Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Post #9 suggested some options to avoid or put off having a smart meter. Post #12 a simple solution to your complaint about the ay they handle fixed monthly DD. It's not really clear why you posted if you're going get irate when members "jump in" with suggestions. You can see what I'm referring to on "gasracker.uk" to allay your suspicion that I was lying in Post #16 which was made to correct ther misinformation shown in your Post #15
    • Back to octopus from the smart meter/tariff salesperson. Octopus have now said just ignore the letter - I dont have to have one despite there letter implying (at least) it was required, but that i will HAVE to have a smart meter if current meters stop working as 'their suppliers dont supply non smart meters any more'. They also say they do not/will not disable any smart functionality when they fit a smart meter I am of course going to challenge that. Thats their choice of meter fitter/supplier problem not mine
    • Point taken that we should inform new Caggers that the £20 option is there in wrong registration cases.  Well, supposedly there, who knows what the PPCs would do in practice.  Anyway, the option is allegedly there with both the BPA as you say, but also the IPC (I've just checked). However, there's a danger here of baby, bathwater. The two easiest types of cases to win are (a) residential - due to Supremacy of Contract and (b) wrong registration - due to "de minimis".  Indeed until recently we has been boasting 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. We simply can do nothing about a terrible judge.  The judge seems - I say seems because we haven't had all the details - to have ignored "de minimis",. got fixated on a sign and awarded unreasonable behaviour costs.  A totally bizarre judgement.
    • You mean your witness statement 
    • That may be your personal claimed experience I said i didn't want smart meters - you jumped in to recommend smart meters I quite clearly indicated I was happy with being in credit to maintain constant payments - you suggest paying what I owe every month I quite clearly indicated I was happy with being in credit to maintain constant payments - you suggest a variable tariff - even if its one that only varies on a daily basis rather than half/hourly - with prices higher in winter when you need it and lowest in summer when you need it least   politeness ends with: - I'm NOT interested in any smart tariff I see, You are pushing your smart meter + variable tariffs in the wrong place - try pushing them somewhere 'nearer to home'  
  • 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...