Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Housing benefit


trevor33
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2018 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 all, its been awhile since I last needed your help but here goes..

 

..I am a private tenant and back in February the boiler in my property became very poorly.

I contacted the landlord to arrange a replacement.

 

We came to an agreement for me to pay for the new boiler and installation and for the rent to be reduced over a two year period for me to recover the cost.

All was going well until recently.

 

We receive Housing Benefit and recently the local council decided to do a financial assessment and needed to know why the rent had been reduced.

I sent them all the paperwork including the agreement with my landlord and explained why the rent was reduced and for how long.

 

The council took this as the rent that I now pay and reduced the housing benefit accordingly.

They also now want me to pay back the overpayment back to February, even if the landlord now puts the rent back to the original payment the council want proof that the boiler has been paid for, this leaves me out of pocket.

 

Has anyone any idea where I go from here.

Trevor

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it leave you out of pocket?

 

 

You have been getting more housing benefit than you were entitled too, were you expecting that housing benefit would replace what you spent on the boiler or for the reduction in rent to cover the cost?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were getting housing benefit on the normal rent.

I paid for the boiler and the landlord agreed to reduce the rent so that I could recoup the cost.

In theory I paid the boiler value in rent up front so I don't see why the council think that my rent has been reduced.

Edited by dx100uk
quote
Link to post
Share on other sites

HB doesn't work like that.

 

You can't expect the LA to continue paying you the same amount of HB when the LL has reduced the rent, it is after all tax payers money.

 

This raises the question as to why the LL doesn't have insurance for this exact event, are they legit LL's?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So where you paying less to the landlord and keeping the extra housing benefit?

 

I don't get how you could have paid the boiler value in rent up front, as you wouldn't have known about having to replace the boiler.

It is also unclear why the landlord didn't just fund the boiler replacement as they are legally/contractually bound to.

 

What was your initial rent amount,

how much was the boiler replacement,

how much was the rent reduced to as part of the new agreement,

how much housing benefit did you get before the change and

how much do you get now?

 

Was a new tenancy agreement created for this change?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

What tomtom said.

 

You need to argue that the rental amount has stayed the same but that you have paid x amount of that in advance.

Say you pay 6 months rent up front - although no money changes hands over that 6 month period your still liable for the rent so.... eligible for housing benefit for that period.

 

See here https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum-archive/index13b3.html

 

I suggest contacting shelter for advice as it's unclear what arrangements you made with your landlord

 

As long as your contract says x amount then that's what should be paid

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely a simple way around this would be to keep the rent the same, but get your LL to credit you a set amount each month.

Treat the boiler issue separately..

. maybe if housing benefit wasn't involved it would make sense to do this deal,

but even then I personally wouldn't agree to replace a boiler for my landlord.

 

The amount some of these landlords get away with is crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What tomtom said.

 

 

You need to argue that the rental amount has stayed the same but that you have paid x amount of that in advance. Say you pay 6 months rent up front - although no money changes hands over that 6 month period your still liable for the rent so.... eligible for housing benefit for that period.

 

See here https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forum-archive/index13b3.html

 

I suggest contacting shelter for advice as it's unclear what arrangements you made with your landlord

 

As long as your contract says x amount then that's what should be paid

 

Thankyou, this is the point that I have tried to get over, in theory I have paid 2 years rent up front even though no money has changed hands.

 

I have already been in touch with shelter but they were unsure as to the best thing to do even after about 50 mins on the phone.

 

The rent agreement states that I should pay £x per month and the reduced rent was only a personal agreement between myself and the LL.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rent agreement states that I should pay £x per month and the reduced rent was only a personal agreement between myself and the LL.

 

So how did the LA know about the agreement between you and the LL?

 

Im confused as to how or why anyone pays two years rent in advance?

 

Something isn't right?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The LA did an assessment which included bank statements and all other income and outgoings.

The bank statement shows the monthly rent payments (at the reduced rate).

The LA wanted to know why the rent was reduced so I provided copies of the agreement with the LL.

 

Not all tenants treat the LL as an enemy, we have been on excellent terms since we started and we agreed that a new boiler was necessary.

