Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted 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 .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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

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 3689 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...