Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

HMRC & County Court


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5580 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

Been away from this site for a long time but recently had to come back due to letters from a DCA: However, I have a question unrelated to DCA's which I need an answer to.

 

Long story short; I was self-employed for a long time in the late 80's, early 90's, paid my VAT, Income tax and NI subs no problem in the early years, but in the later years things got away from me and I stopped paying the tax & NI.

I then went PAYE and ignored the brown envelopes (this is a very stupid course of financial management and as this tale will justify later, do not do this) for a number of years until the HMRC turned up on my doorstep and hit me with a County Court summons.

 

Duly went to Court - HMRC would not budge on the amount, even though I had excellent accountancy advice and engaged a (not excellent) solicitor and a barrister - and admitted the liability I was still thumped with the full £30 grand bill.

 

OK, so I took it on the chin, got my CCJ, entered into a repayment plan with the feds and got on with paying it off; however, on the court order there was a definite amount which was awarded against me - £30,328.50 -to be paid at £900 a month. I have never missed a payment and I have paid roughly half - or so I thought.

 

Recently, I was wondering why I had never received any statements from the feds, so I called them up and they said statements were going to the accountant, but that they could cancel this and send them to me, obviously I said please do.

 

In the course of the call, the feds stated that I had almost finished the debt - I was thunderstruck, because I thought I still owed about £15k - so I asked how come?

 

They said, that there were two amounts outstanding an 'In Court' & 'Out of Court'.

The 'In Court' stood at £170 but the 'Out of Court' was £18k; I asked how this amount differed to what I thought I owed and they said interest was being added. This amounts to over £3,700 above what the Court Order states I have to pay.

 

What is this 'In Court' and 'Out of Court' malarkey? This is news to me.

 

I dug out the Court Order and it's pretty clear that no order has been given for interest - but doesn't say that interest shouldn't be added either, to be fair - and during the actual case hearing which I attended, I distinctly do not recall any request from the feds that interest be added to the debt.

 

There is a caveat on the form about interest addition, but it does state, '...., the claimant may be entitled to further interest' (my italics), but wouldn't this suggest that the claimant would have to ask the Court for this facility? If so, the feds didn't, certainly not in my presence.

 

I've written to the Court asking for clarification, but I thought I'd ask on here if anyone has any knowledge or experience of this?

 

Many thanks

Were it not for injustice, Man would not know justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe HMRC automatically add interest whether there is a court order or not. The out of court amount is the interest charged on the reducing balance and, I think, there is not much you can do about it. It's a pity that your Barrister couldn't think sufficiently to get interest barred if you made all your payments on time (which you obviously have). It may be worth asking for a full statement of account dating from the CCJ and order.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe HMRC automatically add interest whether there is a court order or not. The out of court amount is the interest charged on the reducing balance and, I think, there is not much you can do about it. It's a pity that your Barrister couldn't think sufficiently to get interest barred if you made all your payments on time (which you obviously have). It may be worth asking for a full statement of account dating from the CCJ and order.

 

Hi Hat (Sorry, drummers joke) Trilby

 

Yes, of course you're right about the interest charges - not forgetting the penalties for late payment/filing - the original amount the HMRC went after me for was £11k, but then they add the above and the amount ended up at over £36k!!

 

But, my issue is that I have a Court Order for a very specific amount and no mention in Court or on the Order of further interest being added.

I also query how the HMRC can quote 'In' and 'Out' of Court figures. My 'business' is in what the Court state, not the HMRC.

 

I have a full statement from the time of the CCJ and it says I owe £170.00!

Maybe I should just pay that and let them come after me for the rest and argue in a new Court case.

 

By the way, the Barrister cost me £250 for two hours and he was late to Court and by the time he got there I'd tied the deal with the HMRC and on telling him this he said 'OK, I gotta go, see ya'. Useless.

Were it not for injustice, Man would not know justice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are right just to pay the balance of the CCJ and await developments. You have carried out the court's wishes, so that is that.

 

Barristers are like bankers - some very good, but others bloody awful. I paid £500 for a London barrister (junior) for a day and he went through the opposition like a dose of salts - he'd only read my case file on the way down on the train! He was brilliant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...