Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'decision'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 109 results

  1. Hi, I had an agreement with MBNA where they would hold all interest, as long as I paid the debt off within 10 years. The amount owing was divided up in 120 months (10 years). However, in the mean time, they have decided to sell the debt, at the same time as our financial situation has changed. The monthly payments are now less. They write to inform me that I am in arrears. The DCA have said the following, is this right does anyone know?? The payment was set by MBNA, based upon, I assume a previous Income and Expenditure form at the point of being 'charged off' which means no further interest is applied to your account but it does mean that this is your 'normal monthly payment'. This can not be amended now as it was sold on this way. It is also less than the 5% normally applied to credit card accounts. And so, we are happy to accept your offer of payment but as it is does not meet your contractual payment the arrears will continue to accrue. We have a legal obligation to reflect accurate data to the Credit Reference Agencies, which also includes arrangements, missed payments and arrears and so your data entry at the credit reference agency will be updated with this information.
  2. I hope for your help on how I should apply the Central London County Court to Enforce an Financial Ombudsman Final Decision using form N322A? I am a Danish pensioner, living in Denmark, on 28 March 2018 the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) made a Final Decision in my favor regarding my complaint against Abshire-Smith Global Ltd., 26 York Street, London W1Y 6PZ, which I accepted. However, the business has unfortunately not complied, i.e. paid me the required amount (GBP 84.833, incl. 8% interest and a GBP 750 compensation awarded by the FOS) within 28 days of me accepting the FOS Final Decision, as they were ordered to by the FOS, despite many reminders from the FOS and finally the FOS reporting the business to the Regulator (the Financial Conduct Authority), but all in vain. The FOS has therefore advised, that I can apply the County Court, nearest to the business, in order to enforce the ombudsman decision (see the attached FOS Consumer Factsheet "enforcing an ombudsman decision in court"). I therefore informed the business that I would now proceed to the County Court unless they complied with the FOS Final Decision - and thereby also saving the business the considerable court fee. However, as I did not hear from the business I sent my application by email (Enquiries.centrallondon.countycourt@justice.gov.uk) to the Central London County Court on 25 Oct. 2018, with all required documents duly completed incl. Form N322A, but less court fee (I requested the Court for information on the court fee amount and how to pay it). I received an automated reply, that I would receive a answer within 10 working days. However, 10 working days have now passed and I have not heard from the County Court, despite sending them a reminder last week. In the meantime Adam Neal, the CEO and Founder of Abshire-Smith Global, has sent me an email informing "Please note we have the option of a judicial review, which is what we are requesting". They have said this before to the FOS shortly after the FOS Final Decision, but apparently it was just a threat and I also believe they should have requested for a Judicial Review within 3-4 months of the date of the Final Decision, so it's properly another delaying tactic? I have, therefore, asked my contact person at the FOS, the Adjudicator,for information on what the Judicial Review means and how I can know if the business has actually applied for this, if the Court accepted the application, the processing time and whether I will be informed of the outcome. Apart from informing me she will inform me "shortly" I have not heard from her again in over 2 weeks, despite my reminder by email. I therefore wish to proceed to enforce my FOS Final Decision at the County Court, but how should I proceed, as they do not respond to my emails? I hope you can help me? enforcing-an-ombudsmans-decision.pdf n322a-eng.pdf
  3. Hi All, I've got numerous claims on going at the moment, some of which are over 6 years - I have been waiting since Feb/March, I spoke with someone at the FOS last week who stated that there is a "decision" currently on-going and that the PDL companies are battling with them as to what action they can take for those loans over 6 years etc. Does anyone else know anything further about this, seems some companies have "opted in" or agreed to them but others are fighting it as it will obviously mean more complaints against them.
  4. My sister has been refused benefits because they think - erroneously - she is earning 130 a week, when in fact she hasn't worked since January. They said they based their decision on her tax return (actress, self-employed). When she asks, that's all they say. She needs to see their detailed calculations and what in the tax return they used to arrive at this wrong conclusion. Can we ask for that? Thanks.
