Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Is it illegal for council to refuse payment of council tax?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1984 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

I don't know how many different Councils there are throughout Britain but most of them will probably have referred to their local legal experts when The TCOG came into force and some will have no doubt received different advice from some of the others. Added to that some Councils CT is handled by Capita who have several bailiff companies under their umbrella. So if yours is one of the latter they may well have received different advice again.

But whatever you say, bailiffs are involved even by your own admission on Post 1. Do you think that your payment would have been refused had you paid earlier in the cycle before bailiffs were considered?

But you are where you are. I have already said that I could find nothing to support your idea which does not mean that you are wrong and I guess that time is running out for you.

The first thing to do is to write to the CEO and ask why your payment was refused. It seems a strange action when they are all claiming poverty and cutting services. You do need an answer

as proof that your payment was declined. If your case ends up in Court you will be able to claim that they should have mitigated their situation so by not accepting the payment it must mean at the very least that they can only charge the statutory 8% interest on the debt less the offer you made earlier this week.

Then you can contact a member of the Council possibly one on the opposition side and seek their advice on whether the Council can refuse payment. Another way would be to check with the

Local Government Ombudsman for information on the Council actions rather than as a complaint since then they would advise you to complain first to the Council. Hopefully just asking their advice might elicit some information that could be of help to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW! That's a relief selectric, thank you. You know when you just know you're right about something but can't find any proof of it? I was beginning to wonder if I'd imagined the whole thing but I was sure that if it existed somebody on here would know something about it.

 

Yes, I would be very interested if you can find anything but there's absolutely no rush, as I keep trying to point out I don't need any specific help with my case at the moment, it's just something I'd like to find again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how many different Councils there are throughout Britain but most of them will probably have referred to their local legal experts when The TCOG came into force and some will have no doubt received different advice from some of the others. Added to that some Councils CT is handled by Capita who have several bailiff companies under their umbrella. So if yours is one of the latter they may well have received different advice again.

But whatever you say, bailiffs are involved even by your own admission on Post 1. Do you think that your payment would have been refused had you paid earlier in the cycle before bailiffs were considered?

But you are where you are. I have already said that I could find nothing to support your idea which does not mean that you are wrong and I guess that time is running out for you.

The first thing to do is to write to the CEO and ask why your payment was refused. It seems a strange action when they are all claiming poverty and cutting services. You do need an answer

as proof that your payment was declined. If your case ends up in Court you will be able to claim that they should have mitigated their situation so by not accepting the payment it must mean at the very least that they can only charge the statutory 8% interest on the debt less the offer you made earlier this week.

Then you can contact a member of the Council possibly one on the opposition side and seek their advice on whether the Council can refuse payment. Another way would be to check with the

Local Government Ombudsman for information on the Council actions rather than as a complaint since then they would advise you to complain first to the Council. Hopefully just asking their advice might elicit some information that could be of help to you.

 

Oh for gawd's sake can we drop it already? I have repeated time after time after time after time that THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAILIFFS. They are NOT involved, I've done what I need to do, i.e. a payment arrangement with the council to prevent it going any further. THAT IS NOT THE POINT HERE AND IS NOT WHAT OR WHY I'M ASKING SO PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE WILL EVERYBODY STOP TRYING TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES AND STOP JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS!!!

 

The ONLY reason I mentioned it at all is because I knew everybody would start jumping in and talking about bloody bailiffs if I didn't post any case details. I actually thought I had mentioned it earlier (but can't see it now so maybe not) that the council had told me in an email that they WILL NOT accept payment and that it MUST be paid to the bailiffs, so I already have proof. I also have a screenshot of the declined payment, which reads something like "Your card details are correct but we can not accept your payment.

 

Look, I appreciate you're trying to help but I'll reiterate one last time, I'm not looking for bailiff help, payment advice or asking what I need to do to cover myself, I know all that already, inside-out. I'm simply trying to establish the legality of their statement. It's important to know if it's a point of law in otherwords, because if I'm right they're in for a whole world of pain.

 

I agree totally that it's completely nuts for them to refuse it but that's their problem and I intend to keep it that way. I'm not refusing or declining to pay my bill, nor do I need that kind of help, that isn't what this is about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAILIFFS.THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAILIFFS.

 

Maybe I've missed something, but you put this in your first post. 'our council tax account has been passed to the bailiffs and as such the council are refusing to accept payments'

 

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAILIFFS.THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BAILIFFS.

 

Maybe I've missed something, but you put this in your first post. 'our council tax account has been passed to the bailiffs and as such the council are refusing to accept payments'

 

 

HB

 

Fair comment, but I've reiterated a number of times since that my question, the purpose of my post, has nothing to do with bailiffs; that's the point.

 

I didn't post the whole tale, i.e that I've made arrangements to pay the council regardless of anything else because it's not the point of the post. As I said earlier I'm sorry I mentioned bailiffs because a lot of people have gone off at a tangent which is exactly what I knew would happen if I started to discuss he actual details of the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See if Regulation 45 of the Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992 is what you are looking for.

 

Thanks, I'll take a look but no, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a Council Tax Act or Regulation.

 

EDIT: No that's definitely not it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair comment, but I've reiterated a number of times since that my question, the purpose of my post, has nothing to do with bailiffs; that's the point.

 

I didn't post the whole tale, i.e that I've made arrangements to pay the council regardless of anything else because it's not the point of the post. As I said earlier I'm sorry I mentioned bailiffs because a lot of people have gone off at a tangent which is exactly what I knew would happen if I started to discuss he actual details of the case.

 

I think the reason people say bailiffs is because once theyre involved you have to pay their charges too. And from prior experience on here, theyre used to people asking for ways to evade those charges by paying the Council direct. Thats likely where the crossed wires are happening.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Yes I have seen this also, in the BOS.

 

That particular act is about regulating the BOS or pawn broking community. Many items are pawned for a sum far less than they are worth, and the broker will prescribe a time the loan must be paid by. I believe it still happens in the antiques trade.

It used to be the case that the broker would make himself unavailable or simply not accept payment in order to gain ownership of the pledge, hence the law you speak of.

 

I am very glad indeed to see an authority refusing payment like this. However the reason would involve bailiffs. :)

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

Its a common problem on the fora, people take legislation out of context, and apply it to inappropriate situations.

 

Bit like going into the newsagent and asking for a kilo of pork chops.

Edited by Andyorch
Quoting own post ...removed

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...