Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please please help we were miss sold full fibre by EE July 22  Install couldn’t go ahead no equipment sent and no. Survey it was hell  foind out no full fibre in road so we had to go back to cooper no choice we involved. Ceo and they put in a man from customer resolution s  he was vile he told me I had to go to engineers  something very odd about the ex resolution s in bt basically they took my drive up said they Would put ducting in ready for full fibre we have got £ 40 for a hours upon hours phones stress and more told to go to ombudsman  then bill was £35 we called twice told it was that price as they had treated us appalling two weeks later all sky package gets pulled we call again our bill goes to 165 the next two weeks was hell trying to get yo bottom why it’s off our package it was all on in the end I spent a day on the phone  341 mins was the call anyway I got to the bottom it was this resolution man coveting up the other issue another deadlock  to cover it all up  they hide data  ee did so couldn’t get the miss sell in writing I have now only from sept  Basically now we tried getting full fibre and they have found my drive had to be taken up again which has sunk .  The engineer has placed the wrong ducting again under my drive and need s to be taken to again apparently and the pipe sticks up middle of the drive near gate not behind look so odd it’s a big as a drain pipe open to water and it’s below touching the electrical cables to hot tub . I was sent a letter from the ex resolution to say I had stopped the work  I haven’t  it’s so sadistic she covering up for her mate in that team as the orginal install he didn’t check it had been done correctly  I took to Twitter and posted on open reach they ignored me then after 3 calls of two weeks they sent a engineer bt ignored me ceo emails blocked tag on Twitter unanswered then we get someone from twitter send a engineer he written report to say it’s dangerous since we have  had a  letter to say our problem can not be resolved  then a email to say sorry we are leaving and we can’t get into our account Bt will not talk to us ofcom tells us nothing they can do Citzens advice said go to the police  we can’t go back to virgin due so mass issue with them only option is sky  but point is they make out we have canceled we haven’t we have this mess on our drive dangeous work we are in hell  it’s like she covering up for this collegue it’s all very odd I am disabled and they like played mentaly with me open reach say bt resolved the issue no they have not  I recon they have terminated us making our we have  to hide it from mgt  Help it’s hell I don’t sleep we have 29 may we have tried  calling they just ignore me  at first they are so lovely as they say I am then they go to nnamager and say we can’t say anything to you end call  Scared police are rubbish I need help even typing is so painfull  Thankyou  anyone hello be so grateful     
    • There's a thread somewhere about someone sending the baillifs against Wizzair that is quite hilarious. I would love to see someone do the same to Ryanair. Question is, should you be the one to take that role. You are entitled to the £220, if your flight was from the UK. If it was TO the UK I suppose it is more of a grey area... though the airlines I know have been using £220 as standard. Not that surprising for Ryanair, the worst cheapskates in the universe, to go for the lower amount, and if you forward this to the CEO he will probably have a jolly good laugh and give his accountants a verbal bonus. After all he's the one who said and I paraphrase "F*** our customers, they'll fly with us again anyway". While we would all love to see Ryanair get wooped in court again, I have to join my fellow posters in thinking it's not worth the hassle for (hypothetically) £7 and not sure it will expedite the payment either. It's already an achievement that you got them to accept to pay.
    • The US competition watchdog has taken legal action to stop Tapestry's $8.5bn takeover of rival Capri.View the full article
    • thank you you mean you got a notice of discontinuance? dx  
    • Thanks for your interest dx100. Didn’t reach a hearing. Although they filed court papers, they withdrew a few days beforehand, and admitted it was statute barred and I have it in writing that they say the matter is now closed. Once again, many thanks for all your help.
  • 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 3687 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...