  5. A few months ago I enquired about PPI on some old Egg Loans I had in the early 2000's. This morning I had a letter from Canada Square with their decision. On one policy did not have any PPI on it but the other 2 did and they have upheld my complaint. It says the total redress is £4,256.55 but that out of that amount I am only getting £2,168.60 because of a Final Loan adjustment £1,849.17 is going to a company called Arrow Global Receivables who my loan was transferred to in 2011. There is also a deduction of £2,365 listed as "Less any previous rebate paid" I was never paid any other rebate but perhaps this is something to do with my not paying off the full initial loan after entering the trustdeed? To be clear I took out the loan in 2002, and increased it twice in the following year to about £11,000 total. I then entered into a protected trustdeed in early 2006 which this loan was included in. The trustdeed was finished in 2009 and I had no idea that the loan account was still open. I will attach a pdf of relevent info from the decision letter. I know I am lucky to be getting anything at all given that I have been in a trustdeed but I just want to check that the amounts seem right and that them taking the other money off is right and fair. Thank you for your help! Also to let you know I did send a SAR to Canada SQ at the start of June but they didn't accept my inital change of address ID and then didn't get back to me for almost a month so the sar info will take longer to recieve. Should hopefully get it in a few weeks. A trustdeed advisor (not my former trustee) has told me that she doesn't think that the payment to Arrow should be made considering I have completed a trustdeed. She has advised me to call them to make it clear I have been in a trustdeed and get a reason for why this payment is being made to Arrow. I am a bit worried about calling them and discussing the trustdeed in case it affects my chances of getting any payment at all. At the same time it is a lot of money to lose if the payment to Arrow is in error. egg letter.pdf
  6. An ajudicator made a decision to uphold my case 4 years ago, however the business appealed the decision. After constantly chasing the FOS over a period of 3 years and numerous missed deadlines, six months ago an ombudsman made a provisional decision again in my favour, however I was stripped of costs which the adjudicator had awarded. To date, no final decision has been made, and the pattern of broken promises for deadlines, and constant chasing them for a final decision is still ongoing. What can I do to get them to make a final decision after 4 years of the stress of this case and struggling to survive financially?
  7. Hi there - hope somebody may be able to help? It is in relation to the Local Government Ombudsmen - Decision Review? Following a complaint to my local authority, which dragged on for approx 16 months at Stage 1 and they refused to allow me to access my rights to progress to Stage 2 of the Statutory Complaints Procedure, I referred the matter to the LGO. Long story short, I was not happy with the LGO decision in finding no fault in the Council's actions. I then used the 'LGO DECISION REVIEW PROCESS' to voice the fact I was not happy with this decision and that it was unfair and there had been bias used against me etc. This did not result in any change of decision, the original LGO decision stood and I am told I have no further rights to challenge the LGO decision/ you only have one shot at requesting a review of the decision? I am trying to find out if this is the end of the road for challenging their decision, or is there any other route I can take for this decision to be properly investigated and the merits of their decision scrutinised? This seems so unfair as my complaint still unresolved and I now have no faith in a 'flawed statutory complaints procedure' if it does not live up to what it claims to do? Any advice would be greatly appreciated............many thanks
  8. Hello Caggers! Back in January I went to court against Lowells for a debt that didnt exist and won. I've just looked at my credit file for another reason and am astounded to see that Lowells are still registering defaults on this account - the most recent being updated last week. The Judge decided there was no case to answer and that the account had been closed satisfactorily in 2013 with a zero balance. Looking at the credit report, it clearly shows the account is considered active and Lowells have updated the default every month since August 2014 until last week. Is there anything I can make them pay for this? This account was found by the Judge to have never been in debt at any time (other than during the normal operation of the account). I never went near my credit limit and always paid in full, every month without fail. The account was paid off in August 2013 and closed the next day. He also found there was no legal basis for any collection activities to take place, including adding defaults. I did get a default notice last year, around the same time I got the N1 from the CCBC, but none at all this year. I really want to make Lowells pay for this. The judge dismissed all their claims and categorically stated I owed no money to any person or entity with regards to this account. They are ignoring this. There should be NO defaults registered against this account at all. What can I do? Ian
  9. After having issues with gambling and payday loans, my credit score was ruined and my partner agreed to help me with a guarantor loan to consolidate some of the debt, a terrible idea as we've found out. At the time I had over £10,000 of HTSTC loans outstanding and said I would consolidate some of these with the loan. UK Credit lent £7,500 to me, with repayments of £281. I paid around £6,000 off the HTSTC loans with the money, the rest I owed to my partner. Straight away I struggled, took out more debt to help with payments and then in April 2017 stopped due to lack of finances. In June I filed a complaint with UK Credit claiming irresponsible lending. Soon after the Ombudsman wrote to myself saying they were looking into the case and asking UK Credit for information, UK Credit wrote to the guarantor with a Letter Before Action notice, stating the remaining £7,543 had to paid in full, otherwise court action would follow. My guarantor is often pestered saying court action is soon approaching if nothing is done. Too get them off my back while the Ombudsman looks into this, last month I offered £200 a month which they rejected and stated that they wanted the full £280 a month repayment upheld. As they didn't agree with our expenditure forms. I currently have £800 a month going out in debt repayments. I would like some advice on how to get them off guarantor's back. How likely is court action? What is the best course of action until the Ombudsman takes further action?
