Ah, maybe that's why I've not seen it yet. I suppose it's asking two much for the JCP to use it on their own (externally visible) systems!

I'm not sure about the extra week. The below is taken from the DWP's latest IS guide, emphasis mine:- People who qualify for Income Support ... you regularly and substantially care for a severely disabled person. The person must be getting Attendance Allowance, Constant Attendance Allowance, the Daily Living component of Personal Independence Payment or the middle or highest rate care component of Disability Living Allowance, or have recently applied for it or have been notified that they will receive it from a future date. Alternatively, you must be in receipt of Carer’s Allowance. You will still be able to claim Income Support for eight weeks after your role as a carer ceases .

Eek. It's hard to say how much the over-payment will be as you'd need to share a lot more information, however I can tell you a few things. First, the Parents' Learning Allowance component of the above should be disregarded[1]. And second, student loans are treated as income. Bearing this in mind, that would leave you a notional income of - if I have done my sums correctly - £16182. Which is, sadly of course, over the £16k threshold. Sorry I can't be of more help. I'll raise a SOS with the site team who may be able to help further! [1] https://www.gov.uk/parents-learning-allowance/overview Edit: Easy for me to say, but try not to worry too much. The DWP will write to you once the over-payment has been calculated. Once you have this, then would be the time to come back here, not least because the department are notorious for calculating over-payments incorrectly. Once it's been calculated (the over-payment), they'll want any money you weren't entitled to back, plus you may additionally have to pay a penalty. But before thinking about that, can you remember ever being warned by IS about changes of circumstances wrt income? And did you tell your adviser that you were doing a full-time degree? You might want to get in touch with Citizens Advice (CAB) as they'll have dealt with this situation a lot and might be better placed to help you.

Perhaps. Not saying you're wrong, mind, I just don't have the experience to wholeheartedly agree. Ah well, was worth a shot.

Ach. My bad, I didn't realise the procedure for issuing JSDs had been 'upgraded' as well. That's shocking. I wonder if failing to attend a mandated course so as to sit exams, and therefore potentially increase one's chances at finding sustainable employment, would be seen as good cause in the eyes of a DM. My reading of the (current as of today) DMG suggests it should be, but I guess you never know...

Annoying. After quite a search, I can only find the guidance notes that refer to UC... Before I search around further, a question to scaredonjsa. Have you actually been mandated to attend this course, i.e. you've been given a piece of paper (which I believe will still be a Jobseekers' Direction in this case) saying you must attend such and such provider on such and such date and that failure to attend could result in a suspension of your JSA? The adviser has to follow procedure and cannot just mandate you attend this course verbally.

It's different if one is doing a a number of modules that form a degree study plan (as mentioned in the OP), in which case the fees most certainly aren't waived, unless of course scaredonjsa is on their very first course which can sometimes be 'free.' Part-time students are, I believe, excused from certain activities and I think this should be one of them... let me see if I can actually find it in the DM guidance.

Hi folks, Is anyone familiar with JCP's so-called 'two tick' [1] system? I'm trying to help someone I know find work who is (a) disabled and (b) not in 'the system' at JCP. More specifically, I'm trying to find out if (Universal Jobmatch, Directgov Jobsearch) actually employs the use of the two ticks i.e., is visibly made clear on online vacancy listings, or whether this information is only available to advisers accessing vacancies from within JCP. From a cursory perusal of about 50 or so vacancies on Directgov Jobsearch, I'm either having bad luck finding a two-tick job ad it's just not there to find. Any help with this would be much appreciated! [1] https://www.gov.uk/looking-for-work-if-disabled/looking-for-a-job

I can't tell you about the site, but the text quoted in post #4 is dodgy to say the least. And after seeing the 'logo' on the aforementioned website, I think I was right to surmise that its author should have put the bong down when reading up on the ins and outs of contract law...

Ganymede makes a good point. If it's possible that your (ex-)friend has buried her head in the sand one last last attempt at arranging a mutually agreeable repayment schedule wouldn't hurt. But I digress... Either option shows that you mean business, although given that you know the defendant's employment details an N337 might be more expedient. I take it that you have actually ruled other options available to you, such as applying for a warrant of execution?

Did you not see antone's post? I'm assuming you didn't as your post contains judgement and assumptions instead of constructive, helpful advice.

Update: I've just had the standard "we confirm we are no longer instructed in respect of this account..." response from Fredrickson, as expected. Should I fire off a quick letter to Lowell reminding them that they still need to comply with pre-action protocol and furnish me with the requested documents within a reasonable time frame? I don't want to get into a long game of letter tennis with these intellectually challenged people, but I'm going to be away for a belated summer holiday for a few weeks soon and I'd rather not return home to any nasty surprises.

Hi, SUNDERLAND1. I'm in the same position as you are, in that I've received an LBA from Fredrickson acting on behalf of Lowell. I've decided -- after receiving a lot of help from the guys -- to respond to them requesting documents they intend to use in court (or not as the case may be). That's something to bear in mind If you were to respond to them: you can use pre-action protocols to, well, at least ask for documentation that they will be relying on. That is assuming they actually have any, of course. You are dealing with Lowell, albeit through proxy, after all... Of course, you may not actually want to open that can of worms. In my case the 'account' in question is heavily disputed and I believe I have a good case, so it was an easy decision.

Good point, whatever information that still exists at Nationwide could be useful should Lowell decide to play pass the parcel... I'll get to work on a SAR once this in the post on Monday. Thanks again for all your help, citizenB. Really appreciate it! I dare say I'll be back in a week when these muppets respond, so I'll keep the thread updated.

Understood! I haven't done either. No CCA because the account was very basic (it was opened when I was in my teens), wasn't a current account as far as I'm aware, and didn't have a credit card attached to it. So I was under the impression that a CCA would have been fruitless as it was just a very basic, cash-only bank account with an ATM card. Was I incorrect in that assumption? And SAR, well, I've only known of its existence for a year or so and up until now, I really didn't think I'd gain much from one. Of course, now that I think about it a bit, it could offer clarity on a few things...