Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • receiving a default NOTICE (forget simple default cal markers) does not mean it will get sold on... OC's very very rarely do court themselves.  if it does you would receive a Notice of Assignment from the debt buyer/DCA.  as for reduced payment if it remains with the OC and they issue a DN, no harm in trying but lets get all your ducks inline first. dx  
    • okay thanks do you know how long it will take for it to get to the DCA or could the OC try and issue a CCJ? even though it's unlikely also for example would the OC agree to a reduction and a small payment over a super lengthy period of time if agreed? Rather than go through chasing apologies again for all the questions, just trying to understand all the possible scenarios.  
    • Currently - "the maximum daily price at 100p / kWh for electricity and 30p / kWh for gas – keep in mind that's a lot higher than the Ofgem Energy Price Cap, so if you can't afford prices to increase further, you're probably better off sticking with a protected tariff such as Flexible Octopus." Octopus Tracker is a product of our labs, available now to customers through our beta programme. Octopus Tracker is a beta product. Some things may not work the first time, and installations and processes may take longer than we'd like. Third party tech like In-home Displays won't always work, and on occasion data issues with smart meters can take significant time to fix or prevent things from working at all.   Copied straight from octopus   Feel free to shove it somewhere else    
    • depends what the fees are, typically nothing can be added once judgement is passed bar litigation costs. on document retention time limits etc at least 6yrs previous must be held though many hold complete info. as for acronyms and abbreviations ideally yes they should     
    • Still have to submit a statement either system....if they fail they can only give verbal because they failed to file and serve.
  • 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

Important Information Regarding Tax On Interest


Seminole
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6357 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

IMPORTANT: Statutory and contractual interest is taxable

 

 

The Inland Revenue has told us that any receipt of statutory or contractual interest is taxable and that the claimant will need to pay tax on it.

 

This is a quote from the Inland Revenue and should answer most queries

Where members of the Consumer Action Group, or other members of the public, obtain a refund of charges from a bank - whether or not this necessitates filing a county court claim - the refund will not in general be chargeable either to income tax or to capital gains tax. The exception would be if the bank charge was, for any reason, tax-deductible; a refund would then be taxable. The most common circumstance would be if the bank charge had been allowed as a deduction in computing the profits from a trade or self-employment, or from a property letting.

 

However, any interest added to the refund will be taxable. It may be helpful to look at three possible scenarios:

 

· The bank customer complains to the bank, as a result of which the bank makes a refund of charges to which it adds interest. As you correctly surmise, this interest is taxable, for the reasons set out in the Tax Bulletin 72 article.

 

· The customer issues a county court claim, the matter proceeds to court and judgement is given in the customer's favour. The sum paid to the customer includes interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. Such interest is also taxable. There is no general exemption for "statutory interest", although the tax legislation does contain some specific exemptions, for example interest on awards for personal injury damages. None of these specific exemptions apply here.

 

· The customer issues a county court claim, but the matter is settled out of court. The settlement amount may explicitly include an amount for interest - any such amount is, again, taxable. A more difficult problem arises if the settlement takes the form of an undifferentiated lump sum, since it is then necessary to decide whether it contains an interest element. Some guidance on this is given in the Inspectors Manual (IM1507). The manual is available on the HMRC website (www.hmrc.gov.uk - go to Practitioner Zone and select Manuals on the list of publication), but for convenience the relevant section is reproduced below.

 

Banks do not have to deduct tax from such interest payments, although I appreciate the inconvenience to members of the public if they receive untaxed interest. Two separate pieces of tax law are involved here.

 

First, there is an obligation on banks to deduct tax from interest paid on what tax law calls "relevant deposits" - deposit accounts or current accounts held by individuals are examples of relevant deposits. But where a bank refunds fees or charges, and adds interest to the refunded amount, that interest does not arise on a relevant deposit.

 

Second, there is a more general obligation on companies to deduct tax from "yearly interest" paid to individuals and other persons who are not UK companies. ("Yearly interest", very broadly, is interest on loans or obligations outstanding for more than a year). However, there is an exception for interest paid by banks "in the ordinary course of banking business". The Inland Revenue published a Statement of Practice (SP4/96) some years ago setting out its interpretation of this phrase. We have said that we interpret it broadly, so with two defined exceptions (neither relevant here) any interest paid by a bank is regarded as being in the normal course of its business. (If you would like any further technical detail on this, please see our Banking Manual, BAM4400 onwards. This is also available on the HMRC web-site).

 

Thus banks are acting correctly in paying interest without deducting tax. The "ordinary course of banking business" exception does, however, apply only to banks, so should any of your members obtain refunds of charges from companies that are not banks - insurance companies or non-bank credit card issuers, for example - they will find that tax is taken off.

 

 

Where someone receives untaxed interest, they should show it on their self-assessment (SA) return if they need to complete a return annually. If they do not receive an SA return, they should tell the office which deals with their tax affairs about the receipt. I appreciate your concern that some people may, quite innocently, have failed to tell HMRC about taxable interest that has been received gross. Anyone in this position should write to their tax office as soon as possible. Although you are right in saying that people are potentially exposed to penalties for non-declaration of taxable income, action by the tax office will take into account the amount of money involved (which is likely to be trivial in many cases) and whether the non-declaration came about through negligence or through an innocent error.

 

 

  • If you received a payment from the defendant before 6 April 2006, you will need to urgently tell the Revenue about this. They will probably issue you with a tax return to be sent back to them with payment by 31 January 2007. Please note that this only applies if you do not already complete a tax return. If you do, you will simply need to include the interest in it.
  • If you received a payment from the defendant on or after 6 April 2006, you will need to either include it in your tax return to be submitted by 31 January 2008 or, if you don’t normally complete a tax return, tell the Revenue about it before 5 October 2007.

The only exception to this requirement is if your total taxable income including the payment of interest is less than £5,035 as this is the amount everyone is allowed to have in income every year without being taxed on it.

 

 

For businesses, the position is slightly different. Interest is taxable and so are the reclaimed charges if they were deducted from income when they were incurred. This would apply to limited companies, partnerships and sole traders.

 

 

We will publish more guidance on this issue as queries arise, but we felt it was important to put the basic details on the forum as soon as possible. The issue is only urgent for anyone who received a payment including interest before 6 April 2006. However, everyone who wins a claim should take the tax issue into account before deciding what to do with any interest that they receive.

 

Such interest that you are claiming is not dealt with the same as damages are. Please see number 2 on this link for details... http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/guidance/comp_tax.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

An important good news update to the above.

 

We are continuing to research this issue and we have identified a further important point.

 

Where a payment is received in settlement of a claim that is specifically stated to be a "goodwill gesture" (ex gratia) as opposed to an out of court settlement we have been advised that none of this payment is taxable nor need it be declared to the Inland Revenue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6357 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...