Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, Hotpoint UK has been a subsidiary of Whirlpool for over 20 years. And unlike some domestic goods manufacturers you can buy from them direct and I believe they employ their own service engineers, Is that your situation? You bought direct from Hotpoint and Hotpoint sent out their own engineer?
    • 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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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
  • 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

dwp and jsa want bank statements and want to know how i got my savings


irishbhoy67
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3662 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

I had no clue that when i claimed jsa that my claim would be affected if i had between 6k and 16k in savings so didnt think to tell them what i had. Recently the customer compliance unit got in touch and demanded up to date totals in my account and jsa subsequently docked my benefit by £13 per week. Now they want to know how i amassed the 9k in my bank. before i claimed jsa i did not work but did gamble in poker clubs etc with good wins and i banked the money. Its legally and rightfully mine and i no longer gamble which is the reason im on jsa to try and gain long term employment but will anything come of my decision to tell them that i got it from gambling before i even claimed any money from them? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

 

Joe

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look up capital threshold. Any savings should have been declared on your claim, they have obviously found out about it and want to know where it came from.

 

As you have won it ambling prior to your claim tell them this and give them proof and/or just provide the bank statements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can sort of understand the not knowing to disclose capital in excess of £6000 but where are the DWP coming from in wanting to know where it came from during a period prior to claiming a means tested benefit? It may well have come about through illegal activities as well as legal ones. What would happen if you said that it was your share of the proceeds of drug dealing for example?

 

Personally I think that it has nothing to do where it came from - just that it is there and should have been disclosed from the start.

 

Am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can sort of understand the not knowing to disclose capital in excess of £6000 but where are the DWP coming from in wanting to know where it came from during a period prior to claiming a means tested benefit? It may well have come about through illegal activities as well as legal ones. What would happen if you said that it was your share of the proceeds of drug dealing for example?

 

Personally I think that it has nothing to do where it came from - just that it is there and should have been disclosed from the start.

 

Am I missing something?

 

Your 100% correct! they found out about it last year and deducted money but now they have come back with a letter saying they want statements from when i first made my claim which was 2yrs previous to them finding out. I think they should have asked me then what i had in the accounts from the start and i cant prove that i won it gambling, i used to visit poker schools, pubs, private sessions etc and had the money saved at home and then decided to bank it just before i quit gambling for good as gambling whilst on jsa is illegal as no one is gonna give you money to look for work when they know your gonna gamble it. Its my money fair and square but i dont see their angle here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have asked about your accounts and what was held in them, its a standard question on the customer statement.

 

They want to know where it has come from as for all they know you may have been working whilst claiming and until you explain how.where it has come from they may sanction your benefit..

 

Unfortunately when you ask for assistance from the state, this is what you have to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

they are probably looking to see if you've deprived yourself of capital - so to see how high your capital went in the couple of years prior to your claim. And they want to know where it came from for the same reason.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll give totals for the accounts in the month before i claimed just so as they know i havent deprived myself of the capital but im not giving details of transactions going in and out cos as far as im concerned they only need to know the totals. Catch 22 situation, if i spend the capital its deprivation of capital and if i dont spend it they'll wonder how i can afford to live on benefit and not spend savings

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have asked about your accounts and what was held in them, its a standard question on the customer statement.

 

They want to know where it has come from as for all they know you may have been working whilst claiming and until you explain how.where it has come from they may sanction your benefit..

 

Unfortunately when you ask for assistance from the state, this is what you have to do.

 

Of course it is a standard question when you make the claim - but is it standard to ask where the money came from in the years leading up to making that claim? I don't think so.

 

I have always had about £10k in my bank accounts for years, but in 2009 I inherited £38,000. I spent £20k on a car, £10k on my home and £8k on a once in a lifetime cruise.

I didn't claim any benefits - but if 12 months later I had done, I don't see that it has anything to do with the LA or DWP what I spent the windfall on.

 

Are people supposed to watch their spending just on the off chance that years later they may claim a benefit?

 

I do expect the state to verify my capital and wealth when I make a claim, I don't accept that what I do in the preceding years has anything to do with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had no clue that when i claimed jsa that my claim would be affected if i had between 6k and 16k in savings so didnt think to tell them what i had.

Joe

When filling the online form you must have been asked thw amount and nature of your savings. Sorry, but in this case the DWP has all the right to investigate and if necessary sanction.

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Poundland"

Link to post
Share on other sites

When filling the online form you must have been asked thw amount and nature of your savings. Sorry, but in this case the DWP has all the right to investigate and if necessary sanction.

 

I agree, you are asking for money from the state but you don't expect them to ask you anything about savings etc, if you don't want the aggro just live on what you have for now and then applying for JS in meantime perhaps start looking for a job as you don't sound like a vulnerable sick person!

