This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 09 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/07/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/06/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Citizens Advice has had evidence from a large bank that towards the end of 2014 an increasing number of advisers encouraged clients to challenge bank charges using the Social Security Act. These complaints state that social security legislation prevents bank charges from being taken from welfare benefits income. This is not the case but there is misleading information/advice on the internet on this issue. These complaints will fail. This is a problem for clients as they are being given inaccurate information and false hope, it undermines the credibility of the advice sector, and it is a waste of time for all concerned. If you are in genuine financial hardship your bank or building society should deal with you sympathetically and positively, in accordance with the Lending Code. This may lead to a reduction in bank charges, but this will depend on the client's individual circumstances. It is important that the bank or building society is provided with full information about the client's situation so that it can make a proper assessment of their financial situation. This means supplying the bank or building society with information about your income and expenditure, assets and liabilities, and details of any creditors. This information should be accompanied by a request for the bank or building society to review the charges that you have already incurred or are likely to incur in the future. The Lending Code is a voluntary code and can be found on the Lending Standards Board website at http://www.lendingstandardsboard.org.uk.

I am a Step (soon to be Basic) account holder. I have received a letter that as on 22nd of November I will be only able to use Natwest or RBS owned cashpoints. I knew that this is coming from here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2011/08/rbs-restricts-basic-account-holders-atm-use but I am still p***d off . Are there any other threads about it (sorry, looked but could not find it) so I could find out if I can appeal/protest etc?

Thank you for your help.

I am very sorry if this question has been asked before but the thread has grown so much I was not able to search through it all or maybe I have missed something. My husband parked in a courtyard without any "private land, no parking" signage- he has taken a photo thankfully. He was up very early that day and needed a break. He fell asleep in his cab and was woken up by the noise of the clamp being placed on his vehicle. He was visible in his cab- not somewhere at the back or laying across the seats. But no one asked him to move the van or tried to wake him up. He paid the release fee of £190 but now we are wondering if the clampers followed correct procedures (if such exist) with regards to clamping a car with an occupant clearly inside? I know we could have a recourse against them as there was no sign on the walls or anywhere about parking restriction, but could our case be stronger because of the fact that my husband was in the car when they clamped him? I would be grateful for any guidance.

I am very sorry if this question has been asked before but the thread has grown so much I was not able to search through it all or maybe I have missed something. My husband parked in a courtyard without any "private land, no parking" signage- he has taken a photo thankfully. He was up very early that day and needed a break. He fell asleep in his cab and was woken up by the noise of the clamp being placed on his vehicle. He was visible in his cab- not somewhere at the back or laying across the seats. But no one asked him to move the van or tried to wake him up. He paid the release fee of £190 but now we are wondering if the clampers followed correct procedures (if such exist) with regards to clamping a car with an occupant clearly inside? I know we could have a recourse against them as there was no sign on the walls or anywhere about parking restriction, but could our case be stronger because of the fact that my husband was in the car when they clamped him? I would be grateful for any guidance.

Right, my client's l/lord is in West London too but different initials and he rents out mainly to students. Thanks anyway.

Lia, I am interested in your case because I have a client with a remarkably similar problem. I was wondering if we are talking here about the same landlord. Can you tell me which area of London was it, did landlord's name is the same as a very popular garden flower and are you a student?

DMBM555000 - Debt and return pursuit: Tax credits Overpayments: Contents There have been new sections added to HM Revenue and Customs’ Debt Management and Banking Manual (DMBM555000) to cover recovery policy, including cases of: • domestic violence - HMRC can formally agree that each claimant repay 50 per cent and treat them as separately liable rather than jointly. • mental health issues – where confirmation is provided, any overpayment could be written off. • relationship breakdown - if a claimant pays 50 per cent of the debt, HMRC should not later attempt to recover the rest even if the other joint claimant cannot be found or refuses to pay. Exact details can be found at Debt and Return Pursuit: Contents

As a result of complaints received by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for breaches of their Debt Collection Guidance, the debt collectors Mackenzie Hall have had ‘requirements’ placed upon them to improve their debt collection practices. Mackenzie Hall must not: • pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that there is reasonable cause to believe that the debt is in dispute • pursue a debt where it has been notified in writing that the debt is statute barred. Failure to comply with a requirement could lead to a fine of up to £50,000 and/or possible revocation of Mackenzie Hall's consumer credit licence. A copy of the requirements, and a definition of what the OFT mean by ‘in dispute’ (which includes non-compliance with a s.77/78 request) can be downloaded from The Office of Fair Trading: OFT imposes requirements on Mackenzie Hall to improve handling of disputed debts If you come across any cases where Mackenzie Hall appear to be breaching these requirements please contact the OFT: [email protected] or Enquiries Office, Office of Fair Trading, Fleetbank House, 2-6 Salisbury Square, London EC4Y 8JX

