Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've looked through all our old NPE threads, and as far as we know they have never had the bottle to do court. There are no guarantees of course, but when it comes to put or shut up they definitely tend towards shut up. How about something like -   Dear Jonathan and Julie, Re: PCN no.XXXXX cheers for your Letter Before Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea that you actually expected me to take this tripe seriously and cough up. I'll write to you not some uninterested third party, thanks all the same, because you have are the ones trying to threaten me about this non-existent "debt". Go and look up Jopson v Homeguard Services Ltd, saddos.  Oh, while you're at it, go and look up your Subject Access Request obligations - we all know how you ballsed that up way back in January to March. Dear, dear, dear - you couldn't resist adding your £70 Unicorn Food Tax, you greedy gets.  Judges don't like these made-up charges, do they? You can either drop this foolishness now or get a hell of a hammering in court.  Both are fine with me.  Summer is coming up and I would love a holiday at your expense after claiming an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g). I look forward to your deafening silence.   That should show them you're not afraid of them and draw their attention to their having legal problems of their own with the SAR.  If they have any sense they'll crawl back under their stone and leave you in peace.  Over the next couple of days invest in a 2nd class stamp (all they are worth) and get a free Certificate of Posting from the post office.
    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
    • In anticipation of lodging my court claim next Weds 1 May (14 days after advising P2G that was my deadline for them to settle my claim) I have completed my first draft POC as below: Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant has failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing a 8 secondhand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80 I look forward to your thoughts and comments guys! As ever, many thanks - G59    
  • 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

Mortgage payments on JSA-qualifying periods


Flippy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4247 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

Hello everyone I am hoping someone will be able to answer my question regarding my mortgage payments while I am on JSA.

 

Here is my dilemma. I was made redundant last year after 22 years as a civil servant. I received JSA contribution based for the maximum six months and have since been receiving JSA income based. I recently started to receive payments of my mortgage interest from the DWP. I have been offer a job - albeit a part time temporary job which will finish in January. My dilemma is will I have to wait nine months again before I can receive my mortgage interest payments again or is there a linking period between my two claims as I will have only been employed for around 4 months. I am reluctant to take a part time job if it means losing my interest payments and will have to wait nine months again when I reclaim in the new year. I am desperate to work and would love a full time job but this is the only job I have been offered.

 

I really don't know what to do and the DWP have been really unhelpful. They won't give me information without having my name and national insurance number and I don't want to give it if I decide not to take the temporary part time job and they say I've not been actively seeking employment.

Please help me.

 

Thanks Flippy

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mortgage section is a specialist area so the number you call which is a contact centre are unable to give advice as the majority have no benefit knowledge.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/vol04.pdf

 

I found this section through browsing a link posted on a similar thread :o

Qualifying period for housing costs already served

23716 Most eligible housing costs have a QP (see DMG 23650 et seq). Such a QP may have to be served again following a break in entitlement to JSA(IB), ESA(IR) or IS. But there is a linking rule for cases where the QP has already been served when entitlement to JSA(IB), ESA(IR) or IS ends.

23717 The linking rule applies if1, immediately before entitlement ended, housing costs

  1. were payable on the previous claim (in full or in part)

  1. or
  2. would have been payable (in full or in part) but for a non-dependant deduction (see DMG 23756 et seq).

23718 In such a case, treat the claimant as continuously in receipt of JSA(IB), ESA(IR) or IS for any period of 52 weeks or less1 during which they were not entitled because

1.

the claimant or partner

1.1

had started employment as an employed or S/E earner or

 

1 IS (Gen) Regs, Sch 3, para 14(13); IS (Gen) (JSA Consequential Amdts) Regs 96, reg 32; JSA Regs, Sch 2, para 13(15) & (18)(1)©; ESA Regs, Sch 6, para 15(18)

Vol 4 Amendment 34 July 2011

1.2

had increased their hours in such employment or

1.3

was taking active steps to become employed or S/E under a prescribed government scheme2 and

2.

the claimant or partner

2.1

was in remunerative work or

2.2

had income that exceeds the applicable amount. For IS this includes includes cases where the income was equal to the applicable amount.

1 IS (Gen) Regs, Sch 3, para 14(12); IS (Gen) (JSA Consequential Amdts) Regs 96, reg 32; JSA Regs, Sch 2, para 13(14) & 18(1)©; 2 reg 19(1)®(i) to (iii); ESA Regs, Sch 6, para 15(17)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...