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

DRO cancelled due to UC back payment - is my Official Receiver correct - UC is not a disability benefit?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2112 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,

The offical receiver has told me that he intends to cancel my DRO (3 weeks before it was due to finish) as I now have over £1000 in the bank due to a back payment of Universal Credit.

 

I have received this money because the DWP declared me unfit for work and work related activity following a work capacity assessment.

 

I was very surprised he did this as many benefit sites and advisors said that this would not happen because I had received this money due to my medical condition.

(Crohn's Disease)

 

I am in a full Universal Credit area and I have heard that this money would have been disregarded had I been claiming Pip or other sickness benefits with a disability premium.

 

I was wondering what the law is regarding this?

I went to see CAB and they managed to talk to the assistant to the official reciever

but he stonewalled and was arguing that because my benefit did not include the words disability premium they did not have to ignore it.

He also said that he did not want to reverse the decision in case it set a precedent!

 

Cab tried to argue that it was a disability PREMIUM, and sent me on a trip to my local benefit office to ask if I could get a letter stating this.

However they said that Universal Credit does not have a disability premium.

 

I asked a lot of people as to what would happen about this backdated money including Debt Camel, Step Change, Debtline and they were all wrong

 

I would like to know where the law stands since I think I am being given the shaft with the Insolvency Service using a play on words as an excuse to cancel my DRO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

probably a good thing

 

who said all of your debts within your DRO are enforceable...esp if you are paying any DCA's?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I be paying a DCA during the duration of a DRO. Surely you know that during a DBO my debtors are not allowed to contact me?

 

I don't think that the Insolvency Service are up to speed on Universal Credit.

 

Either that or this is some new policy to help out the banks and credit card companies where everybody on Universal Credit who is still recieveing a payment for limited capacity for work and work related activity is being screwed over!

 

A lump sum from benefits back-dating

 

These may sound large but they are often not a problem because this treated as “income” over the period the back-dating relates to not “capital”.

 

The question is would you have exceeded the “spare income of £50” limit if you had been getting the correct amount of benefits all the time.

 

If the benefit is a claim for disability (PIP, DLA, AA) then an extra cost line for the disability would also be included in this re-calculation.

 

In 2018 the government is reviewing a lot of Pip awards

– if you get a backdated sum for this, it shouldn’t make a difference to your DRO as any disability benefits you receive should be offset with an expenses line labelled “adult care costs” or something similar. the net effect on your “disposable income” is then zero.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what I meant is were any of your debts sold to DCA's before you took out the DRO...did you check their enforceability first?

 

I've moved your thread to the benefits forum and slightly retitled it, you'll probably get better results here

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I don't know anything about DROs and so on, but UC (when paid on grounds of limited capability for work) and ESA are not "disability" benefits in the commonly understood sense. They are "income replacement" benefits.

 

Some benefits, such as PIP or DLA are paid to assist with the extra costs of disability. This is why the decision to award them (or not) is based on an assessment of the claimants care or mobility needs. UC and ESA are intended to cover the costs of daily living: food, bills etc - costs that everyone has to deal with. This is presumably what your OR is thinking of.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Antone has hit the nail on the head.

 

UC is a means tested benefit, as is ESA income related benefit. They are to provide income to meet daily living costs and count as income.

 

DLA and PIP are different so they would not be counted in the same way.

 

The OR is correct in their assessment, that the LCWRA backdating is additional income that had not been considered before,

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

no

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks,

thats what I was wondering about.

 

In that case it looks like there is nothing I can do, but I'm going to spend just over a third of my money on white goods, clothes, bedding, food, rent and other things that I need for the house.

 

I wont be buying flat screen TVs or computers but I will keep £700 just in case I need to go bankrupt at a later date and I will use about half of my benefit money to offer my creditors a final settlement of 18p in the pound of what I owe. If they refuse then I will have no option but to go bankrupt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but the extra amount of Universal Credit that I receive was awarded after a work capacity assessment found that I was unfit to work because of my medical condition

.

I think this is just another case of smoke and mirrors from the Tories, just like when they changed the name of sick notes to fit notes.

 

Just because the benefit is not called disability benefit does not mean that it is not being given because of a disability or sickness which it clearly is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Limited Capability for Work and Work Related Activity element is awarded to those not capable of any work activity. It is additional income to help meet the increased cost of living that someone in this position might face. For example they might need to regularly attend Doctors or Hospital appointments. They might have extra costs to help them live their normal daily lifes.

 

In terms of backpay, I think the argument that you would make to the OR is that you have struggled to meet basic living costs over a period of time and what the consequences are. Demonstrate why this money is needed to help with your increased costs because of a disability.