Following an extensive investigation by the Office of Fair Trading, the OFT have now issued a 'Minded to Revoke' notice to Log Book Loans Limited and Nine Regions Limited, both of SW15 2NN. These companies can now make representations to the OFT and there is an appeal process, so it may be some months before we hear the final outcome.

http://www.advicenow.org.uk/advicenow-guides/problems-with-benefits/how-to-handle-an-interview-under-caution/ How to handle interview under caution

This is a message from Tax Credits Casualties group. We need your support! After weeks of trying, we have finally managed to take our 'Justice is an Amnesty' campaign right into the Labour Party parlour, via their 'LabourSpace' website. What is LabourSpace? Full details can be found on their site, but in their own words: "Labourspace lets you quickly and easily set up a campaign and share your ideas with the Labourspace community. If you start a campaign which gains the most popular support your ideas will be bought to the attention of senior Labour politicians - your campaign could give you the opportunity to change the world! You'll win if you have the idea with the highest net support (supporters - detractors) All you need is to get the most support for your idea - it's all about people power really!" No matter how you feel about the Government, this represents a fantastic opportunity to tell the Labour Party, as a whole, how we feel about Tax Credit overpayments. Not the Government itself, but the political party that funds their election campaigns and of which they are all members. So this is a whole new approach, and one with a tremendous amount of potential. What do we need everyone to do? Easy. Click on the link to our LabourSpace campaign page, below, register on the site, and vote for our 'Justice is an Amnesty' campaign. Here's the link: Campaign | Justice is an Amnesty Then ask everyone you know to do the same, because this affects everyone who claims Tax Credits. If they haven't had an overpayment yet, it's only a matter of time. Tax Credit Casualties 'Justice is an Amnesty' campaign has been running since January 2005, and seeks an amnesty on recovery of all non-claimant fault, non-fraudulent Tax Credit overpayments. Welcome to Tax Credit Casualties (TCC)

Zamzara is of course correct- sorry for wrong advice

JSA is income tested-all income has to be declared. First £5 a week is ignored. Earning anything over £5 would result in a reduction in JSA on a pound for pound basis. IB is not income tested. You can work and earn when in receipt of IB although some jobs can lead to questions, for example if a claimant with a bad back starts to work as rugby coach. Check out helpful links at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/benefits-tax-credits-minimum/125283-useful-links.html#post1309826

Ty sie nie scigaj mlody na wszystko jest czas

Please see letter from four government ministers to alert welfare agencies to the recent launch of the Government Mortgage Rescue Scheme (in England). We are writing to all Money Advice agencies to alert you to the recent launch of the Government Mortgage Rescue Scheme. The scheme was launched on Friday 16th January. As you may know, the new scheme will allow local authorities to refer vulnerable households to a Homes and Communities Agency rescue package offering shared equity or Government mortgage to rent. The rescue package will be for those households in priority need (as defined by The Housing Act 1996) who cannot afford their existing home ownership and associated costs, to provide them with a sustainable solution preventing repossession and homelessness. It targets those families with dependent children, the elderly and vulnerable groups who can no longer afford their repayments, and who would be entitled to homelessness assistance if repossessed. The scheme is being delivered with input from experts in the field, including Shelter, Citizens Advice, local authorities and mortgage lenders. The Mortgage Rescue Scheme will provide a new solution to financial crisis for those households most vulnerable to homelessness. Money Advice agencies will be able to refer clients to the local authority to make an assessment of eligibility, where the Mortgage Rescue Scheme appears to be the most appropriate option. Similarly, local authorities will establish referral arrangements with advice agencies to ensure that those who may be eligible for the scheme receive independent money advice as a first step. Government hopes to see up to 6,000 vulnerable households across England rescued in 2009-2011. We are asking Money Advice agencies such as your own to assist the local authorities that approach you by establishing referral mechanisms to the benefit of both partners, and most importantly to the households at risk. Further information can be found Mortgage Rescue Scheme - Housing - Communities and Local Government. The Rt. Hon Margaret Beckett MP – Minister for Housing and Planning. Ian Pearson MP – Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Lord Bach – Parliamentary Under Secretary of State – Ministry of Justice. Gareth Thomas MP – Minister for Trade, Investment and Consumer Affairs – BERR.

Jon- what exactly are you talking about? And if you already explained it here, can you link me to your post, please.

I am sorry Francesco, I have no idea but I know how the situation is at present and any changes are barely a twinkle in father's eye. I have a feeling that what you watched could have been governmental proposal to change the bailiff law - that's all. A lot of noise, nothing more. The lawmakers have not yet considered it properly and, a I understand, are at loath to do so.