We agreed that I would pay for the boiler and he would reduce the rent to pay me back, this suited both of us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially, what you have done is akin to benefit fraud, as you are expecting the tax payer to purchase the boiler by keeping the extra housing benefit you would have been receiving whilst paying less rent, unless I am missing something.

 

You should have just gotten the landlord to fulfill his legal obligations and have him pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think I have been paying less rent, the cash plus the monthly portion of the boiler still adds up to the full monthly rent for which I am entitled to HB.

If I had paid cash up front instead of purchasing the boiler would the same argument hold?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit doesn't work like that and I think you have been paying less rent because you said you have, as the landlord agreed to reduce the rent as you were paying for the boiler.

 

Say you pay 6 months in advance on rent of £850, you will still be entitled to whatever HB pays towards that £850, as long as you had a genuine reason for paying 6 months rent in advance.

 

However if you are paying £850 rent and you then enter into a personal arrangement with the landlord to buy a boiler at say £3,000 and he reduces the rent to £700, your eligible rent for benefit purposes becomes whatever you are entitled to of that £700 rent, regardless of what agreement you have with the landlord, as this now becomes your contractual rent agreement, which is what is used to calculate your housing benefit award.

 

Housing benefit cannot be claimed to cover boiler payments if you are paying it monthly, which it sounds like you could be, as it is the landlords legal requirement to have a fully working boiler, it is not down to the tenant to pay for a replacement boiler, no matter what arrangement you have with the landlord or how well you get on. What would you do if he suddenly decided to evict you?

 

You cannot expect benefits to pay you back for the boiler or to pay any monthly contract you have for the boiler replacement as this is not a contractual obligation under your tenancy agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, any changes in rent have to be notified to whomever is paying the benefit if it could affect the benefit entitlement.

 

 

If you read your award letter it will say something along the lines of changes include an increase or decrease in rent.

 

 

So if you had paid rent in advance for six months and claimed HB and the rent was subsequently reduced during that six months, you would still have an overpayment, as benefit is awarded on the initial contractual rent agreement and not just on what is declared. That's why they do these checks every now and again to make sure benefit is being paid correctly.

 

You would have also signed a claim form declaring that you would notify them of any changes that could affect your entitlement.

 

 

I am not sure what you aren't getting about how HB works?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what you need to do is go into the LA offices and have a face to face meeting with someone from the HB department and go through all your docs including your i&e, that way then youll get it from the horses mouth.

 

 

Plus they may be able to explain what constitutes benefit fraud.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Potentially, what you have done is akin to benefit fraud, as you are expecting the tax payer to purchase the boiler by keeping the extra housing benefit you would have been receiving whilst paying less rent, unless I am missing something.

 

You should have just gotten the landlord to fulfill his legal obligations and have him pay for it.

 

I disagree somewhat as they are not expecting the tax payer to buy the boiler but the landlord. The landlord who indirectly is being paid by the Council.

 

Say I have a plumbing emergency or the couch breaks..... if when I phone my landlord and they go pay for the plumber or buy a couch and take it off the next rental payment. I wouldn't bat an eyelid as I've done it before.

 

In your example/view I would be committing fraud if I didn't tell the Council that I was paying less that month and the Council then reduced my LHA payment too me for that month.

 

Which is silly as all I've done imho is pre pay that part of the rent in advance with the balance due as normal.

 

Granted where this gets complicated is the reduced rental payment overtime to recoup that outlay but the principle is exactly the same.

 

I'd be looking to appeal any decision on the rental amount and any overpayment if it was me and I'd also try to find help with that challenge.

 

Not that long ago my Council were offing grants for disabled people who privately rented for a free new boiler amongst other things.

 

As for £3000; a new Vokera Vision 30c Combi Gas Boiler (which my plumber raves about and fitted last year in the flat I rent) is just under £700

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree somewhat as they are not expecting the tax payer to buy the boiler but the landlord. The landlord who indirectly is being paid by the Council.

 

Say I have a plumbing emergency or the couch breaks..... if when I phone my landlord and they go pay for the plumber or buy a couch and take it off the next rental payment. I wouldn't bat an eyelid as I've done it before.

