Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi   Something else I think you need to ask the Insurer for Clarification on is.   That you require full clarification on which clauses within the Terms & Condition of the Policy they are using to refuse payment under the Policy.     I would also consider sending the Insurer a Subject Access Request simply asking for 'ALL DATA' this covers whatever format they hold it in whether it be email/telephone recording/written format etc. (note: if they require you to use their own subject access request form always put 'ALL DATA' on their form)    
    • matters not what they come up with it's statute barred      
    • Revised defence:   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. The Claimant claims £2247.91 is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. I dont believe they have provided this yet correctly   2. Paragraph 3 is denied.The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. still stands   3. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice or termination notice; and © show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   4. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date they have failed to comply to my CPR 31.14 request and also my section 78 request and remain in default with regards to this request.   5. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   6. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974.   7. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
    • Just received a letter from lowells sols stating they have note of my aos   They have stated they have attached -  Copy of agreement, statement and notice of assignment   HOWEVER - they had not attached my notice of assignment and they have sent me the same 'agreement' as before which was 3 pages of a computer print out, statement and some rehashed t's anc c's. i can re upload again but its exactly what i uploaded before   They state they have requested a copy of my default notice   So in light of this shall i still send the same defence? i think it still stands right?  
    • Just had a Clear Score update which says:   A credit or store card account will be removed from your January report. Organisation Name: Hoist Account Number: ****9048 Company Type: finance house What does this mean? This means that you’ve closed an account. Maybe you’ve changed your phone contract so the phone loan has been removed from your report. Why is this change not on my report yet? We get your credit report every month from Equifax, a credit reference agency. This update can be seen on your Equifax credit report now but will only be reflected in your ClearScore report when your report is next updated, which is on 2 January. Is this a usual part of the process? I'm submitting my defence this weekend. I'll post it on here first.
  • Our picks

oldbag

council tax liability order but council tax paid as part of rent

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 630 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

It mentions the word council tax and the promise to pay it in the wording, how much more plain can it get?

 

Even if you ignored the council tax legislation for a moment and look at it contractually. You made a contractual agreement with the landlord only. A contractual agreement between two parties cannot bind a third party unless that third party have agreed to be -the council haven't.

 

All this is going around in circles anyway as your agreement with the landlord cannot override statute, the council are only able to follow what legislation says is the case. You need to sort out your liability with the council and then pursue the landlord yourself for any monies he may owe you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the person in the statutory periodic tenancy expired and served with a Notice Requiring Possession' still live in the property and liable for council tax? or are they homeless as the council awarded a status of homelessness still owe council tax? When would it be reasonable to presume they did not owe council tax a sit seems they can now owe council tax whilst being deemed resident in two different properties,(whether they are or not ) one of which they are evicted form. It seems that "cease to be resident in the property" is open to interpretation and may extend long after the tenant thinks they have left .

 

It seems now that the tenancy agreement may not have been valid because of Being let to a tenant while the landlord is residing in the same property?

Edited by oldbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Housing Act 1988 defines several main criteria for an Assured Shorthold Tenancy to be set up:

 

  • The property must be let as separate accommodation
  • The property must be the tenant’s main or principal home
  • The tenant should be an individual

However, there are some circumstances in which a shorthold tenancy cannot be used. For example, when a property is:

 

  • Being let for a very high rent (more than £100,000 per year)
  • Being let for a very low rent / at no cost
  • Being let as a holiday home
  • Being let to a tenant while the landlord is residing in the same property
  • Being let with more than two acres of agricultural land or an agricultural tenancy
  • Being let under a tenancy which began prior to the 15 January 1989, or which was formerly a protected tenancy
  • Being let to a private limited company
  • Owned by the Crown or a government department

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just found this at https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/43739-council-tax

Whoever is registered to pay the council tax, is the one that has to pay it,

so if it's not you, the council will have to go after the tenant for council tax ,

and does not concern you.

Unless you are still registered to pay the council, in which case, unless you

stipulated that the rent included council tax, or an extra payment was

required, you cant ask for council tax if you are the ones down to pay.

 

in which case, unless you stipulated the the rent included council tax, and in my case that was done at 3(b) of an assured shorthold tenancy that became a periodic.

Edited by oldbag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just found this at https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/residential-letting-questions/43739-council-tax

Whoever is registered to pay the council tax, is the one that has to pay it,

so if it's not you, the council will have to go after the tenant for council tax ,

and does not concern you.

Unless you are still registered to pay the council, in which case, unless you

stipulated that the rent included council tax, or an extra payment was

required, you cant ask for council tax if you are the ones down to pay.

 

in which case, unless you stipulated the the rent included council tax, and in my case that was done at 3(b) of an assured shorthold tenancy that became a periodic.

 

The person who is registered on the council tax account will pay by virtue of the fact that the council will chase the person shown on the council tax account until they get sufficient evidence that they are not liable - this will always be the case. The determination is made under legislation not a 'the landlord said he will pay agreement'.

 

Does the person in the statutory periodic tenancy expired and served with a Notice Requiring Possession' still live in the property and liable for council tax? or are they homeless as the council awarded a status of homelessness still owe council tax?

You can be called whatever you like - what matters are the facts of the situation. Being termed homeless or not make no difference - only the facts of the situation as they apply to council tax.

 

When would it be reasonable to presume they did not owe council tax a sit seems they can now owe council tax whilst being deemed resident in two different properties,(whether they are or not ) one of which they are evicted form. It seems that "cease to be resident in the property" is open to interpretation and may extend long after the tenant thinks they have left .

As I have already said, resident is a specific term for council tax purposes- you cannot try to reinvent the term. The fact is that a person may be liable for council tax on more than one property at a time - providing the right criteria are met in legislation then a person can be liable on a property since 1993 yet never been resident (or even lived in it).

 

At the end of the day there's only so many times you can be told that a personal agreement etc makes no difference. If you want to ignore discussing the correct issues with the council then they are simply going to continue to chase you for the money and you will go around in circles again. You may or may not be liable for the period in question, it depends on the exact circumstances and how legislation applies under s6, but simply arguing the landlord had an agreement to pay will not make the issue go away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...