Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

Work programme is unreal!


jsdk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4315 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 everyone,

 

any advice on this problem would be greatly appreciated.

My son is currently in receipt of Jobseekers allowance,he lives with his partner and their 2 children.Last week he had a work programme appointment,he received a phone call in the morning from somewhere he had sent an application for a job to asking him to come for an interview,the time of the interview left him ample time to still go to the work programme,however the job interviews ran late and he had no credit on his phone to notify the people at the work programme,he arrived 9 minutes late and was told his jobseekers allowance would be sanctioned for 1 month,he explained the reason why he was late and was told to put it in writing,he did this and gave the name and phone number of the person who had carried out the job interview,he has received a letter saying going for an interview was not a good enough reason for him being late,they have never contacted the employer.This just seems crazy to me,he's on Jobseekers,he has to apply for a certain number of jobs or they sanction his money yet when he goes for an interview they still sanction it,he has applied for hardship money and has been given £80,ironic thing is that at his last work programme meeting they left him waiting for 50 minutes because they had no-one available to see him so it's ok for them to see him late but not the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should contact your MP with details and also your local paper. Nonsense like this is not what people pay their taxes for. The DWP have no business whatsoever behaving like this and they'll only stop when there's enough public anger about it.Tell everyone you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ronic thing is that at his last work programme meeting they left him waiting for 50 minutes because they had no-one available to see him so it's ok for them to see him late but not the other way round.

 

It seems this way. I was told they'll call me at a certain time. I waited 2 and a half hours for this phone call. If I was 2 and a half hours later, my benefits would be sanctioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence for what you are saying which you should get in writing from the company where you had the interview. if going for a proved job interview is not a good reason for missing an appointment to discuss jobseeking then I don't know what is. Ask for a reconsideration of this decision. Failing that an appeal would be your next option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If your son got the job, then the work programme provider would be happy to

get their Brucey bonuses from the job outcome...

 

And are also happy to Sanction your son for attending the interview?...

 

Ludicrous!!!

 

The Work programme provider deserve to have all their “pimp money” sanctioned for all of this, so make

sure your son never lets them have anything from a job outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your son got the job, then the work programme provider would be happy to

get their Brucey bonuses from the job outcome...

 

That's disgusting. Especially if it's a job that you've found yourself, applied for and went to interview with no help at all from the provider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should contact your MP with details and also your local paper. Nonsense like this is not what people pay their taxes for. The DWP have no business whatsoever behaving like this and they'll only stop when there's enough public anger about it.Tell everyone you can.

 

There is so much evidence even just on this forum that the attitude being applied throughout Welfare rules is one of judgement and punishment. Surely this is not going to help those in need to meet those needs themselves in future, more likely to make them ill if they are not and worse if they are?

 

I am wracking my brain for how it could be the case that all these examples can come together and apply poliitical pressure....I am also sure that if anyone with Common Sense stopped to think about things, without the financial pressures to continue to alledgedly feed the fat cats, measures could be applied to achieve more at less actual cost...but maybe I am deluded about that?

 

Common sense has gone out of the window and sanctions do not fit what has happened in cases like this.....what the f--k was he supposed to do? He was damned either way as if he had not attended the interview he would undoubtedly been sanctioned and it is nto his fault he could not ring...what, realistically, did they expect him to do? Clone himself to be two places at once probably..... (oops I said realistically didn't I? lol).

 

I just know that my own mental state is deteriorating the more I learn of how punishments no longer fit the crime (if indeed there is truly a crime in the first place)...and by that I mean, as well as the case in point, the suspension and stoppage of benefits before the full facts are established and also where there is nothing concrete to prove one way or the other. We do not seem to be allowed any "benefit of doubt" either:mad2: if you excuse the pun!

Edited by Slatted
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all part of the benefits denial system we have in place now across the board from JSA to ESA.

 

In Camerons latest bout of verbal diarrhea about cutting housing benefit for the under 25's he slipped in some comments about CV's, not enough people were 'armed' with them, I believe this was a veiled reference to the current loophole being used against the WP pimps i.e. not giving them a copy that they can actually do anything with.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...