 

I am surprised you didn't have a clue the DWP's form do state clearly about the amount of savings you have could affect your claim!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, you are asking for money from the state but you don't expect them to ask you anything about savings etc, if you don't want the aggro just live on what you have for now and then applying for JS in meantime perhaps start looking for a job as you don't sound like a vulnerable sick person!

 

I am surprised you didn't have a clue the DWP's form do state clearly about the amount of savings you have could affect your claim!

 

I told them i had over 3k but was told by somene that i didnt have to declare the isa as it was tax free and thats what i did, i really had no clue otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites

I told them i had over 3k but was told by somene that i didnt have to declare the isa as it was tax free and thats what i did, i really had no clue otherwise

 

I believe you can have up to 16k savings in your bank before it affect your claim, I am afraid nowadays DWP ask for bank statement and the housing benefit too, I was asked by both to supply a bank statement, I don't normally have two pennies to rub together after I spent my benefit money so it was easy for me to just give them the bank statement without worrying!

 

DWP digs into people lives and I pray it doesn't get worse, god only know what they might do next, we just have to go with the flow and hope for the best. I am on benefit for ill health myself! The more you have the more they dig, the less you have they'll leave you alone! I wish you luck and don't worry , you'll get good advices from here!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you can have up to 16k savings in your bank before it affect your claim, {SNIP} you'll get good advices from here!

 

Rather than get advice from 'someone' - like the ISA comment, and inaccurate advice like that above, you are best to ask for advice from DWP or your LA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of inheritance were you working or not?

 

Semi retired actually. I used to earn £150 a week part time (8 hours). I presume that what you are driving at is that the DWP & LA should be able to examine what happened to the capital that the OP had in the month or so leading up to the making of the claim, but why do they want to know where it came from? It has nothing to do with them.

 

Besides which what someone spent their capital on shortly before making a claim can only cause a problem if the claimant spent that money with the intention of getting the level down.

 

In my example, and if I claimed say JSA (IB) on my return from the holiday, as long as I stated that I spent the windfall not even thinking that I may have to claim a benefit in the future, I cannot be held to have deprived myself.

 

In the OP's case they want to know where the capital came from and presumably question him on how he managed to live on no known income. It has nothing to do with them. He could well have been a prolific shoplifter for all it matters.

 

On a personal note, I have a bank deposit account with Barclays that is in a semi - alias name - only because I don't want to have to explain where the money came from. It was opened in 1990 and between then and 1995 there were 7 deposits and no withdrawals. Since 1995 the account has been left dormant.

Edited by tokenfield
Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the way deprivation of capital works, is that it is expected that someone not working, who receives a large lump sum, would be expected to make provision for themselves long term, otherwise the accusation of deliberately depriving themselves of capital in order to be able to claim benefits, can be levelled at them. Yes, intent is part of the requirement but is hard to prove intent or indeed lack of intent, but the fact that the OP has not declared capital and gained increased benefits from this, makes intent more believeable by the DWP.

 

They can ask for what they like if it may affect benefit entitlement. Regarding where the capital came from, some capital is disregarded,so it is important to know this. Such a large payout, increasing capital to 48K would be relevant to a benefit claim for a few years following the payout.

 

You must understand that people can't be allowed to spend large lump sums willy nilly, knowing that they have no current way of supporting themselves other than the capital, and then with all their newly purchased items around them, be able to claim state benefits.

 

I would be curious to know if 'I was supporting myself by gambling' is accepted as valid.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the way deprivation of capital works, is that it is expected that someone not working, who receives a large lump sum, would be expected to make provision for themselves long term, otherwise the accusation of deliberately depriving themselves of capital in order to be able to claim benefits, can be levelled at them. Yes, intent is part of the requirement but is hard to prove intent or indeed lack of intent, but the fact that the OP has not declared capital and gained increased benefits from this, makes intent more believeable by the DWP.

 

They can ask for what they like if it may affect benefit entitlement. Regarding where the capital came from, some capital is disregarded,so it is important to know this. Such a large payout, increasing capital to 48K would be relevant to a benefit claim for a few years following the payout.

 

You must understand that people can't be allowed to spend large lump sums willy nilly, knowing that they have no current way of supporting themselves other than the capital, and then with all their newly purchased items around them, be able to claim state benefits.

 

I would be curious to know if 'I was supporting myself by gambling' is accepted as valid.

well its the truth, couldve hid the money and signed on but i didnt and im not gonna say i got the money from somewhere else bcos i didnt. All i can be now is truthful and if they dont believe that or make it really difficult for me then i'll sign off and live off what i have, keep all the statements to show what ive spent it on i.e. living expenses and then sign on again if need be

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...