tomtom256
-
Posts
415 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
9
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by tomtom256
-
Yes but questions have been asked and he deserves an answer, no? Seems we live in a blame culture and blame needs to be laid somewhere, but not through ones own accountability.
-
Sorry CIS is the DWP computer database that local authorities have access to it show what benefits are payment and if tax credits have been awarded. They should already be aware of any and all income your partner received for that period via the checks and possible EQ1/QB9 to any identified employer. Did they show you any proof of earnings at the interview? If he has no earnings then they will or should offer underlying entitlement based on your IS or joint JSA claim and if passported as I suspect either one would be this would offset and nulll the overpayment for the period this was paid for so yes any overpayment should in theory start in October if he stopped claiming JSA and started work, however if on a low income, the same would happen, they should reassess based on the income and again offset the overpayment againts any underlying entitlement.
-
Now its semantics. Being responsible would mean they physically pushed or knew you would fall. They would have played a helping hand in it as the grip is allegedly superior on safety boots ( I always thought it was about protecting the foot but hey ho). They had no idea you would slip/trip etc and therefore acted inappropriately by suggesting you were trainers. You could have refused knowing the grip on your trainers was not up standard, which then opens a new argument in that where you responsible by compying with the request, I'm guessing what it boiled down to where site rules that probably stipulated safety equipment must be worn at all times and the site gaffer/foreman should have stopped you entering the site without the appropriate equipment being worn. So not responsible per se but blame can be partially attributed to them and to you for the accident and therein the circle of who to blame starts. Which cam first the egg or the chicken.
-
If he was on JSA and your on IS have the DWP been involved because they should reassess you as a couple and award JSA which would mean no O/P for that period fo JSA/IS in payment. The investigator should have checked CIS as part of the investigation once they had his name and/or conducted an HMRC check for employment. Write to them and tell them he was on JSA and to check CIS as this should back that up, they will just need his NINO which I presume they already have?
-
Where did I lay blame for the broken leg with you? "Clearly an accident as you could have slipped had you been wearing safety boots." The company probably settled out of court as it did act inappropriately and probably didn't want the hassle of court. However that is a totally different scenario and if you slipped outside on mud I can't see how they could be held accountable anyway, but we only have your word for it. READ CAREFULLY: Did ATOS tell you to work as a carpenter and to use a saw whilst taking medication that made you drowsy and did they also tell you to disregard any warnings about your medication? I suspect not. However on the off chance that they did, do you have this in writing or did you record your assessment? By all means telephone injury lawyers for you, I am sure they would represent you.
-
How about you read the thread as it was answered a few posts above regarding your broken leg, remove the chip from your shoulder.
-
I have and answered accordingly. Sorry it's obviously not what you want hear, but it is the exact same thing a judge would ask as would any defending solicitor.
-
Clearly an accident as you could have slipped had you been wearing safety boots. The fact here is that medication clearly stated not operate machinery if drowsy end of. No one forced you to use the saw whilst in your medicated drowsy state. Had you not been on medication that made you drowsy and based on your experience quoted above and lack of previous accidents in the workplace, in all probability it wouldn't have happened. Your point is?
-
I did read the thread and answered accordingly. OP found fit for work, not necessarily in chosen field, has an accident caused by his medication, wants to blame someone. What did I miss?
-
ok no you have no grounds to sue. Check health & safety law. The fault would be with the employer for not carrying out any risk assessments.
-
But you are fit for work, just not as a carpenter. As for using a saw, health and safety is your issue not ATOS, they didn't force you to carry on working as a carpenter, nor did they force you to use a saw. Did you risk assess before using it knoeing you wree feeling drowsy. Your own common sense would say to follow the instructions on your medication and if feeling drowsy not to operate machinery. The blame in my eyes lays with you.
-
Interview Under Caution: Housing Benefit
tomtom256 replied to sickwiworry's topic in Benefits and HMRC
As you no commented they know need to get the full evidence to present to the courts. The IUC was your opportunity to explain the issue and other than the statement you "no commented" as such they will be expecting a not guilty plea and always prep in full for this. They also need the bank statements etc so that they can ascertain if there is any further undeclared capital. They have to do all of this under Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act and is routine. -
Its not what you want to hear but if the overpayment is circa £13k as you state then the chances are they may take court action. Anything over £2k is generally prosecuted unless there is mitigating circumstances, obviously if you win any appeal then any criminal case should be dropped.
-
Hi they don't have to prove you legally wrong as its a civil matter not a cimrinal one. As other have said they will go on any tenancy agreement, if it states two bedrooms then that is what you have. What will go against you is youe have always receveid full rent I presume on the fact that it is a two bed property and have never disuputed this fact until the reduction of benefit hit, which the LA will use to its advantage in any decision regarding one or two bedrooms. You cannot happily receive benefits for a long period based on one fact and then suddenly disagree just because of a monetary issue. The onus would be for you to prove it's a one bedroom property and not the LA. If it was my LA and this suddeny happened I would also argue that you have obviously recevied too much rent previously if it is indeed a one bed property, as the rent for a one bed would usually be less.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS