Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Will the job-centre pay my rent if i go in to private renting DSS?


21muk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4770 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

Im looking at properties because i want my own place really badly, so im seeking accommodation from a landlord, i know most want a bond up front, so if i get the bond money myself, and say move in to a house, would the jobcentre take care of the rest for me I.E pay my rent each month? also if they will, how/who do i speak to about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

The JobCentre do not pay your rent for you. That is the responsibility of your Local Council BUT don't just go for the first place you see.

 

LHA rates are capped to what the Goverment think you should be paying

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DG_196239

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh thanx for that im starting to understand it a bit better now so 1.the councell tax place sorts all that kinda stuff out..jot the jobcentre..2.i clicked the link you give me and done that calculator test, im a single guy, so im only entitled to 1 bedroom house/flat, also it shows they will pay me 80 pound per week so its like 320 pound a month, so i hope i can find one in that price range

Link to post
Share on other sites

im confused again wait, so if i tell you my details can you possibly give me some insight at what im dealing with? i am 22 years old male, i am currently on jobseekers allowence, im looking to rent a flat/house from a land lord, am i entitled to one and how much, and also what do i need to move to the next step?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As a 22 year old male, you're only entitled to the shared room rate and not the one bedroom rate. Because you're on Job Seekers Allowance, you're entitled to the maximum for your area. So, if the council says "we pay a maximum of £80 a week", you'll get £80 a week if that's also how much your rent is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit was replaced by Local Housing Allowance some time ago. This month they have lowered all of the rates.

 

As an under 25 - now an under 35 - you are only entitled to the shared room rate for your area. Your area will be shown on the lists above.

 

If in England:

 

http://www.voa.gov.uk/lhadirect/LHA_percentile_rates.htm

 

The rules state that this is the money available to cover your allowance - i.e. you are entitled to a shared room so you will only get the money for a shared room. You can move into a palace if you can fund it, but you will only get the maximum for your allowance from the government.

 

It doesn't mean you have to move into a bedsit. It means you will only get the funding for a bedsit.

 

The funding for your entitlement (shadow 30% March '11 figures) ranges from £43 per week in Sunderland to £137.50 per week in London.

 

The trick is to find an understanding landlord and a good property. And there is no help available to you there. I would suggest you start with the property.

 

For private housing these are good places to start:

 

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/

 

http://www.findaproperty.com/

 

For council housing you should register with your local council. There is usually a long waiting list.

 

The '30th percentile' means you should be able to afford 3 out of 10 bedsits in your area. But as above, if you can find a 12 bed mansion going for that price, you could rent that instead.

 

If this is not enough, you could always try a court case citing age discrimination. Under the Human Rights Act it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of age. I cannot say how this applies to this situation, if at all.

 

It is interestng that a lot of people will now be unable to afford their rent, as they will have entered agreements based upon the old ratings system.

 

Many people aged say 26 -34 may now have a shortfall in their rent, and many of these could end up homeless as a consequence.

 

Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a bit tight of them really to put an age on it, but yes, as I said in your last thread, you'll only be able to rent a room in a shared house if you're under 25. If you rent a one bed flat, I wonder if they will still pay the 80 pounds & you have to find the rest, can anyone answer that? I have been wondering that for a while.

 

Oh just seen Honeybees post, wonder why that didn't show up before I posted in here, ooooerr spooky!

Yeh I think it's wrong to discriminate on age, but there we go...

Edited by jadeybags
Link to post
Share on other sites

the maximum housing benefit you would get would depend upon the area you live in

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example:

 

Me and my partner live in a 2 bedroom house with no children. Our rent is £400 per month and our LHA is £91.15 per week based on our entitlement for one bedroom. This means we have to find £35.40 a month to cover the shortfall.

Be good to yourself, when nobody else will

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

21muk

 

assuming you are still living in middlesbrough, the maximum you can claim in housing benefit is £50.00 per week

 

so if your rent is more than that, you would need to make up the difference from your jobseekers allowance

 

e.g. if you rent a 1 bedroomed flat at £75.00 per week - the council would pay £50 per week - you would need to pay the other £25 per week

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you could relocate anywhere you wanted to.

 

This could be because you wanted to be near family or because you believe there is a better chance of finding work there.

 

Move to London = more chance of finding work. The bigger the city the better the chance.

 

Start with the property imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...