Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

daKlone

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About daKlone

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Thank you Ethel Street. My situation is not entirely dissimilar to yours, in that one of the parties is my daughter so obviously I would not want to pursue her for the money. But I take your point that there is no concept of a "share" of the rent, all parties are liable for 100% of the rent. In a way this helps, as the other party cannot then reasonably argue that they don't owe the full amount should I wish to pursue them for it.
  2. The contract says that the contract is between the LL, the tenants (two parties, one I might wish to pursue and another) and myself as guarantor. The party I wish to pursue is named as "lead tenant" on the contract and was the one that I filled in the relevant forms to guarantor for. We all signed the contract together, but it was my assumption (I know, I know!) that I had only guaranteed one person. I wonder if I'm splitting hairs here and perhaps it makes no real difference?
  3. Thanks again all. There is a slight wrinkle that has come up today. Although I thought I was acting as Guarantor for one individual, as it was they who were credit-checked and were supposedly paying the rent, there are two names on the contract in addition to mine as Guarantor. Speaking to the estate agent today, they inform me that we are all "jointly and severally liable". Does this make any difference to my position, and my intention to pursue only one of the other named individuals (i.e. the one that was credit-checked and is working). The other name on the contract was never intended to pay the rent and was/is not working.
  4. Thanks all. My gut feeling was that it was a pretty strong case, but I couldn't be sure. I understand that there is little chance of actually getting the money back, especially since they are self-employed and will no doubt produce accounts that show that they don't earn more than minimum wage. I'm getting the impression that I'll have to accept whatever they offer, but at least they'll have to acknowledge their responsibility for the debt.
  5. I am acting as Guarantor on a rented property for someone who is now in serious rent arrears, to the tune of almost £3k. If I pay this off, does anyone know if can I then make a claim (small claims court maybe?) against them in order to try and get the money back? If so, has anyone done it? How easy is it? What power does the court have to compel the tenant to pay me? Thanks, dK
  6. Please forgive me, but I'm finding it hard to understand what you are trying to say. Are you asking about the charge you've received, or about the fact that you think you've mistakenly claimed an exemption in the past? My advice would be to concentrate on the matter in hand (the charge you've already received) and don't fret about anything else. In my opinion there's no chance that you'll get any correspondence about whatever happened before this; the NHS BSA only took over dealing with it in September 2014, so won't be concerned about anything prior to that. They probably could go as far back as they liked, but why do that? People are likely to just resign themselves to paying a relatively small charge without complaint, but would kick up an almighty fuss if a charge of several thousand pounds arrived out of the blue. This way I'm sure they hoped to increase revenue without stirring up the media. And even if the media do get involved, popular opinion is likely to sneer at amounts such as these as a mere pittance and not take up the cause. Nope they've played it perfectly. Silently introduce a new system whereby they can catch genuine claimants out with paperwork (they argue that it is the paperwork, not the condition that entitles you), send out fines (sorry, charges) with no means of appeal and no burden of proof on them. Perfect.
  7. OK, so either one of two things has happened: (1) They have made a mistake and recorded the wrong box as being ticked on a prescription filled in November 2014, or (2) You or someone who collects prescriptions for you has made a mistake and ticked box M instead of box F. If you are 100% sure that (2) cannot have happened in November 2014, then I would urge you to write to the NHS BSA. Include a photocopy of the pre-payment certificate (not the original) and tell them that they've made a mistake and you want your money back. Do you always use the same chemists? Might be worth having a word with the pharmacist, I don't know if they keep any records themselves or not, but it's worth a try.
  8. Hang on, let's try to be clear here. The charge notice should say something like "...because you or your representative declared that you did not have to pay for the following reason: ....". What reason does it give?
  9. Don't panic, slow down and take it one step at a time. First thing, find your pre-payment certificate and confirm when it expires.
  10. OK, so if you have a valid pre-payment certificate (I assume you purchased a 12-month one and not a 3-month one, correct?) and have correctly filled in the declaration on the back of the prescription itself, I'm struggling to see why they've sent the charge notice. And to be honest, I'm not sure why you've paid it.
  11. So you're sure you haven't accidentally ticked it since then, and have been ticking box F instead on every prescription?
  12. Two separate ones, dated 10 days apart, for prescriptions in October and November 2014.
  13. I assume from this that you've been ticking box F on the back of the prescriptions that says "has a valid prescription pre-payment certificate" since January, and not box M "is entitled to, or is named on, a valid NHS Tax Credit Exemption Certificate"? If you're sure you haven't, then why pay the charge? You should challenge them on it.
  14. Sorry to continue the hijack of this thread, but...I'm going to I wrote to the PECS people as soon as my wife's new exemption certificate arrived, explaining that although the original certificate may well have expired she was still entitled to free prescriptions due to having a qualifying condition. I asked them to waive the charges based on this. I've just go a reply, which is basically a one-liner saying "we've considered the information you provided but you must still pay the charges". The rest is just blurb about how to pay. And to add insult to injury, the first charge has now passed it's early repayment date and has clocked up an additional £50, making the grand total £270. The letter telling us that the additional £50 is due is dated a mere 2 days before the one refusing our "appeal". I've a mind to pay the second charge before it gets to it's early repayment date (this Thursday), but write back and complain about the additional £50 on the first charge and see if they will waive it, since we were waiting for their reply. What do you guys think?
  15. There must be something going on in the NHS, because we are in exactly the same situation. My wife has been Type 1 Diabetic for in excess of 15 years and has had free prescriptions the whole time. Just like Stu47803 we've suddenly received not one but two demands for a total of over £200 in fines and prescription fees. Until these appeared, we were unaware that the medical exemption could expire. We sent off a new application form, signed by her doctor on Friday last week. Whilst strictly speaking, they are correct (I assume!) that the exemption certificate has probably expired, we have had no reminders or anything...and obviously my wife has been diabetic and therefore entitled to free prescriptions the whole time(!) Do you think it would be worth contacting them to say this?
×
×
  • Create New...