Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The case against the US-based ride-hailing giant is being brought on behalf of over 10,800 drivers.View the full article
    • I have just read the smaller print on their signs. It says that you can pay at the end of your parking session. given that you have ten minutes grace period the 35 seconds could easily have been taken up with walking back to your car, switching on the engine and then driving out. Even in my younger days when I used to regularly exceed speed limits, I doubt I could have done that in 35 seconds even when I  had a TR5.
    • Makers of insect-based animal feed hope to be able to compete with soybeans on price.View the full article
    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Paying the local authority or court direct...who is entitled to these 'direct payments'


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3271 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

No the liability order enables the LA to collect the debt, the regulations are used to trigger the section 12 procedures. via the route mentioned in my previous post or in more detail in post 2.

 

You know of course that any common law is superseded by the statute.

 

anyway we have been over this so many times, i am not going over the same ground again(see my avatar)

 

At the end of the day the question of if you understand the legislation or not is irrelevant, as in practice this is what authorities and EAs do.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It's as if it has been prompted from elsewhere.

 

Noo really ?????

 

:)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are saying 'for the Council not to pay the Compliance fee to the bailiff woud be a breach of the Act'. That may be so (I have no idea), but it would be unlawful if they paid it out of money which has expressly been nominated by the debtor to be paid off his arrears.

 

Judging from the responses that I have read from the many local authorities faced with this 'theory' , I have yet to see any response that agrees with your viewpoint.

 

Can I just ask a very simple question. If you consider your theory to be correct, could you please outline your suggestion to resolve this issue. For instance, should the legislation be amended?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Judging from the responses that I have read from the many local authorities faced with this 'theory' , I have yet to see any response that agrees with your viewpoint.....

 

I have.

 

....Can I just ask a very simple question. If you consider your theory to be correct, could you please outline your suggestion to resolve this issue. For instance, should the legislation be amended?

 

I don't think the legislation could be amended to provide that the local authority may misallocate funds in the way that would resolve the issue in the favour of enforcement agencies and the MoJ knows this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have.

 

 

 

I don't think the legislation could be amended to provide that the local authority may misallocate funds in the way that would resolve the issue in the favour of enforcement agencies and the MoJ knows this.

 

Your 'theory' is based solely upon an internal document regarding Milton Keynes Council.

 

Debtors paying the council after bailiff enforcement has commenced are not doing so for convience purposes. Instead, in the main, they are making payment to the council in order to frustrate enforcement and avoid bailiff fees.

 

Can you provide a link to the local authority response that you say agrees with your theory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people remain in the same position as they have for some time now, they are faced with two choices - pay with the EA's fees added, or sit it out until the warrant is returned (or earlier if it is possible to attain that without incurring additional charges).

 

Paying the council directly while any doubt exists over how monies are divided (legal or not), seems mad to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Debtors paying the council after bailiff enforcement has commenced are not doing so for convience purposes. Instead, in the main, they are making payment to the council in order to frustrate enforcement and avoid bailiff fees..

 

Am I missing the point?

 

 

...Can you provide a link to the local authority response that you say agrees with your theory.

 

There is not just one, but here's an example:

 

East Riding of Yorkshire Council:

 

Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the payment is made.

 

 

And a bonus (Nottingham):

 

Since the Taking Control of Goods (fees) Regulations 2014 were introduced monies paid to the Council are handed onto a bailiff in the following circumstances:

 

a) The payment fully settles the debt with the bailiff including their fees. In this case the value of the fees is passed to the bailiff;

 

b) The debtor clearly indicates that the payment is for the bailiff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This quote refers to the allotment of money between accounts due to the authority, not to expenses uncured by bailiff fees.

 

It does not mean the sum payed is only for the debt and not for the EA

 

Dear East Riding of Yorkshire Council,

 

I thought it would be negligent of me if I failed to point out to

East Riding of Yorkshire Council the case law relevant to

outstanding monies owing on different accounts, especially where

the person owing the money intends payment to be allocated to a

specific debt.

 

 

It is a case of asking the same question over and over again until you receive a reply where you can quote out of context, as said before.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry I did say I wouldn't reply to this anymore, but there are responses where the situation is made Chrystal clear regarding this, no innuendo no oblique references, they state that the payments to the LA are proceeds and are distributed as per regulation.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

My post #50 covers that then

 

Now about your case law you stated. only one that I could find was based in Ohio in the US,,

Please help me find the right case you quoted

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the time the payment is made.

 

I think the Council have been quite cute with their reply but the gist of it could be that if the £75 was due to the bailiff they would pay it. If the taxpayer

was not being pursued by bailiffs then the money goes to the account specified.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Payments are forwarded in instances where debts have been placed with enforcement agencies for collection or in accordance with the preference expressed by the council tax payer at the time the time the payment is made.

 

I think the Council have been quite cute with their reply but the gist of it could be that if the £75 was due to the bailiff they would pay it. If the taxpayer

was not being pursued by bailiffs then the money goes to the account specified.

 

No it simply means that if the tax payer has a number of delinquent accounts, the monies received can be divided between them as per the instructions of the debtor. The money received back from the bailiff would of course be less their fees, or if the money was paid to the authority the money distributed would be less any fees due to the bailiff.

