They could by bonus and salary payments, but dividends would have to be repaid by the directors if the company wasn't profitable.

There are some issues with ParkingEye still issuing parking tickets when people have already paid for parking. Its happened to me around 5 or 6 times over the last 6 months. In my case, as its been for business, I have the parking tickets/receipt to prove that parking was paid, and in each case, parking eye have backed down. However, I've come to the conclusion that there must be plenty of people who have assumed that they must have forgot to pay that day. Are people interested in a documented specimen example to use if ParkingEye go to court?

what flumps is hinting at, is the agreement part of job seeker agreement. The agreement needs to be appropriate to YOUR personal circumstances, and need to agree several actions that you will perform, and that you will do a minimum of 3 from that list each week. Actions can be quite simple things, such as contact a job agency for their current suitable vacancies would be an action. Applying for one of the vacancies would be a second action, chasing up the agency for feedback on your application, looking through the local newspaper for vacancies and so on... As a last defence, If you feel that you are being placed under pressure to accept more than you can do, then it is not an agreement, and you can ask for the agreement to be referred to a decision maker.

going back to the dark ages, when it was income support (IS) and unemployment benefit (UB). (if you had NI contributions you qualified for UB and got more money as a result) but the first 3 days of UB was not paid, so if you didn't have savings, you claimed IS for those 3 days. However when JSA was introduced, both the extra money for contributions was lost, and the 3 day wait was applied to people who had no savings. Hlowever, the extra £10 you got from being on UB was then docked from your housing benefit and council tax benefit, so you felt little real benefit for being on UB.

Chin up, you are nearly there. Remember the ATOS assessment, if applied to a partly decomposed corpse would score 0 points as well, and you still have a pulse put your appeal in, and then, whilst waiting for your appeal, (that you will attend in person won't you) consider lobbying your MP to ask ATOS on your behalf for them to issue you your euthanasia kit. see this thread for details Don't worry, I'm sure you won't actually get the kit, never mind actually use it, but it will help get the point across to the people that make the decisions in parliament. kind regards

Reading between the lines (and some guesswork), if you remove this part of your appeal, then the decision maker can find fully in your favour, as she can agree completely with your appeal. On the information available to the decision maker, she is not able to state the correct overpayment for you to repay, so is then free to decide that it has not been possible to define an overpayment for you to repay and so require you to repay £0. Case closed. By leaving that part of your appeal in place, then the decision maker has to find in the DWP's favour on the aspect of the pension payment, so Ilford then have the opportunity to then calculate the correct overpayment and request you repay it. It would be a bit of a gamble, relying on instinct, but if it does not work out as expected, you do then have an appeal stage.

the original poster committed fraud a few years ago whilst working and claiming incapacity benefit.

The first post makes it clear that they had just had 6 months of work, properly declared.

Whilst that may be the case, it does not mean that you are required or allowed to divulge that information.

Perhaps think of it like this: If you phone OPC, they will make a point of telling you that they will take you to court if you do not pay up. To make this threat seem credible, they do actually take people to court from time to time. OPC cannot possibly afford to take EVERY unpaid parking ticket to court. Even if they win, their costs are limited to around £50. OPC loose a number of court cases by not turning up to court. Your total risk at court is £150. OPC have won one case where AL27 assisted in the defence. statistically odds are 30 or 40 to 1 in your favour if it reaches court. OPC occasionally take court action. When they do, they have been known not to pursue a defended case, and they also have been known to not turn up in court. The one case in which the AL27 assisted defence lost in court, the person behind the case explained the failure as his inability and lack of confidence to present the case, and to argue for it in court There are also documented cases on here of people doing OPC baiting. where they have managed to successfully counter sue OPC for harassment. In these cases OPC has paid up quickly. By paying OPC you are financing their ability to take someone else to court.

I suspect the reason is that they need to clarify a few issues. They are not accusing you of fraud, but they need to understand the situation, to make sure you are getting the right benefits paid at the right rate. So, if you turn up at the chat and provide them information that means that you are not entitled to the benefits, then your money will be stopped and they will want you to repay the overpayment. However, by not going in, they will want investigate further and you won't get your benefit money restarted.

This is a bit of an off chance, but since the decision maker is not too impressed with their behaviour, you can always try asking her if she is able to make a decision based on the information in front of her, that you do not have to repay the original total as a substantial part of it is an official error, and that Ilford need to request overpayment of the right amount.

Have you telephoned benefits to confirm why the payment was not made? It may be something completely different...

Okay, so she put all the children she was caring for at risk, by having more children than she could cope with. Think long and hard about making a statement to Ofsted about the overcrowding. At some point it will lead to a child being hurt.

There is a case for a child minder charging extra for children with special needs, as it (should) reduce the number of other children they can mind at the same time. However, at £350 a week in childcare costs, was your child the only child they cared for?