Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • 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.   House or Flat? 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. 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. 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. Again, points as above. 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) Why serve a delapidations 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. 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. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. 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. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? 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. So this is dealt with then. 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.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
  • 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

Advice please - Income-based JSA/DLA/Carer's Allowance


Ren41
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4952 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

hello, I'm hoping someone on here can give me some advice. It's quite complex.

 

I and my husband have been in receipt of income-based JSA, having not paid enough class 1 contributions (partners in a partnership-based company for the previous 25 years). We are receiving MIP, although not yet had a letter to say how much this is being reduced by under the interest rate changes.

 

I have been awarded DLA at higher rate mobility & middle rate care, due to long term chronic autoimmune diseases. Following advice from the JC+, some months ago I filled in a JSA 6 and have been handing in medical certificates to the JC+ office, and I am classified as exempt from attending to 'sign on'.

 

I was advised by JC+ that this was the best course of action - apparently I could otherwise have moved us both onto income-based ESA, or split the joint JSA claim, or applied for contributions-only ESA and continued with the joint JSA claim. Everyone I spoke with at the DWP had a different opinion on what we could or couldn't do; the JSA 6 option seemed like the least disruptive.

 

My husband has received a letter today confirming that he will be awarded Carer's Allowance. We already receive a carer's premium in the JSA payment, & we understand that the JSA will be reduced by the amount of the Carer's Allowance. I do however have questions as to what happens next with my husband's JSA claim.

 

I understand that he may be able to make changes to his JSA agreement, given that he will be in receipt of Carer's Allowance. Are there likely to be any other changes, or other options? Should we, or will we have to, move to Income Support, and what implications are there likely to be if this happens?

 

Many thanks for any help anyone can offer.

 

Ren

Link to post
Share on other sites

He can make a claim for IS for himself and you as his partner, you should end up with the same amount of benefit, and the help you receive with your mortgage would stay the same.

He would not need to sign on but this would mean that his with stamp would not be credited.

Make an appointment with welfare rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there. Mikey may not be around again until this evening. You would normally contact Welfare Rights [if they're in your area] through the local council helpline or website, or maybe the CAB. They're good guys, judging by people's experiences on this forum.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, Honeybee. It seems to me from Mikey's answer that the only difference in changing between JSA and IS is likely to be the NIS stamp. Could he pay it himself? I don't know how much it is - as per my original post, we have been paying class II & IV for many years.

 

Ren

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mikey

 

yes, I thought I had read that somewhere.

 

Have tried to call the CAB to get an appointment, as it looks as though the welfare rights specialists work through them, but annoyingly they have a message this afternoon saying - not surprisingly - that they are experiencing a high volume of calls. It's a local number so costs money just to get the message, I preferred it this morning when I was getting the engaged tone. I shall have to try & go in on Monday.

 

We had hoped that we could regenerate our business long before this, but have been hampered not just by the recession but my inability to work most of the time, my husband's having had 3 operations in the last 3 years, and the DWP's less than helpful attitude at times. It's quite clear that no-one wants to employ people of our age and level of experience, let alone my state of health, and I was actually told once that if I was questioned at an interview and mentioned my illnesses or that I couldn't work a full day, our JSA would be stopped. We were also told that if we spent any time trying to get business going, our JSA would be stopped. I don't want to be on any of these benefits, but we clearly have to be to survive and IS looks like a better alternative than JSA, as far as I can see.

 

Ren

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ren,

I cant tell you what to do in respect of your benefit claim, but I process I.S and given your circumstances with your ill health and your husband caring for you then I would say you would be better on IS because your husband then could concentrate on the most important job at the moment caring for you.

Benefit wise you would receive the same amount as your on now, if indeed your are on JSA IB based.

Its easy to switch benefit, maybe wait untill after your husband receives his benefit then the same day phone the contact centre and make the claim to IS, its should be an easy switch over.

You will have to make a claim for your mortgage again on the new IS claim and maybe fill out a new mortgage MI12, the form you give to your building society, but dont worry there will be no gap in your mortgage payments.

Good luck in your decision and if you want further help we are all here :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's lovely Mikey, thanks. I think the IS would be better (and yes, it is income based JSA) from what I understand; everything does seem to mess up the system though, and twice our mortgage payment has gone wrong for random reasons - the last when I claimed DLA, and our JSA also stopped, we had to chase it.When I called to enquire about it they said it always did when someone claimed a different benefit, just in case it was a conflicting benefit. I would have expected their system to be sophisticated enough to check that sort of thing automatically & flag it only if they did clash, but clearly not! We have of course been penalised because they count as 'late payments'.

 

So, call on the day the benefit arrives, not on the day he's signed on?

 

regards

 

Ren

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would phone up the day after signing then it should work out as no break in your claim. The date you phone the contact centre will the date your IS claims goes from this is called your IDOC date. When you have completed your form over the phone then inform JSA you are making a claim to I.S. Has your partner definately been awarded Carers Allowance because if he has then your claim to IS will have no problems.

The mortgage side may have a bit of a hiccup whilst you transfer benefits but there shouldnt be a gap, I would inform your building society of the change over of benefits and at least they should then be patient whilst its sorted out. They will get their payment

 

The problem with the DLA and JSA is the system. DLA put a download onto the JSA computer system informing them that there has been a new or change of rate of DLA, this stops the payment going out usually not noticed untill you inform the department you have had no money. Its not intentional these downloads are usually cleared but sometimes they are missed ;

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mikey

 

yes, letter says he is entitled to CA, full award notification with detailed info will follow & will be sent on or around 25/10 - as they need to check it against JSA payments first, presumably.

 

So should we wait until then, do you think? Sorry if questions are inane!

 

many thanks

 

Ren

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi Ren,

Carers have to send a recovary for benefit to JSA before they can start paying the benefit,

So in light of this then I would say yes. Phone and make your claim the day after your husband is due to sign on after the 25th October..

In other words after the 25th has passed and after his signing on make the claim to IS

This will make your claim to IS a lot easier. You should get your first Carers Allowance on the 25th October making it live in payment whe your IS claim is made. A lot easier to process for IS as the Carers Allowance recovary has been done already.

Its hard to explain to you the recovary bit ;)

But the hard part would have been done by JSA :)

Your payday for IS will depend on the last two didgits of your husband NINO, 01- 20 Mon, 21-40 Tuesday 41-60 Wed 61_80 Thur Fri 81_99 and its paid two weeks in arrears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mikey

 

Yes, I understand that the Carer's Allowance element is removed from JSA, so although my OH has claimed for CA back to June which is when my DLA dates from, he won't get anything backdated for that period as it's already been paid to us via JSA.

 

Let's hope it's as easy as it appears! I can see it should be as it's all DWP, albeit different departments, but I remain sceptical - I'll keep you posted!

 

Again, thank you for your help.

 

Ren

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry Mikey just another question

 

he's reminded me that he's been asked in for a 'New Deal' interview on the 26th, his signing on day - should he r call to cancel it, or will that be counterproductive and confuse things? Should he just attend it?

 

thank again

 

Ren

Link to post
Share on other sites

he needs to sign on to get the full two weeks JSA before he makes his claim to IS. He could go to the New deal meeting and then tell them he is claiming IS from the next day, or he could ring and explain.

 

You will get arrears from the carers recovary even though its been off set by JSA. If the period CA has been backdated is from June and hes getting the CA awarded from October it works out at about £30 per week, so count the weeks from the award in June to October and times that by thirty pounds and that will give you a rough amount due

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...