Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Essex trading standards department have now given me a reference and are investigating this man/companies.
    • Good question. Rayner's CGT pales into insignificance really, doesn't it? 
    • Hi everyone,  out of the blue my husband yesterday received a call from the employee who lost the key the first time and asked to settle the bill plus court costs. Apparently the boss said that if he didn't pay he would be sacked. My husband asked for this in writing,  got it and payment followed. So we discontinued the claim and marked as settled. Apparently the employee who lost the keys the second time is paying for the other carpenter's bill plus court fees because he'd started court proceedings as well. So, all is solved. Thanks everyone!
    • With thanks. Updated defence.  The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. 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 noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with Halifax PLC part of the Lloyds Group of Companies but do not recognise the specific account number referred to by Claimant and on which its claim relies. To enable clarification a sec78 request pursuant to the CCA1974 was made dated 11 May 2024. The Claimant provided various documents which appear to be incomplete with page numbers missing and incomplete Terms and Conditions. If this is a copy of the original agreement it appears to be unexecuted by the original creditor. 2. Paragraph 2 is noted. I do not recall receipt of a Default Notice which the Claimant refers to within its Particulars of Claim and on which its claim relies. A CPR 31.14 request was made dated 11 May 2024. To date the Claimant has not provided a copy. 3. Paragraph 3 is noted. Although I had not recalled a copy of the Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) I requested a further copy from the claimant which has since been provided in response to the CPR 31.14 request dated 11 May 2024. 4. Paragraph 4 is noted. It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement. (b) Show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice Pursuant to s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 5. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 6. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or any relief.
    • "Testing the stability" ? I suspect the Tesla Map would have picked up that the car was being driven in a car park and the default safety settings required a shut down. Reassuring that Tesla have public safety built in, to try to stop drivers driving in a way that may be risky.
  • 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

friends CTAX - Unpaid CT - Council going for CO


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1214 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've been helping an absent overseas friend with his "affairs".   

 

Friend has a small residence that is considered his main home albeit it is empty and has been for years whilst he is stuck overseas (ill health/ family issues)

The Council have sent him CT demands for each year and since 2017 they all remain unpaid (not sure about previous years).   They have got LO's each time. 

 

Going through all his papers - there is a letter from the council demanding payment of CT going back to 2017.

It is a warning letter - of "imminent charging order proceedings".

It refers to 3 charging periods: 17-18, 18-19, and 19-20.  All of which he owes.

However - the amounts are clearly wrong. 

The council have been charging him the full amount.  They have not attributed 25% single occupancy.

(Its 1 bed and he is being charged apx £1200 (+costs) pa)

 

I am not sure when the 25% deduction was introduced ?  But the flat has only ever been occupied by him since he bought it in the late 80s.

 

Clearly he won't want a CO on his property.

 

So, on his behalf, I am looking at ways to stall their "imminent CO proceedings".

Can we send in a SAR so we can see what he has paid historically?

And can he write to the council to put the account into dispute?

I suspect the unchallenged Liability Orders may be a problem??   But he hasn't been in the UK to respond or attend.   Can they retrospectively be challenged too?

What I am thinking is - can he ask for the 25% reduction to be attributed historically?   For all the years he paid the full amount when he was eligible for the single occupancy discount?  It would mean that the council probably owe him !

 

Having read a couple other threads on here, I'm a little concerned that they may add on another charging period - which could then increase the alleged amount owing to being over £5k - and they'd then try serve a SD/ bankruptcy petition...  So I want to get on this asap.

 

Advice most welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by HP Mum
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mum,

 

How an empty property is treated for CT purposes depends on the Council involved, whether it is furnished or not.

 

Some Councils actually charge a premium on top of the normal CT amount if a property is left empty, to discourage it being left unoccupied.

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Slick

I don't think he'd argue it is "empty".  It's more a question of the 25% single occupancy discount that the council hasn't applied to his account.    It is furnished.

 

He was living in the property - plus always some months overseas in his other residence.  He would be splitting his time between them now if he hadn't got stuck overseas due to ill health and family issues - and of course with all the lockdowns in the last year.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mum,

 

I think they (or you) should claim the 25% single occupant CT Reduction asap as backdating will be limited.

 

Yes, there musy be many folk who have been stuck away from home due to Covid19.

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Limited backdating?  That doesn't sound good.

If the council knew there was/is only one occupant historically could he not question why they never billed him correctly? 

I'm thinking like decades of him over-paying.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get it started asap and keep us posted ..............

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to friends CTAX - Unpaid CT - Council going for CO
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...