they have been chasing him for the period of time they are saying, because for two years of this there was no income from the business at all. Apparently they have agreed that they only want forms from 2010 now, I think we will just continue to let the accountant sort this out now, it's probably going to cost us a fortune (as they are not an inexpensive resource) but as we know nothing about this sort of this, it's probably best to leave it to the experts.

 

But thank you anyway for taking the time to reply.

 

You are of course free to ask what you wish, and take any advice in reply or not.

 

However, what is the point in asking if less than 12 hours later you say (in effect) "no point in replying, we are leaving it to the accountant"?

 

Mind you, it allows you to avoid having to answer the trickier questions such as "are these determinations" and "if it's been going on for years and they are threatening bankruptcy, and you already have an accountant : why hasn't the accountant already sorted this"?

 

Given the accountant had only just been given the agency by you to discuss this with HMRC : are they only recently involved? Were they dealing with the business only previously?

 

The accountant who deals with my business has agreed to deal with my SA returns : for which they charge me only an extra £75 / year! (As they have almost all of the details already from the work they do for the company accounting ....)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bazza,

 

My point was to try and establish if there was a difference between being a director and a shareholder in terms of self assessment procedure, and I admit , to also ascertain if the accountant was correct in his advice, which you expertly answered, and I believe I did express my thanks for that, you are however implying that I said albeit in effect 'no point in replying, we are leaving it to the accountant' which is not the case whatsoever, and I must say that presumptions should not be made, unless of course the words are actually said.

 

I could see from your response that we were indeed probably following the right course of action anyway, was there anymore to say or ask? I do however apologise if I have given what seems to be an ungrateful response, this most certainly was not my intention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...