Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

my Leasehold/Freehold property and its issues.


Recommended Posts

  • Like 1

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

Posted (edited)

What about the people paying the contractor?  Are they acting ok or unlawfully? 

Paperwork shows they were putting the contractor under pressure to work within a budget.    

Paperwork shows the contractor was the personal contact of the ceo (lender)   It also shows all the works were done to ceo's spec. 

I don't have access (yet) to show how the contractor was paid - but do assume it was bank transfer as his bank details were on the invoices. I would be interested, v interested, to see the name of the account holder which/ who paid !

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I am trying to understand how invoicing a large sum in a 6m period becomes tax fraud?   Is it because if he had invoiced over the £85k threshold he should have been obligated to charge vat?  Which would have meant hmrc would have benefited from the vat amount? So by not charging it Hmrc have lost out on £s revenue?  Is that what makes it tax fraud?

So as a self-employed contractor, let's say he invoiced one Co for 200k.  Should he have charged vat on the full 200k (£40k)? Or just on the sum above the threshold (£23k)?  And that by not charging vat, he has knowingly withheld tax £s from Hmrc?

And is the payer complicit ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The payer is not responsible for registering and making sure that VAT is charged correctly.

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

I've worked out the contractor invoiced apx 250k - Without adding vat to the invoices. 

So based on above he should have added vat to all invoices once he reached 85k? 

Obviously he had to pay his labourers - would those payments get taken off what he received?  Or it doesn't matter cos he invoiced for the high sum?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's 85k of turnover (well, now £90k).

However, you're digging yourself into another hole here. That ship has probably long since sailed. Is it worth pursuing this? You're not going to get anything back from it either way.

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

He is still trading.  

I won't get anything out of it, no.  But is that the point?  Not charging it means the Govt misses out on important revenue 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just to clarify - it was the lender who undertook works, not me.  They racked up huge huge sums in refurb costs - which were completely unnecessary.  They have been trying to charge all the costs to me.  I refuse to be held accountable in my defence and counterclaim.   (I refuse to  be held liable for these works costs whether vat was or wasn't added - I maintain its the lender that must cover the costs).  It was a ridiculous sum of money and made no difference to their ability to sell either.  As its still unsold.   

I can see - from disclosure paperwork - that the lender ceo uses this contractor all the time on other properties - for himself and for the bank.  The payer may not be responsible for the contractor's failure to add vat - but the ceo can clearly see it's not being charged - and again and again on all his jobs.  So he is complicit even if not guilty of the actual fraud.   

I admit I'm angry with them. The sheer injustice and arrogance (that they could/ can do whatever they want and get away with it - has been astounding.  It's why I have fought so hard to get justice.  This particular issue is just another niggle.  They think they are above the law; can circumvent it - with no consequences / repercussions.   

Thank you dx for pointing me to the link. I will now follow that up

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What's your intent, or interest? I can't see that you have any cause of action regarding bills issued by one third party to another third party. Is the idea to use this as a lever "I'll denounce you to HMRC unless you do blah blah .."

That might in fact have no teeth anyway, HMRC will aware of the company's turnover via their other tax affairs.  As a matter of fact a company buying VAT rated supplies and selling to VAT registered customers is actually worse off if not VAT registered themselves.

Has your court case reached it's conclusion yet?

Edited by aesmith
Link to post
Share on other sites

@HP Mum - you've been here a long time and you have certainly been here long enough to know that we regularly ask people to avoid posting solid blocks of text because it makes it very difficult for the site team to engage and also other people who might be interested in what you have to say or maybe even give advice themselves.
It's especially difficult using small screens such as telephones and telephone screens are more and more commonly used nowadays.

When solid blocks of text are posted by new people, we figure they don't know any better and so we go in and edit the block and introduce proper spacing and punctuation and asked them to avoid doing in future.
However you are a seasoned Cagger

Your solid block of text is very long and to add to the difficulty, you have used the smaller font.

I'm going to remove your post and if you want to post again then please would you bear in mind the interests of the people who are reading and who want to help you.

