Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Tax Credits & Maternity Pay


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5356 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 have recently given birth-31/3/2009 and wondered how my tax credits application will be processed?

 

I know normally it is based on earnings from the year before but I am only entitled to tax credits from 31/3/2009 as its my first child and if they base my payment on last years earnings then last years earnings are significantly lower than my statutory maternity pay.

 

On calling the tax credits they advised they would need to calculate my entitled on las years earnings then I would need to ring them up and say I was on maternity pay for them to make an amended calculation? Seems a bit pointless really?

 

Also does anyone know roughly, how long tax credits and child benefit claims take to process?

 

Many Thanks :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice to you would be to firstly make a claim for Child Benefit, as Tax Credits will try to match up your childs details with the Child Benefits systems, if there is no record of your child then your claim will probably be delayed.

 

They will calculate your claim on previous years earnings and what you've been told is right, you will then need to call back and give an estimate for the current tax year. What you need to take into account is the maternity pay though, for every week you are on maternity leave you deduct the first £100 of the pay (e.g if you went on maternity leave 10 weeks before th end of the tax year and were getting £117 per week, you would do £117 x 10 weeks = £1170 then take off £1000). A bit complicated i know but calculating the closest estimate possible is the best thing to do, it reduces the risk of an over payment.

 

Lastly, tax credits say it can take 3 weeks for a claim to be processed, this is only if there is no problems with any of the details, so technically there is no timescale. If you attach a covering letter to your claim form asking for your claim to be back dated to the date your baby was born then they will do this.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started my mat leave on March 17th which means I can deduct three weeks in the last tax year then?

 

Also for this tax year, I will only be receiving smp nothing more.SMP is now £123.06 x 6 weeks is £4430.16, from that deduct 36 weeks x £100 which is £3600. That leaves my income of £830.16? Is that right?

 

Many Thanks for all your help :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if you started maternity on 17/03/09 you would deduct 2 weeks from this tax year, so £200.

 

So then in new Tax Year you would do £123.06 x 37 weeks = £4553.22. £100 x 37 weeks = £3700.

£4553.22 - £3700 = £853.22 should be total income.

 

15/12/09 is when your 39 weeks maternity would be up, if you return to work on this date then you will also need to add to the £853.22 what you think you will earn in employment up to 05/04/2010. If you don't return to work on this date or before you will need to inform Tax Credits as they would then no longer class you as employed.

 

Hope this helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
No, if you started maternity on 17/03/09 you would deduct 2 weeks from this tax year, so £200.

 

So then in new Tax Year you would do £123.06 x 37 weeks = £4553.22. £100 x 37 weeks = £3700.

£4553.22 - £3700 = £853.22 should be total income.

 

15/12/09 is when your 39 weeks maternity would be up, if you return to work on this date then you will also need to add to the £853.22 what you think you will earn in employment up to 05/04/2010. If you don't return to work on this date or before you will need to inform Tax Credits as they would then no longer class you as employed.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Thank you so much for taking the time to work that out for me.

 

Cheers :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Sorry to barge in. I have phoned tax credits a number of times now and i'm getting different answers from them, so really confused :-(. Hope you can help.

 

I understand what you are saying above but tax credits are saying a little different to this for me..

 

They are working it out as still basing it on my full salary, not the amount it will drop while being on maternity. example.

 

Due to go on SMP April 2010 for 25 weeks.

Normal basic salary 23000

23000 - 2500 = 20500

 

So I will be getting tax credits for that year worked out on a annual salary of 20500.

 

Now I thought it would work out like this as this will be the salary I will get from April 2010

25 weeks of SMP = £576.50 (this is based on SMP figure for 2009, £123.06).

27 weeks of normal pay = £442.30 per week x 27 = 11942

 

so total salary for 2010 minus the £100 each week ignored for SMP is = £12518.50

 

If anyone can clear this up for me I would be so grateful,

 

thank you

andrea

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it will definatley go on the estimated amount you will earn for the period you are on mat leave.

 

You will have to give the year previous figures from your p60 but it'll go on the estimated amount because its significantly lower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...