 

In your example/view I would be committing fraud if I didn't tell the Council that I was paying less that month and the Council then reduced my LHA payment too me for that month.

 

Which is silly as all I've done imho is pre pay that part of the rent in advance with the balance due as normal.

 

Granted where this gets complicated is the reduced rental payment overtime to recoup that outlay but the principle is exactly the same.

 

I'd be looking to appeal any decision on the rental amount and any overpayment if it was me and I'd also try to find help with that challenge.

 

Not that long ago my Council were offing grants for disabled people who privately rented for a free new boiler amongst other things.

 

As for £3000; a new Vokera Vision 30c Combi Gas Boiler (which my plumber raves about and fitted last year in the flat I rent) is just under £700

 

Thanks for the argument. I am still trying to find someone to give me exact advice, which is proving difficult.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree somewhat as they are not expecting the tax payer to buy the boiler but the landlord. The landlord who indirectly is being paid by the Council.

 

Say I have a plumbing emergency or the couch breaks..... if when I phone my landlord and they go pay for the plumber or buy a couch and take it off the next rental payment. I wouldn't bat an eyelid as I've done it before.

 

In your example/view I would be committing fraud if I didn't tell the Council that I was paying less that month and the Council then reduced my LHA payment too me for that month.

 

Which is silly as all I've done imho is pre pay that part of the rent in advance with the balance due as normal.

 

Granted where this gets complicated is the reduced rental payment overtime to recoup that outlay but the principle is exactly the same.

 

I'd be looking to appeal any decision on the rental amount and any overpayment if it was me and I'd also try to find help with that challenge.

 

Not that long ago my Council were offing grants for disabled people who privately rented for a free new boiler amongst other things.

 

As for £3000; a new Vokera Vision 30c Combi Gas Boiler (which my plumber raves about and fitted last year in the flat I rent) is just under £700

 

But that's not what he has done though is it, unless I misunderstand it.

 

Tenant has paid for new boiler and from the sounds of it on credit and is paying for it monthly with the extra HB he gets as landlord has reduced rent, ergo, landlord has not forked out a penny for the boiler and replacement is being covered by benefit payments.

 

I can guarantee thats how the local authority see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The Agreement you arranged between Yourself (Tenant) and the Landlord is exactly that it is between You and the Landlord. (Not Housing Benefit)

 

Housing Benefit takes into account notification from the Landlord of any change in the property.

 

The Landlord correctly notified the Local Authority of a 'Change in Circumstances' i.e. the Rent Reduction.

 

Do you have it in writing your Agreement between Yourself and the Landlord?

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't misunderstand it then, the situation is still the same, the rent has been reduced and housing benefit can only be claimed on the actual rent charged and not to repay you for the boiler.

 

I now what people say about a reduction in rent etc, but that is not how housing benefit works.

 

What you should have done is left the rent at the normal amount and then gotten the landlord to make the boiler payment as a separate transaction, this would have been fine, as any checks conducting by the LA would show that the full rent was still being paid. Should they then have asked why the landlord was transferring money back to you, you could then have explained the boiler situation and as the full rent was being paid they would/should not have reduced your housing benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

The Agreement you arranged between Yourself (Tenant) and the Landlord is exactly that it is between You and the Landlord. (Not Housing Benefit)

 

Housing Benefit takes into account notification from the Landlord of any change in the property.

 

The Landlord correctly notified the Local Authority of a 'Change in Circumstances' i.e. the Rent Reduction.

 

Do you have it in writing your Agreement between Yourself and the Landlord?

 

Yes, I have all the paperwork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I don't misunderstand it then, the situation is still the same, the rent has been reduced and housing benefit can only be claimed on the actual rent charged and not to repay you for the boiler.

 

I now what people say about a reduction in rent etc, but that is not how housing benefit works.

 

What you should have done is left the rent at the normal amount and then gotten the landlord to make the boiler payment as a separate transaction, this would have been fine, as any checks conducting by the LA would show that the full rent was still being paid. Should they then have asked why the landlord was transferring money back to you, you could then have explained the boiler situation and as the full rent was being paid they would/should not have reduced your housing benefit.

 

Yes, I know how we should have done it, but this leaves us with this situation. (If we had hindsight)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...