Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Council tax recovery fees wales


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 409 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

Hi All

 

I have a dispute with the council regarding council tax from 2020/21 year.   

 

I should not have paid council tax at all that year as I was made instantly unemployed on lock-down day without any notice and was therefore entitled to relief,

 

they made a complete mess of my application for relief and then started to harass me for payment of the council tax 7 months later with no communication in between.  The mess they made is well documented and evidenced with email trails.

 

The communications were frustrating, back and to and they were very unreasonable about the cause of the unpaid tax and their failures and every time I complained,

 

I got a standard response which did not address any of my points raised so they never actually addressed the specifics of my complaint.  I gave up in the end and decided to pay it the following year along with my current bill, as I was back in work by then.

 

I have therefore paid the council tax in full and have nothing outstanding including this current year.  I never should have paid the 20/21 when I had no income but just wanted them off my back to be fair.

 

However, they had applied legal and recovery fees of over £500 which I refused to pay on top of the council tax itself which in itself, was around £2400 per annum.

 

Even though the only thing outstanding is recovery fees, they have now issued a summons to magistrates court for a liability order for the outstanding recovery fees.

 

My question is, can they do this?  Are recovery fees alone, the same as council tax and can therefore be made the subject of a liability order under the Council Tax Act?

 

In addition, if I do have to attend court, can I ask for reasonable adjustments as I am disabled and cannot travel distances yet the court they have chosen is over 50 miles away and I would really struggle to get there.  Is it reasonable for me to ask for the case to be moved closer to my home to prevent this difficulty?

 

I've tried speaking to the council recovery team a number of times but they are behaving like complete bullies. 

 

I'd appreciate some help if anyone knows whether recovery fees can be treated the same as council tax and recovered through the magistrates court which will of course incur even more fees. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Council tax recovery fees wales

Have bailiffs been involved?

cant be until the LO is grantwd?

unless wales is a diff system!!

 

i'll go look

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

Thanks so much dx100uk.   Bailiffs were involved during the 2020/21 year, hence the outstanding recovery fees of £500 added to my account.

 

At the time that they messed up my application for relief and then presented me with a huge bill after 7 months of silence, i was still unemployed and could not pay.  They got a liability order which was then pursued by bailiffs for a sort time, before it was returned to the council who then added the fees onto my next years bill.   

 

I paid the council tax in full for 20/21 despite being unemployed for more than that whole period and I've also paid the subsequent years, but have refused to pay the fees from the time they messed up.  I thought it more than fair that I paid the council tax itself despite being entitled to relief, and think they should write off the fees associated but they are being bloody-minded and unreasonable.

 

All that is outstanding this ear are those fees and it is that which they are taking to magistrates court.  

 

I believe Wales works on the same system as England.

 

Thanks for your help. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

£500 is not correct

 

@£75 notice of Enforcement

@£235 visit fee

the max any bailiff can charge on a CTAX LO is £310 no matter how many times they turn up

end of.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...