 

The question has been asked in a way that does not mention bailiff fees, it simply refers to the distribution of income to be paid off the debts.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?440100-Freedom-of-Information-requests-Local-authorities-and-Taking-Control-of-Goods-(Fees)-2014&p=4681212&viewfull=1#post4681212

 

Default Re: Freedom of Information requests: Local authorities and Taking Control of Goods (Fees) 2014

Birmingham City Council: 22nd Janaury 2015

 

Payments made towards a debt that has been referred to an enforcement
agent since 6 April 2014 must be apportioned between the debt and the
agent’s fees in accordance with the rules set out in The Taking Control of
Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014.

 

The rules apply equally whether payment is made to the council or to the enforcement agent.

 

Where payment is made direct to the council and an amount is required under the regulations to be set towards the fees, the appropriate amount is remitted to the
 enforcement agent.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh thank you

 

OK a nice case from 1814

Sadly again appears to deal with multiple accounts and not "Baliff fees"

Does not override recent statute which however does override older case law.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh thank you

 

OK a nice case from 1814

Sadly again appears to deal with multiple accounts and not "Baliff fees"

Does not override recent statute which however does override older case law.

 

Yes indeed this is the usual situation when statue is enacted which conflicts with earlier case law. In the TCE this precept is confirmed within the legislature also

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/65

Common law rules replaced

 

(1)This Chapter replaces the common law rules about the exercise of the powers which under it become powers to use the procedure in Schedule 12.

(2)The rules replaced include—

(a)rules distinguishing between an illegal, an irregular and an excessive exercise of a power;

(b)rules that would entitle a person to bring proceedings of a kind for which paragraph 66 of Schedule 12 provides (remedies available to the debtor);

©rules of replevin;

(d)rules about rescuing goods.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you link to these legal obligations please, is it statute or common law ?

 

The current statutory obligation to transfer fees whilst under an enforcment power is covered by, the liability order the council tax enforcment regulations, section 60 of the tce, section 50(3) of schedule 12 , section 62 costs and the fees regulations.(sections 3 and 13)

 

 

I fell asleep writing this reply sorry

 

 

By asking Google the stupid question of "what years do arrears get paid for Council tax", the replies you get do not answer your question, but by rephrasing your question to "allocation of council tax arrears" you get a list as always, as you will see.... About 380,000 results (0.37 seconds)

 

This is what I found out in just 5 minutes of reading your post... (As I was watching a court case at the same time....) Regarding Atos

 

 

Results on the page (Google) line 3

 

 

{PDF} Council tax investigation Milton Keynes Council dated the 04/03/2009 and it has a pdf (see attachment) for ease if you can not follow the link not only that I even took the time to highlight the relevant sections for you.

 

 

May I kindly suggest that you actually spend some quality time using search engines instead of relying on other posters to find your answers for you. This could actually be beneficial to you as you will learn a lot quicker on how to obtain relevant information in a much shorter time. This paragraph is not being horrible it is just an observation ok.... Asking the search engine to look for you can produce results in less time that it takes to sneeze in this case....... About 380,000 results (0.37 seconds).

 

 

I often spend many hours asking Google specific questions, sometimes not getting what I want so talk to it like a petulant child and ask it a very stupid question the above worded differently and get the answer i was looking for in the 1st place..

 

 

Links sometimes break so I got it for you.... try the link below first

 

 

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.milton-keynes.gov.uk%2Finternal-audit%2Fdocuments%2FE426-09_COUNCIL_TAX_INVESTIGATION_-_REPORT-_FINAL.pdf&ei=wSBZVdCeL4yf7gaF-IK4Cw&usg=AFQjCNHGEST3H7ERx5UNCVThS1G_jyg3ag&sig2=lIxLuGt7AuCxnqefNgjnQw

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unsure if this is addressed to me. But it seems that if you consider your reply inappropriate you should delete it yourself.

 

As for using google for information, there is always the problem that whilst providing the specific information it does not give the context in which it applies, this results in post of completely unrelated facts which share common tags with the subject under discussion.

 

There is no substitute for studying the subject from the ground up, rather than thinking you can become an expert by "asking a question on google".

 

For me i study the legislation and authority and make my own determination, the fact that other informed source reach the same conclusions is basically because they have done the same.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

In my post number 58 you will see that I mentioned that this 'theory' of Outlawla's relates to an internal document from Milton Keynes Council. Thank you MM for providing the copy (my copy is on my office computer system).

 

It is from reading this document (item number 3.3.1) that Outlawla hit on the idea about the 200 year old legal case of Peters v Anderson and he wrote about in on this very forum way back in 2011. Perhaps he would be kind enough to let us all know whether Milton Keynes Council were sent the same Freedom of Information request as many other councils:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/taking_control_of_goods_fees_reg_34#incoming-608517

 

If so, perhaps he would be kind enough to post a copy of their reply.

 

In any event, I will be writing to them myself today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I remember ready something along those lines. It was covered before..its always been the case that you can ask for credits to be made to a specific year. Having more than one LO is always going to be a headache. I also remember that using old case law was not akways a good thing, due to changes in the law. But if it is still appropriate then I cannot see why you shouldnt.

 

Take the the stac dec its very old but still very much current. .. As is the Vagrancy Act for being in an enclosed space still used today...

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I remember ready something along those lines. It was covered before..its always been the case that you can ask for credits to be made to a specific year. Having more than one LO is always going to be a headache. I also remember that using old case law was not akways a good thing, due to changes in the law. But if it is still appropriate then I cannot see why you shouldnt.

 

Take the the stac dec its very old but still very much current. .. As is the Vagrancy Act for being in an enclosed space still used today...

 

This particular case law is not appropriate, to either the matter in question or the Tribunals courts and enforcement act, which is the CURRENT regulatory path regarding the allotment of fees to enforcment agents.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...