Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • lolerz - are you sure about the payer not being responsible?   On hmrc website there's a section about 'joint and several liability'....  It appears J&SL could apply if "hmrc believe it can show that you knew or had reasonable grounds to suspect that VAT would go unpaid".   They check to see if there is "sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to show the requisite knowledge or reasonable grounds for suspicion".    The email trail indicates the payer (the instigator of the deal with the contractor) must have known costs were being kept artificially low due to vat not being charged.  There were emails between the parties indicating the ongoing budget, and its constraints.  Invoices were issued in-line with the budget emails and emailed to the party over-seeing the works & budget - who then regularly passed the emails/ invoices on to the accounts team for payment.  There was constant dialogue between all parties on the sums payable..  Vat was not included on any invoices.   Thus the payer, on the balance of probabilities, had the requisite knowledge to assess that vat fraud was being implemented.    The payer ceo was also cc-ed into many emails.  There's also a couple instances of a 3rd party forwarding the contractor's invoices.  This could appear quite innocuous.  But this 3rd party (different surname) appears to share addresses with/ be a partner of the contractor (in biblical sense).  I don't have the investigative power of hmrc - but my simple research shows further (property) links between the ceo, the contractor and his 'partner'.   If they constantly do works projects together as a team then there is a propensity for regular vat evasion.  In my particular matter, the lender is trying to pass all the costs of works on to me.   So from an auditing perspective they are passing the buck to me; the payer appears to be me - whilst the actual payer (who is complicit in the evasion/ fraud) actually gets hidden (gets lost in the disclose-able paperwork).   A few years ago they set up a department to handle development of repossessed properties.  So how many times have they used a contractor and not paid vat for works? How many times have they passed the costs on to the borrower whilst attempting to absolve themselves of any participatory (vat fraud) guilt?   This is actually a potentially really big issue, that goes way beyond my own issue with them.  I don't benefit.  But if they are guilty on an industrial scale of not paying building contractor vat, facilitating vat fraud, and manipulating/ hiding the figures  behind borrower's debts - then this will be further vindication of what utter scoundrels they are.    The Govt website says if you notice tax fraud you 'must' disclose it.
    • I've never had an Egg loan. Just to confirm. Definitely not a loan. Yes. It is an 11 digit 'reference' number.
    • Some time ago i made a complaint to Lowell regarding what i felt was their harrassment due to the volume of letters I was receiving from them. I know i should have ignored it, but it was upsetting my wife that they kept sending them so I thought i would complain and see if anything could be done about it. i have just received their reply to my complaint, which no surprise they havent upheld. However they said something in that letter that didnt feel "right" to me and i wanted to see what people's opinion of this was please: Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act relates to the original lender and not a debt purchaser such as Lowell. As the original terms of the agreement have not been met, due to payments falling into arrears and the account being in default, the requirement to provide a copy agreement no longer applies. I know this is incorrect, and frankly want to challenge this in any way i can, it feels very wrong that a collection agency can set aside or ignore sections of the law like this. Or should i just leave it and continue to try and ignore the letters? I would welcome any advice. Thanks.    
    • Watch this webinar to explore what young people think about the 2024 general election with early insight into the 2024 Youth Voice Census.View the full article
  • 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

Parking ticket, double yellow line Brighton 11:20pm


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2058 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 such thing as DYL's on private land if this is a private invoice not a penalty charge notice from the council?

 

please complete this :

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?462118-Have-you-received-a-Parking-Ticket-(3-Viewing)-nbsp

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this thread should be in the Local Authority sub forum

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi it is a Penalty Charge Notice from Brighton Council I was parked on the double yellow line, but as seen in the photo there is signage saying "private"

 

 

 

You mean that little sign on the wall above the bins? Honestly, you're right in the town centre, slap bang on double yellows. The chances of winning an appeal on that basis are very small indeed.

 

 

 

As a point of fact, DYLs can apply to private land - the issue isn't whether the land is private, but whether it forms part of the highway, which this clearly does. It's open access to anyone and everyone, so the DYLs would apply even if it were private, which it isn't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the "prescribed hours". Also that yellow line is broken and non existent in many places. Maybe some one with more knowledge than myself can comment on the very faded broken double yellow lines and the prescribed hours?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prescribed hours means the hours the restriction is in force. In the case of double yellows, the prescribed hours are 24/7.

 

 

The state of the lines is a factor. However it's important to recognise that the PCN is issued for contravening the Traffic Regulation Order (legal documents), not the line itself. So even if the line was completely invisible, a contravention still took place. The defence would be that the restriction wasn't adequately conveyed to the motorist - so check the photo and you can take your own view on whether you think it's clear enough. Personally I think it is clear that there are double yellows, and we all know what that means. The lines are certainly in disrepair, but not so bad as to cause any uncertainty over the restrictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...