 

I believe you can apply to the court to have this reviewed, but not sure of process.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, you hit the nail on the head, in that everyone I've taken this to, including all the big advice agencies have failed to mention how and if I could take this further.

 

I did over hear a conversation between my CAB advisor and a senior member of the insolvency service, and he said that he did not want to overturn the decision in case it set a precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I am in a full Universal Credit area and I have heard that this money would have been disregarded had I been claiming Pip or other sickness benefits with a disability premium.

 

Not quite, if you were not in a full Universal Credit area, you would be receiving ESA instead.

If during the DRO moratorium you received a backdated award of ESA while also receiving PIP, you might have received a backdated payment of Severe Disability Premiums or Enhanced Disability Premiums if you were eligible for either payment.

 

However, regarding the property limit for a DRO, it is only the amount of the backdated disability premiums which is disregarded and not the full ESA backdated payment. Where the backdated ESA payment minus any disability premiums is over the £1000 DRO property limit, the DRO would be cancelled as it has been in your case.

 

Regarding no disability premiums being awarded under Universal Credit, that is purposeful cut to disability benefits introduced by the Conservative government.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The back dated Universal Credit I recieved was for limited capacity for work and work related activity.

 

The fact that I was still able to recieve this over a year after it had been cancelled by the conservatives was because I first claimed Universal Credit eight months before the conservatives did away with this for sick people claiming Universal Credit.

 

The fact that it took over 21 months from when I first made my claim to me actually recieveing it is down to the conservatives and the D.O.W.P.s incompetence at rolling it out.

 

To be clear, if I had recieved this money after the 13 week assessment period, rather than waiting from 2016 to 2018 then my DRO would still be in force and I would not be looking at bankruptcy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The back dated Universal Credit I recieved was for limited capacity for work and work related activity. The fact that I was still able to recieve this over a year after it had been cancelled by the conservatives...

 

 

The limited capability for work and work related activity (LCWRA) component which existed as part of ESA still applies to Universal Credit. It is the limited capability for work (LCW) component which was scrapped for both new ESA claimants and UC claimants after 3 April 2017.

 

This cut the amount for (new) ESA and UC claimants deemed to have LCW by £29.05 per week. The £29.05 per week cut to LCW claimants is in addition to the disability premium cuts.

 

Your frustration is understandable but if you had been receiving the extra £29.05 per week when your DRO application was considered, that would have been counted as income towards the £50 per month DRO limit. You may still have been eligible for the DRO if that additional amount was incorporated in to expenses.

 

I don't agree with your DRO being cancelled but it's correct where the sum you have received is a backdating of your LCWRA component and is over £1000.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your frustration is understandable but if you had been receiving the extra £29.05 per week when your DRO application was considered, that would have been counted as income towards the £50 per month DRO limit. You may still have been eligible for the DRO if that additional amount was incorporated in to expenses.

 

 

That should not read £29.05 but the amount you receive as part of the LCWRA component so £X amount whatever that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I submitted a new budget to the OR which included the extra £328 for limited capacity for work and work related activity about 4 hours before I found out that the D.O.W.P. was going to give me a backdated payment on the very same day and the OR excepted my new budget which I completed with the help of Step Change.

 

This is how I know that I would have been okay had I received this money over a period of time instead of recieveing a lump sum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I submitted a new budget to the OR which included the extra £328 for limited capacity for work and work related activity about 4 hours before I found out that the D.O.W.P. was going to give me a backdated payment on the very same day and the OR excepted my new budget which I completed with the help of Step Change.

 

This is how I know that I would have been okay had I received this money over a period of time instead of recieveing a lump sum.

 

Before this lump sum was paid, did you owe any previous debts to DWP, HMRC or Council Tax ?

 

If so, any lump sum created is normally offered towards the debts. But the DRO might have stopped such an action.

 

UC normally pay any backdated amount as a lump sum to the claimant, unless the amount can be offered against existing Government debt.

 

If you want to fight this, you really need advice from someone that offers legal advice on disability benefits and debt. Have a search online for organisations that might be able to assist you.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I submitted a new budget to the OR which included the extra £328 for limited capacity for work and work related activity about 4 hours before I found out that the D.O.W.P. was going to give me a backdated payment on the very same day and the OR excepted my new budget which I completed with the help of Step Change.

 

This is how I know that I would have been okay had I received this money over a period of time instead of recieveing a lump sum.

 

 

If you receive notice that the DRO has been revoked, you can challenge the revocation on these grounds, although you should speak to your DRO adviser or approved intermediary before dong so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...