Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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 5272 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...