Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
  • 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

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 4743 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...