Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

DWP and my compensation claim


mitsy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4010 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 i hope someone can help with this, :)

 

In Nov 2005 i had an accident at work which was there fault, this put me on statutory sick pay for 4 months i was also advised to make a claim which i did. the company made me redundant in dec 2006 then i went on job seekers allowance till dec 2007, I could no longer seek work due to a number of health problems so have been on incapacity bennefit since dec 2007.

Now my claim is coming to a close and they have offered me £2750 which i think is an insult, The medical expert who examined me said 4 months off work with 12 months to get back to normal.

The solicitors who are dealing with my case said £2750 is a good offer,

I was living on £90 a week for my family and had to buy food and pay full rent out of my wages so i had to borrow money from my family and friends till i got back to work.

 

I have claimed for £3800 in loss of earnings when i was off work which my solicitor now tells me the Department of Work and Pensions will want back,

so dont bother claiming them as DWP will claim them from my work.

It seems to me in the letter i have just received that they just want me to take the £2750 and forget about the rest,

 

The thing is there was a gap of a year since my accident and when i went on incapacity bennefit i also went back to work 4 months after my accident for 9 months before they finished me.

 

can the DWP take my loss of earning off me even though i went back to work and didnt claim incapacity till over a year later. My solicitor says because i have been on incapacity for a year they will want a years money out of my compensation. :confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see why to be honest :confused: Incapacity benefit is a non-means tested benefit, it is payable based upon your circumstances, not income. The claim for Jobseekers may have been based upon income and money available to you at the time of the claim.

 

I don't claim benefit, but for the sake of argument, lets say I did. If I was to have a lottery win three years from now, would the government demand back any benefit money I would have (hypothetically speaking) claimed? No.

 

Unless your compensation was available to you during the period you claimed benefit, I cannot see why they would want to claim it back from you. As far as I am aware (I MAY be wrong) the DWP can only recoup money if:

 

1. You were found to be commiting benefit fraud

2. You had a repayable Social Fund loan

3. You are later discovered to have had available funds during the period of your claim for Income based benefits

4. You were awarded a Funeral Payment from the Social Fund and it was later discovered that there were or now are monies available from the deceased's estate to meet the full or part cost of the funeral.

5. You have arrears of child support to pay.

 

Were you claiming Contribution based jobseekers allowance or income based jobseekers allowance? With jobseekers, the sum you can claim can be affected if you have savings over £6000. If you have savings over £16000, you don't qualify at all. Neither of these sums are anywhere near what you say the compensation is. You do have to tell them about a change in circumstances but this is for the duration of the claim, not after.

 

Your best bet would be to ask them yourself, otherwise you could have that money sitting around doing nothing. I really don't think they can recoup it.

  • Haha 1

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would imagine they can relclaim any amounts that are paid to cover loss of earnings, as they were paying you means tested benefits for this period, but they can only claim back what they paid you, not the total amount you receive.

 

For example claim benefits 10 weeks @£100 = £1000

Loss of earnings payments for same 10 weeks = £1500

Due to DWP £1000. £500 for you. This puts you back in the position you would have been had you been working and not claiming.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see why to be honest :confused: Incapacity benefit is a non-means tested benefit, it is payable based upon your circumstances, not income. The claim for Jobseekers may have been based upon income and money available to you at the time of the claim.

 

I don't claim benefit, but for the sake of argument, lets say I did. If I was to have a lottery win three years from now, would the government demand back any benefit money I would have (hypothetically speaking) claimed? No.

 

Unless your compensation was available to you during the period you claimed benefit, I cannot see why they would want to claim it back from you. As far as I am aware (I MAY be wrong) the DWP can only recoup money if:

 

1. You were found to be commiting benefit fraud

2. You had a repayable Social Fund loan

3. You are later discovered to have had available funds during the period of your claim for Income based benefits

4. You were awarded a Funeral Payment from the Social Fund and it was later discovered that there were or now are monies available from the deceased's estate to meet the full or part cost of the funeral.

5. You have arrears of child support to pay.

 

Were you claiming Contribution based jobseekers allowance or income based jobseekers allowance? With jobseekers, the sum you can claim can be affected if you have savings over £6000. If you have savings over £16000, you don't qualify at all. Neither of these sums are anywhere near what you say the compensation is. You do have to tell them about a change in circumstances but this is for the duration of the claim, not after.

 

Your best bet would be to ask them yourself, otherwise you could have that money sitting around doing nothing. I really don't think they can recoup it.

 

 

Thanks for the reply, :)

 

I gave the DWP a ring and they said they will not take any money out of my compensation, and they are sending a letter out to me to confirm this with my solicitor.

I told my solicitor about talking with the DWP and he was not impressed:eek:

i wonder if they were trying to have me over a barrel:roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem. Incapacity is not a means tested (income related) benefit, so I didn't think they could possibly ask for the money back.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Help I need some urgent advice, briefly I had a misdiagnosed appendicitis in January 2007 I have been with a firm of solicitors since 2008 which have been handling my claim on a no win no fee basis, the outcome is today that the NHS have awarded me £50,000 which is below the quantum value given of £800,000 this is due to my medical expert changing his opinion that he had held for 5 years....any way now the solicitor has sent us a cheque for £10,199 they have not broken anything down and said it is £50,000 - £30,000 for the DWP as I was claiming Incapacity Benefit, and £10,000 for an Interim payment I received for treatment, can they do this please advise...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...