Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi and thanks It looks like they ticked all the boxes to me but I'll try and upload the notice. I was wondering if a witness to late delivery might be considered proof - I'm assuming they posted it as normal but Royal Mail stuffed up delivery. If not then they're really saying it just has to be posted within 12 days of the incident, regardless of when it is received. Annoying! edit ok thanks Honeybee here's my 2nd (actually 3rd) attempt at anonymising, copying and uploading the notice! Sorry about the state of it - I sat on it while distracted by my dog 🙃 pcn front.pdf pcn back page.pdf
    • ROFL - dont get upset just because someone (quite a lot of someones) dont want smart meters - well unless you get paid for it .. in which case ...   I assume you haven't been with Octopus long enough to be on one of the very long fixed price tariffs they offered before the prices went bonkers .. and that you dont use your electricity in the evening/lunch time if you think the 'agile type tariffs are good value .. let alone worth installing a smart meter for - high price a good disincentive for an evening cuppa eh? Let alone all your computer/tv etc time in the peak price evening or lunch time. - and boy do those peak prices instantly hammer your bill when those Russian and middle eastern issues kick off.   I would only have considered a smart meter if solar panels had been an option for me - but roof is oriented completely the wrong way. Oh - and My opinion hasn't changed since the smart meter trials 40 years ago, because neither have the issues (well not enough) but I'm happy for you. Be happy for me.
    • Hi. I'm afraid I've had to hide your post with the pdf files to keep this anonymous for you. You've left the PCN reference number and your car reg showing. Could you edit that and repost please? HB    
    • Well naturally if you want to maintain your outrage, and retain something to bitch about, then arguing about the level of your fixed monthly DD is the way to go. You are of course perfectly free to ignore the easy solution.
    • His financial situation isn’t great, and the landlord has made lots of things up. The things he’s put isn’t true at all. My friend did tell the full truth with incoming and outgoing, I helped him fill in his form and he checked bills etc. to make sure it was right. His wage is ok, but not as good as the landlord thinks it is,  and he doesn’t have anything spare. How much are they likely to take from him? Should he send any reply?  the letter just says to take the court letter with him. 
  • 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

Camden council want to exempt their poorest residents from having to pay council tax or be pursued by bailiffs.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2837 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

The following is an extract from a press article today.

 

Westminster Council already have a similar system in place. If only other local authorities could follow this example.

 

 

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/council-tax-exemptions

 

THOUSANDS of people in Camden are set to be made exempt from paying council tax to save the Town Hall cash on chasing for money they do not have.

 

Labour council chiefs are looking at a plan which would see around 11,500 of the borough's poorest residents no longer receive the bill from the Town Hall. The proposal will go out to a public consultation but could come into use next year.

 

The people who will be covered by the scheme already have a discount of around 90 per cent on their council tax bill due to their circumstances, but would move to a status of paying none at all.

 

Most are living on very low wages or entirely on benefits, and include families and disabled claimants.

 

Conservative opposition councillors said the idea was borrowed from neighbouring Westminster, where the Tories are in power.

 

In Camden, the loss of income would amount to around £1.4m a year, but the council estimates this will be offset by savings on bailiffs and court costs from no longer pursuing people and as the result of more money coming in from the recent increase in council tax.

 

“There is not much point chasing people for £100 or so bill, after the discount they already have, with court orders bailiffs if they are never going to be able to pay."

 

He added: “The rise in council tax will allow some room for redistribution. “In all, people get a good deal from the council with years of frozen council tax or below inflation rises.”

 

“They should have listened to us earlier, as in Westminster they are already doing this. The trouble with Camden though is that council tax is far too high.”
Link to post
Share on other sites

The following is an extract from a press article today.

 

Westminster Council already have a similar system in place. If only other local authorities could follow this example.

 

 

http://www.camdennewjournal.com/council-tax-exemptions

THOUSANDS of people in Camden are set to be made exempt from paying council tax to save the Town Hall cash on chasing for money they do not have.

 

Labour council chiefs are looking at a plan which would see around 11,500 of the borough's poorest residents no longer receive the bill from the Town Hall. The proposal will go out to a public consultation but could come into use next year.

 

The people who will be covered by the scheme already have a discount of around 90 per cent on their council tax bill due to their circumstances, but would move to a status of paying none at all.

 

Most are living on very low wages or entirely on benefits, and include families and disabled claimants.

 

Conservative opposition councillors said the idea was borrowed from neighbouring Westminster, where the Tories are in power.

 

In Camden, the loss of income would amount to around £1.4m a year, but the council estimates this will be offset by savings on bailiffs and court costs from no longer pursuing people and as the result of more money coming in from the recent increase in council tax.

 

“There is not much point chasing people for £100 or so bill, after the discount they already have, with court orders bailiffs if they are never going to be able to pay."

 

He added: “The rise in council tax will allow some room for redistribution. “In all, people get a good deal from the council with years of frozen council tax or below inflation rises.”

 

“They should have listened to us earlier, as in Westminster they are already doing this. The trouble with Camden though is that council tax is far too high.”

 

At Last!!!!!! they have come to realise you can't get blood out of stone and it is costing them money trying to.. Imo, all councils need to ignite that spark of common sense

Link to post
Share on other sites

At Last!!!!!! they have come to realise you can't get blood out of stone and it is costing them money trying to.. Imo, all councils need to ignite that spark of common sense

If only WD, but the bailiffs will be unhappy, as their business will drop. Don't think it would go down to well in Capita infested councils with a Capita/Equita/Ross 'n Robbers stitch up.

Less victims to fleece with fees.

We could do with some help from you.

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

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I his is a no brainier surely. £8.33 a month, I am sure the coasts pre enforcment would cover this.

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

This is welcome, but it isn't the councils who forced the issue of them paying in the first place, it is the government. Not that long ago, people in this situation did not pay towards their council tax, then in April 2013 the government scrapped the national CT benefit scheme. This left councils with only 90% of the income for this they had received previously.

 

Councils were allowed to ask people of working age (not pensioners) for a contribution towards their CT for the first time, so they did. They are now realising it was a stupid idea, and getting maximum publicity for 'helping the poorest.'

 

The reality is, they are just returning the poorest to the situation they were in previously, before the council made it worse for the poorest. They are putting spin on the truth of the issue, and hoping people will swallow it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new regulations regarding CT as from April this year is that everyone

has to pay an amount towards it, some are only£20 per month but take that

off an income of £480 a month (based on ESA) dose not seem a lot but that

£20 is a lot to the person.

 

Regards to all

Link to post
Share on other sites

The new regulations regarding CT as from April this year is that everyone

has to pay an amount towards it, some are only£20 per month but take that

off an income of £480 a month (based on ESA) dose not seem a lot but that

£20 is a lot to the person.

 

Regards to all

 

I think you're referring to the default government scheme. Councils to not have to adopt this though, no more than they had to start charging people in 2013.

 

It's worth mentioning that even if people are awarded maximum CTR, councils still have the discretion to reduce the amount paid, or even cancel the entire bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...