Bailiffs’ Powers The Sunday Times of 21 December 2008 and The Times of 22 December 2008 carried articles,as shown in above posts, about the powers that bailiffs allegedly now have to force entry to properties and restrain or pin down householders. According to these articles, the government wants to give bailiffs the right to push debtors from their doorways, drag them off their televisions and ease their grip on their children's dolls houses. These articles have caused panic amongst my debt clients. Bailiffs do currently have the power, under the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, to force entry for the purpose of executing a warrant of distress issued under section 76 of Magistrates Courts Act 1980 for default in paying a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction, but this power may be exercised only to the extent that it is reasonably required for that purpose only. At present, bailiffs have no powers to force entry in order to execute warrants for any other debts. The government has proposed an extension of bailiffs’ powers but no regulations have yet been drafted. Whilst the regulations, if they are ever created, are expected to provide bailiffs with a power of forced entry, this will only be permissible with a separate court order. The court will closely control the extent of such power and, where appropriate, place constraints on the level of force to be used. In the meantime, the rights of entry are as they currently exist

I am afraid the CAB is incorrect. If you are in advanced education, which you are if you are at Uni- then what matters is how the course is defined by the Uni. if it is defined as Part Time then you are Part Time no matter how many hours you study. Studying means supervised study- not studying at home or reading or preparing. The Uni has final and absolute say who gets a C Tax exemption, I am afraid. You can always check if you qualify for single occupancy reduction (if you live by yourself or if all those who live with you are "invisible" for C Tax purpose, like FT students, under 18s, overseas students and their partner) or apply for C Tax Benefit.

I am not sure what's happening here with regards to the applications under s.214, so I thought I'll post this just in case. I have not had time to pop in here at all recently but whole libel case ( bloody ridiculous) has brought me back. One more thing- despite the clear recommendations below, I have so far been using N1 for my clients. Never had any comments or challenges about it from the courts. taken from http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/docs/infoabout/housing/section-214-application.doc Tenancy Deposit Protection – Housing Act 2004 County court applications under section 214 of the Act Background 1. Landlords and agents are required to protect their tenants’ deposits under a scheme set out by the Housing Act 2004 (“the Act”) . 2. Under these provisions, the landlord or agent is required to place any deposit into an approved tenancy deposit scheme (“TDS”) within 14 days of receipt. The landlord is also required to provide the tenant with confirmation that the deposit has been put into a TDS. 3. Where a landlord fails to do this, a tenant may apply to the county court to compel the landlord to repay the deposit or place it in an approved TDS (see section 214 of the Act). “Section 214” application to the county court 4. The application under section 214 can only be made on limited grounds. If the court is satisfied that those grounds have been met, the court must either order the repayment of the deposit or order the person who appears to be holding the deposit to pay it into a designated account under a authorised custodial tenancy deposit scheme. The court must also order the landlord to pay a sum of money equal to three times the amount of the deposit. CPR Part 8 procedure 5. The appropriate procedure for starting a “section 214 claim” is provided by Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). A tenant will therefore need to follow the procedure set out in Part 8 of the CPR and the accompanying Practice Direction and pay the appropriate court fees in accordance with The Civil Proceedings Fees Order 2008 (if not exempt). Details about the correct claim form to be used (Form N208 ), the contents of the claim form and filing of evidence in support of the claim, and also the procedure to be followed by the defendant landlords are set out in this part of the CPR – for more details see footnote . 6. Detailed guidance on completing Form N208 and subsequent action to be taken by the defendant landlord is also set out in the relevant forms as attached below (also available in hard copy from any county court office): • Part 8 Claim Form (N208 ) http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n208_1000.pdf • Notes for Claimants (Form N208A) http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n208a_0499.pdf • Notes to Defendants (Form N208C) http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/n208c_1202.pdf 7. To avoid any confusion, Part 56 of the CPR will be shortly be amended to state that section 214 applications must be started using the Part 8 procedure. Disputes after deposit is placed in a TDS 8. Please note that this guidance is only aimed at resolving disputes about placing a deposit into a TDS. It is not aimed at resolving disputes about the return of a deposit that has been placed in a TDS – e.g. at the end of the tenancy. Each TDS scheme is supported by a free alternative dispute resolution (ADR) service whose role is to resolve such disputes about the return of a deposit that has been in a TDS. Use of the scheme’s ADR service is not compulsory but their purpose is to avoid such disputes reaching the courts. 9. If however parties to such disputes do decide to use the courts to resolve these particular matters, they are advised to seek separate advice about appropriate court procedures that may be available. Further Help and Advice 10. There are other HMCS leaflets available from the HMCS website Her Majesty's Courts Service - Home or county court offices which are designed to help claimants and defendants, but they can only give a general idea of what is likely to happen. Court staff can advise on court procedures and provide the forms needed and help to fill them in, but they cannot give legal advice. 11. Free legal advice may be available from Citizens Advice Bureaux, law centres or independent advice agencies. Contact details can be found in the local phone directory and details may be displayed in local courts. Alternatively, contact Community Legal Advice on 0845 345 4345 or their website at Community Legal Advice