Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

£4k+ CTAX LO's Cancelled - now going for statutory Demand - help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1784 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'm not sure im in the correct place as it's the first time iv posted for advice.

 

i have council tax arrears that date from 2008 to 2017. 

 

November last year we received a notification of withdrawn offences from the magistrate court for non payment of council tax and cost of £4867 in respect of the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2017

No further action will be taken against you

 

we  have now been issued with a statutory demand for the arrears.

 

Id be most grateful for any advice as to if the council can still take legal action for the arrears.

 

Thank you in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and Welcome to the Forum.

 

I have moved your thread to the appropriate forum ...please continue to post here.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to £4k+ CTAX LO's Cancelled - now going for statutory Demand - help

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

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry so debt must be over £5k now to issue an SD?

and surely if the LO's have been cancelled? then some of this debt is outside 6yrs so statute barred now?

 

 

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

3 hours ago, Crazy77 said:

I'm not sure im in the correct place as it's the first time iv posted for advice.

 

i have council tax arrears that date from 2008 to 2017. 

 

November last year we received a notification of withdrawn offences from the magistrate court for non payment of council tax and cost of £4867 in respect of the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2017

No further action will be taken against you

 

we  have now been issued with a statutory demand for the arrears.

 

Id be most grateful for any advice as to if the council can still take legal action for the arrears.

 

Thank you in advance.

 

Usually there is no notification from the Magistrates that a council tax summons has been withdrawn (in well over a decade of working in council tax I've not come across a court who does so) - had the council been looking at taking some other legal action against you (fraud by misrepresentation etc) as that notification sounds more like you'd receive from that ? If so, then these actions are entirely separate to the pursuing arrears via council tax legislation.

 

Why is the council tax outstanding ?

 

Stat Demands are a pain and not always correct - I dealt with one earlier this year who'd been issued with one for £16k and the council had refused to budge. After about 3 months we finally got them to admit the whole of the council tax charge was wrong and they withdrew the action ! I'd hate to see how much cost the council for their mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

sorry so debt must be over £5k now to issue an SD?

and surely if the LO's have been cancelled? then some of this debt is outside 6yrs so statute barred now?

 

 

Depends on when the demand notice was issued as to when the 6 year period under regulation 34 starts - it is not always the same date as the period the charge is from.

 

My bigger concern would be, if liability orders had been withdrawn, why a stat demand is in place. A stat demand would require a liability order to be in place before the application could be made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think any previous court claims under any guise [be it a mag LO nor a county CCJ] has to be made to issue a statutory demand?

we used to see these like water from DCA's when no other court proceedings had ever been instigated?

why is a CTAX debt any diff?

 

dx

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

5 hours ago, dx100uk said:

I didn't think any previous court claims under any guise [be it a mag LO nor a county CCJ] has to be made to issue a statutory demand?

we used to see these like water from DCA's when no other court proceedings had ever been instigated?

why is a CTAX debt any diff?

 

dx

The bankruptcy application of the back of the Stat Demand would require a liability order.

In theory a Stat Demand could be completed and sent without one but it's unlikely the council are going to do so over £4k without having the powers to follow through on the threatened bankruptcy (otherwise they're left high and dry in that respect). The bankruptcy application following the Stat Demand would need a liability order.

Edited by ss002d6252
Link to post
Share on other sites

" The bankruptcy application following the Stat Demand would need a liability order."

 

Only if the SD was served using form 6.2 instead of 6.1...6.1 does not require any Judgment /Order/LO. 

You can present a bankruptcy petition without serving a statutory demand if: enforcement of the Judgment/Order/LO fails to get some or all of the money;

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Andyorch said:

" The bankruptcy application following the Stat Demand would need a liability order."

 

Only if the SD was served using form 6.2 instead of 6.1...6.1 does not require any Judgment /Order/LO. 

You can present a bankruptcy petition without serving a statutory demand if: enforcement of the Judgment/Order/LO fails to get some or all of the money;

 

Andy

Even if they wanted to try the general bankruptcy route for a debt then council tax legislation would not allow it.


Section 14 & Schedule 4 of the 1992 Act specifies the details of council tax recovery and how that can be undertaken (finer details provided via subordinate legislation).  Reg 49 of the Administration & Enforcement Regs 1992 provides that council tax enforcement requires a liability order is in place for bankruptcy. Trying to recover via another route would be outside of their powers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what is the outcome for the OP??

they cant go for one as its under £5k total?

or because the LO's (that have been cancelled??) Are pre Xxx date they can??

im confused!!

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

£4867 in respect of the period 01/04/2008 to 31/03/2017

 

I would assume that some bogus charges have been added since and pushed it over the threshold.

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reg 49 states that " For the purposes of this regulation the amount due is an amount equal to any outstanding sum which is or forms part of the amount in respect of which the liability order was made " so it's very woolly but it should include the liability & summons costs. It is silent on bankruptcy costs.

As council tax legislation does not set any limit on the amounts that can be claimed in bankruptcy (and effectively only provides that a liability order is to be considered a provable debt) I would expect that the standard Insolvency Act rules would apply as to whether or not costs can be added to the debt or not etc etc.

Until the OP clarifies what's in place and what isn't then it's difficult to say more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, dx100uk said:

So what is the outcome for the OP??

they cant go for one as its under £5k total?

or because the LO's (that have been cancelled??) Are pre Xxx date they can??

im confused!!

The balance on the liability orders is a provable debt (without a liability order that debt is not provable) - whether or not there is enough other debt under the Insolvency Act to top it up to £5k or more is another matter (it's possible that he has other debts that can be rolled in from the council etc).
 

There is no time limit on enforcement on a liability order once it's been obtained so there's no time limits in respect of the Limitation Act 1980 (That's already been considered and dismissed by the courts).

As long as the original liability orders were obtained within 6 years of the amount being billed for then there's no issue i respect of the liability orders being obtained in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the LO's stand still? Even though the magistrate said "withdrawal of offences"

 

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

11 hours ago, dx100uk said:

So the LO's stand still? Even though the magistrate said "withdrawal of offences"

 

Possibly. 'Withdrawal of offences' is not terminology that would be used with liability orders (unless it had perhaps been taken for committal& withdrawn - in which case only the committal action is ceased, not the actual liability order itself) .

There's something odd abut this one nut unless the OP comes back to provide far more details the I'd say we're at a standstill.
 

Edited by ss002d6252
Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad its not just me!!

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

It's all very confusing.

In respect of withdrawal of liability orders then it is only strictly speaking available on application by the council under s82 of the LGA2003, in which case an order can be quashed. The other way would be to ask the court to re-open the hearing and decide again whether or not the order should be granted (effectively restarting the hearing) so not technically withdrawing anything.

 

(Apologies for the any typos- my keyboard is knackered and doesn't like fast typing (something has been spilt on it I think as the keys are sticking) ).
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...