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I don't know what I did wrong?  Did my font change size? I used my computer to post - not my phone.  It looked ok when I posted.  Now I can't remember exactly what I wrote.  Has it been deleted forever?  Or can u retrieve it and send it to me to edit?  If not, then I'll just try again

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Refresh your browser...are you able to edit it now ?

 

 

.

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 OTHERS

 

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

Try entering some paragraph spacing from time to time. That would be helpful

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

lolerz – I have  a query about a ‘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".   

Hmrc check to see if there is "sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to show the requisite knowledge or reasonable grounds for suspicion".   

In my matter, the email dialogue indicated their joint aim was to keep costs low.  Vat was not included on any invoices - even though the budget clearly exceeded the vat threshold.  I think this was deliberate by both parties.  And a potential consistent pattern of behaviour that’s bigger than me and my issues.

A few years ago the lender set up a department to refurb repossessed properties.   

How many times have they knowingly used a contractor who doesn’t charge vat?   

How many times have they done works and added costs - each time excluding vat – to a borrower’s accounts?  (ie not in their own name). 

The evidence I have indicates they do this often.  This indicates they are potentially regular facilitators (maybe instigators) of vat fraud.

The Govt website says if you notice tax fraud you 'must' disclose it. 

I’m probably not being very articulate.  I just think they get up to things they shouldn’t and never expect to be found out.   The potential guilt of both contractor and lender doesn’t benefit me.   Other than it would prove what scoundrels they are.   

Edited by HP Mum
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

If it makes you feel better, report it to HMRC. Then again, you’ve been given the link for that earlier, but it doesn’t seem enough for you (which sits uneasily with your statements that there is no underlying extra intent / motive!)

I’m not sure there is any more ‘mileage’ in doing any more than that, unless (as a final ‘throw of the dice’) you can find a journalist looking for tax avoiders / evaders, if your actual aim is to embarrass the CEO, and they are a ‘big enough fish to fry’ for a journalist.

Perhaps run it past @DanNeidle on Twitter?

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, HP Mum said:

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".   

Hmrc check to see if there is "sufficient evidence on a balance of probabilities to show the requisite knowledge or reasonable grounds for suspicion".   .   

But you're not the one paying,  so why are you bothered about whether HMRC could or could not come after them?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, HP Mum said:

.. the budget clearly exceeded the vat threshold. 

The threshold is for registration not billing. Is this organisation VAT registered, or not?  And the one paying the bill, are they VAT registered?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The contractor had no vat reg # on the invoices and didn't add vat.  My understanding is that once one reaches the threshold in a 12m period one must register.

The issue with this vat matter is that the lender did all the works in their company name but used my name and added the costs to my account.  Within their claim they've been trying to make me liable for all costs.  Ok they didn't add vat so that means less £s added to my account.  But they should have.  I'm disputing the costs - this vat matter just adds fuel to that fire.

I followed the link earlier. 

There is definite meat for a journalist. It's still a live claim though.

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a novel weird approach, yes!  But the moot point is that I think they are doing this regularly. Meaning they are repeatedly diddling hmrc out of vat (I mean in conjunction with the builder)

They are never going to win their claim that I pay for these works.  They were completely unnecessary.

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

They'll just deduct the costs from the proceeds, if they ever actually manage to sell.

Given that you found it impossible to sell, and so far the lender hasn't managed either, I guess they'll claim the refurbishment was needed to make the place saleable.

A bit of a gamble on their part, I would have expected them to just auction it with no reserve to get shot.

Edited by aesmith
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the point. I am arguing that the works costs should never have been incurred. That they should not be added to my account at all - which means not taking the costs out of eventual sale proceeds. 

Vat should have been added to the contractor's invoices and the lender should have paid - out of their pocket. 

The property was in great condition; immaculate.  It's a silly situation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If/when it's sold you'll be able to challenge their costs, or defend if they come after you for a shortfall.

I think it's probably a very long shot, but you could look at the exact wording of the PoA in the loan agreement and security. But normally they give pretty wide ranging powers.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...