Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

ESA and tax credits advice needed


nks22
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5279 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

Up until last July I was self-employed but not earning much so I received working tax credit. In July I stopped work and registered for ESA. I've since had various assessments and have been placed in the work-related category.

 

My tax credits included a disability element and I was (initially) pleased to discover the payments would continue for the first 28 weeks of sickness. It's currently worth £100.97/week.

 

My new income-based ESA entitlement is £89.80/week but because of the WTC I receive nothing. However I do receive £89.90/week as contribution-based ESA.

 

I have put in a claim for mortgage interest - worth £560/month. I just rang up about that and was told I wouldn't be eligible as I received contribution-based rather than income-based ESA (not confirmed - someone is supposed to ring back about that).

 

Also, because of the WTCs I don't qualify for Council Tax Benefit (which would be worth about £20/week).

 

On this basis it looks like my Working Tax Credits are costing me far more than they're worth. Can this be right? If so, can I unilaterally cancel my tax credit claim and so restore my eligibility for the mortgage and council tax relief?

 

(And without WTC would I receive both income-based and contribution-based ESA or would the former simply replace the latter?)

 

I find the whole thing really confusing (including their explanatory letters) so would be very grateful for any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have put in a claim for mortgage interest - worth £560/month. I just rang up about that and was told I wouldn't be eligible as I received contribution-based rather than income-based ESA (not confirmed - someone is supposed to ring back about that).

 

This isn't true as you can get both income and contribution based.

 

When your mortgage costs are added after 13 weeks, this will bring you into entitlement to the income based top-up.

 

And your tax credits should end 4 weeks after stopping work, not 28.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't true as you can get both income and contribution based.
So what would I be receiving if I didn't get WTCs? Not both at the same time, surely - i.e. 2 x £89.90?

 

When your mortgage costs are added after 13 weeks, this will bring you into entitlement to the income based top-up.
That seems logical. Even so I still seem to be worse off from receiving WTC with Council Tax.

 

And your tax credits should end 4 weeks after stopping work, not 28.
It's 28 weeks if you stop work because of sickness. (See HM Revenue & Customs: Tax credits when you can't work due to illness )

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contribution based ESA payment rates

During the initial 13 week assessment phase people over the age of 25 will be paid £64.30 per week, people under the age of 25 will receive £50.95 per week.

 

 

Once the assessment phase has been completed you will receive a basic allowance of £64.30 per week plus either a support component of £30.85 per week for those who are placed in the support group or a work related activity component of £25.50 per week for those placed in the work related activity group.

If you are on a low income, you may be able claim income-related ESA as well to increase your allowances. If you meet both the criteria for contribution based and income related Employment and Support Allowance then you will receive whichever is the greater between the ESA (Cont) personal rate and your ESA IR applicable amount

 

Basically this states that you are receiving the correct money at present

£64.30 and the Disabilty Premium of £25.50

You are getting it as contribution based ESA as you have paid enough stamps, but if you hadnt paid enough it could be topped up to this amount by Income Based ESA

But it would never go over your applicable amount, the amount the law says you to live on of £89.90.

You could in theory get both but never more then the above amount

 

If your contributions run out then you would go over to IB ESA and still get £89.90

 

With regards to your tax credits if you are self employed and go on the sick eg ESA then you can claim them for 28 weeks, At the moment they are doing you no harm you are ok becauce you are claiming CB ESA but if you were to go on IB ESA eg your stamp ran out, then they would be classed as an Income and would close your claim so it would be best to cancel them then. But check to see if this is ok because as WTC would be classed as a possible income and you would be claiming a

an Income Based benefit.

 

WTC is stopping you getting CTB but thats no problem as its a lesser amount, Only time to cancel them maybe is when your ESA changes over but they may have run out by then.

 

You will be entitled to help with your mortgage after thirteen weeks

Edited by MIKEY DABODEE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, that all makes sense. I've just passed the 13-weeks so should now be eligible for the mortgage relief (and my lender has completed and returned the form to the DSS). I believe they can be a bit slow to process claims, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what would I be receiving if I didn't get WTCs? Not both at the same time, surely - i.e. 2 x £89.90?

 

No because the cb-ESA counts as income, so the ib-ESA just tops up the difference.

 

If your housing costs are £560 a month then you will still get a small ib-ESA top up, from £190 income to £219 a week (£89.8 + £129 housing costs). Once you get any ib-ESA you are guaranteed full council tax benefit.

 

(And thanks for the tax credits info, I'll store that in the knowledge bank.)

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If your contributions run out then you would go over to IB ESA and still get £89.90

 

 

Just one comment about your advice, which is good (as always). Unlike JSA, with ESA your contributions don't "run out" after 6 months. If you qualify for cont-based ESA, you will continue to be paid that until you are no longer entitled to the benefit.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks Antone, must be like IB

ESA sure is one complicted benefit

 

Yeah, ESA is a sort of hybrid of JSA and IB. We get some of the rules from both, plus some new ones unique to ESA. It can be confusing.

 

Edit to add: The general idea is that if one qualifies for ESA© that will last until the end of the claim. I think that's fair enough: if someone is accepted as being unfit to work, it's not reasonable to expect them to pay NI conts, and credits can't be used to satisfy the FCC.

Edited by antone

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well I've just rung up again about my benefit, not having received the promised call-back about my mortgage interest payment. The person I spoke to read out from my records something like "not eligible as excess income due to tax credits". She said she'd again request a call-back so someone can discuss it with me but it leaves me wondering about my tax credits.

 

My initial 13 weeks was up on 18 October since when I expected to be receiving £130/week for mortgage interest. Instead I've been getting £101/week tax credits (which also costs me £18/week in council tax benefit). So it seems that my WTC is losing me £48/week, which surely can't be right, can it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had an exciting update on my benefit. The DSS (or whatever they're now called) are paying my mortgage interest from 21 October. I'll receive £163.28/week (based on their flat rate interest allowance of, I believe, 6.1%) plus my £89.80/week ESA. However from that they'll deduct my WTC income of £95.06/week - leaving a net £158.02/week - give me 10p and send the rest direct to the mortgage company. And I'll now qualify for Council Tax benefit.

 

(I'm not really complaining as I'm a beneficiary of the policy but it does seem a bit odd for the government to pay mortgage interest at a flat rate rather than at the rate an individual is actually paying. My own rate is currently 4.84% and there must be others with much lower rates while a few may be out of pocket and so falling into arrears.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...