Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • 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 3690 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...