Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
    • quite honestly id email shiply CEO with that crime ref number and state you will be taking this to court, for the full sum of your losses, if it is not resolved ASAP. should that be necessary then i WILL be naming Shiply as the defendant. this can be avoided should the information upon whom the courier was and their current new company contact details, as the present is simply LONDON VIRTUAL OFFICES  is a company registered there and there's a bunch of other invisible companies so clearly just a mail address   
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2437 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 there, this is my first post so apologies if this dilemma is elsewhere. I did do a search first but couldn't find anything similar.

 

I received a single person discount declaration form asking to update/verify my circumstances. This spd has been in effect since 2014.

 

The house in question was bought be myself and my partner, and was a complete refurb. We was exempt from paying any council tax for the first 28 days and after that was moved onto a spd even though nobody was living in the property (due to the heavy renovation being done); This took around 12 months to complete.

 

As stated earlier I had registered for the spd. Once the work was completed my partner moved into the house but I remained at my mothers house (due to the fact that we are not married). Although the spd and council tax had remained in my name.

 

I called the council to explain the situation and they're now saying the following:

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2014 - 2015 as the spd is on the basis that someone living in the property (even though it was empty)

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2015 - 2017 based on the fact that my partner was living there alone and the council tax was in my name

 

If anyone could advise what I should do I'd be greatly appreciative

 

Thanks you in advance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. My partner called them and thats how they discovered that nobody was living there between 2014 - 2015. Is it most likely that the call was being recorded? I know they asked him for a reference number

 

I have always been named on the bill at my mothers. I never notified the council until now because of the SPD form.

 

I have all my post going to my mothers and my partner has his post going to the address in dispute.

 

I wasn't aware of the Local Government Ombudsman, I will give them a call tomorrow. Im hoping I can receive some advice here first

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just spoke to the ombudsman and they said its not something they can take on, and they suggested valuation tribunal as you did...I get the feeling that this whole mess is going to cost me grands

The process is free unless you wish to take on some external assistance that you pay for - other than that the only cost is your time.

 

What doesn't go in your favour is that you registered for a single person discount knowing that no-one was resident - most councils won't but there an increasing number are pursuing people for claiming discounts fraudulently and taking action against them.

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2014 - 2015 as the spd is on the basis that someone living in the property (even though it was empty)

That would be correct - the local authority probably offers a 0% reduction for the period in question on an unoccupied property.

 

- we are liable to pay full council tax from 2015 - 2017 based on the fact that my partner was living there alone and the council tax was in my name

Because you've told them you were liable and then you're saying only your partner was resident but at present have given no proof you were resident elsewhere - It appears the root cause is the lack of information being passed to the council so they have had to try and sort the liability based on what information they have.

 

Thanks for the reply. My partner called them and thats how they discovered that nobody was living there between 2014 - 2015. Is it most likely that the call was being recorded? I know they asked him for a reference number

Highly likely these days.

 

Certainly try the valuation tribunal but you're going to have to provide sufficient evidence that you were resident elsewhere to the tribunal and due to the incorrect information being given previously the benefit of any doubt will tend to go in the council's favour rather than yours.

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks alreadyexists and ss002d6252. Do you think I should hang on and wait to see what the council will do? As it stands the information for the 2014-2015 period was only mentioned from my partner and thinking back to that period he exaggerated the refurb period. He would of been staying a few nights especially on the weekends as he was doing all the work!

 

I can easily supply information to the council by electoral role, car insurance and bank statements, work letters that prove where my residence was/is; As can my partner.

 

Or maybe I should call the council myself and find out what the situation is?

 

I know Im trying to second guess here which is a massive stress

Link to post
Share on other sites

they will undoubtedly take the line that they are entitled to do their worst when a property is empty after a qualifying period and that can mean charging you more than the normal CT amount if they wish ( second home money grab). The fact you partner was there some of the time and on his own is irrelevant as your declaration was different to this. Likewise living with mum makes your home a second home in their mind because by making that assumption they get more money for nothing!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks alreadyexists and ss002d6252. Do you think I should hang on and wait to see what the council will do? As it stands the information for the 2014-2015 period was only mentioned from my partner and thinking back to that period he exaggerated the refurb period. He would of been staying a few nights especially on the weekends as he was doing all the work!

 

I can easily supply information to the council by electoral role, car insurance and bank statements, work letters that prove where my residence was/is; As can my partner.

 

Or maybe I should call the council myself and find out what the situation is?

 

I know Im trying to second guess here which is a massive stress

 

I would say to ring them and try to ascertain the full situation as it stands at the moment as far as they are aware. I always say to establish exactly what the council's view of the situation, is what they're doing now and what they plan to do. That way the full position can be established and a plan made as to what to do next.

 

Craig

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...