Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
    • The Barclay Card conditions is complete. There was only 3 pages. This had old address on. Full CCA. 15 pages. The only personal info is my name and address. Current Address The rest just like a generic document.  Barclays CCA 260424.pdf
  • 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

Part time work while claiming JSA- will your benefit be suspended if you leave the job?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4436 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

Hi,

can anyone offer any information? If you are claiming JSA and have a part time job (signing fortnightly and declaring hours and wage) , and the job isn't working out, can you leave the job and continue on your JSA or will your claim be stopped because you have deliberately made yourself unemployed- even though you have been officially classed as unemployed all along?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will be asked to complete for es48jp to give your reasons for giving up te job. It might b referred to DMA for a decision if you do leave the job.Part time work is treated the same as full time employment when the employment ends a decision will be required about the payability of your benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jsa12

sounds like your working in receipt of benefits anyway and working under 16 hours,personally i would say nothing when they ask have you done any paid or unpaid work say no and obviously you have no wages to declare either your benefit should return to its normal level.

 

if they push for answers then tell them.working under 16 hours allows jobseekers to be paid anyway and really is your choice you declare it,nothing else to do with them. full time is another matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they push for answers then tell them.working under 16 hours allows jobseekers to be paid anyway and really is your choice you declare it,nothing else to do with them. full time is another matter.

 

Um, hold on there! You have to tell them that you do paid work - no matter how many hours. with the exception of the first £5-£20, JSA is affected.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jsa12

that is correct nystagmite,but as the job has ceased only the point paid up to the end has to be declared,working under 16 hours still allows jobseekers,many people are surprised by this and cannot see how you can work and claim jobseekers.

 

as long as the pay has been mentioned i would keep quite about the reasons for it stopping.its also surprising when they search for jobs 15.5 hours "oh that's no good" but 16.5 hours that's different just enough to get someone out the door regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks JSA12, but I've done everything by the book-declaring hours and wage and will continue to do so. Just wanted to know what would happen if I left and flumps has answered that. Just going to hold on and hope that one of the full times jobs I'm applying for comes up or that I can find enough hours from another job to add to this one.

Thanks everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest jsa12

yes i am not saying not declare the hours and the wage you have to,but there is a tendency not to be interested in work under 16 hours and its longevity and its future.your still signing.

 

what they are very interested in is sanctions and will use every opportunity to apply one by whatever means there's plenty of horror stories.when i did agency work all i did was declare and a deduction was made from my benefit basically it wasn't worth doing.they weren't interested why it ended

 

they forgot to welcome you to the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a tendency not to be interested in work under 16 hours

 

Which isn't helped by employers pretty much stating "must be flexible". How can you be flexible when you want / need another job to take you off JSA and into full time work?

 

I won't work for under 16 hours. Not me being fussy; but me needing to work more than 16 hours and employers expecting you to be available for work 24/7.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

:mad2:Can anyone help ? I have been doing pwrt time hours and being topped up with jsa for 8 months .Riligiously filing in part time form every singing with the form they give me to document it .All of a sundden they want more proof of earnings sent all my documentation in theyhave lost it .They have suspended jsa since 7/2/2012 .I have just printed off 57 pages of jsa booklet says nothing about part time work suspentions .?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a suspension regarding part time work it's a suspension of infomation not being received.

The only thing I can suggest is that you contact the Benefits Processing Centre and request a call back to speak to the actual team to determine if the information has been received andthe systems not yet updated due to current backlog of work.

If it hasn't been received you can request an appointment at the JCP for AJCS (pronounced AJAX) to go into the office to orovide duplicate payskips statemts from employers you or whatever it is they require.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...