  10. This very recent Local Government Ombudsman's decision (released 10 days ago) is another one of importance. In this particular case, a motorist had incurred a penalty charge notice from London Borough of Haringey for wrongful parking. As the contravention was for parking as opposed to a CCTV contravention, she received a Penalty Charge Notice on her car advising that the charge was £130 but if she made payment within 14 days, she would be entitled to a 50% discount bringing the penalty down to £65. She told the council that she could not pay and offered to clear the debt over a 15 month period at £5 per month; the Council refused but offered here a further 14 days to pay at the reduced rate. She refused to pay. A warrant of control has been issued and passed to bailiffs to enforce and the debt has risen from £65 to £513 (to include bailiff fees of £310). PS: Please see the next post for a copy of the decision.
  11. hi. i had my esa assessment last Wednesday,and am waiting for the out come, but in the mean time my sick note as expired,should i see my doctor for another fit note to send, or will they just keep paying me the esa until they reach there decision.
  12. Dear those who have had decision letter or have Knowledge The letter said my lost was £80,000 (this is what my pension would be worth) however the amount they put as transferred was the amount my new current pension is worth £40,000(this is what they awarded me) however at the time of transfer the amount was £19,000 NOT £40,000. I am lead to believe that my current pension should not be used as a decision. Only the pension at the time of transfer. Were they right to use my current pension figure as the amount transferred when it £19,000. less broker fees My current pension is not income guaranteed it an shared investment policy They also didn't take in to consideration life insurance attached or brokers or life time brokers fee attached to my pension Do I need to make a separate claim for life insurances attached to my pension. I was lead to believe this should of been included in the calculations Any examples of FSCS Decision well be appreciated feel free to change figures and name Dear all The FSCS used my current pension figure as a lost sum however this was not the amount transferred and the model for this pension is not the same as the pension it was transferred from. They did not include my life insurances attached to my pension or life time brokers fees. Thanks
  13. Hi guys, I actually had a very quick reply from the FOS. Less than a month after I made a complaint I had the answer - not the one I wanted but the service was quick, professional and the guy was extremely easy to deal with. My complaint was re MBNA. I took out a credit card in 2006 - fell into arrears in 2009 - finally came to an agreement with them in 2010. I maintained the arrangement to pay and then they sold the debt to IDEM in 2012. Due to serious illness, I couldn't keep payments up with IDEM and now pay them 15 per month. Arrears are 9144 on 10310 balance. I wrote to MBNA to tell them I believed that they should have put a default on my file - they said no they didn't have to as our "relationship didn't break down." I disagree but the FOS agree with them. He quotes the ICO guidelines saying the customer relationship is paramount. He said MBNA treated me fairly, agreed on a reduced repayment plan (200 pm ) and therefore no need for default. I explained I believed IDEM cannot put default on the file as they are not an original creditor - is that correct as he was under the impression they could if I broke the terms. My credit file is a mess, it shows more than six months in arrears with AR even though I have kept to the AR I made with them. So can I do anything now? I don't have ten grand. I could increase payments but how long with the AR remain on my file? Also, could I ask them to accept payments of 200 pm now and capitalize the arrears - like a new loan? Do you think I could argue anything with the FOS. Obviously, if I had stopped payment in 2010 instead of trying to do the right thing, the debt would have fallen off my file.
  14. Please can someone explain this to me. I have had a decision on my pip after my assessment and they have awarded me but its over £100 less than my original dla payments. We will pay you on 18 January 2018. This money that we owe you from the 27 December 2017 to 17 January 2018. Does this mean I now won't receive my dla payment I was due on 18 December 2017 Also and I know we shouldn't of done it but we recorded the assessment. They've lied in the letter saying he drives when he doesn't know how to and never has drove a car which I have on tape them asking and him telling them he never has driven. and a few other things so they've lowered his money by £130. Not sure if its worth appealing.
  15. Devon County County (16 017 119) Decision date: 17th August 2017. Published on the LGO website: 17th November 2017 Vulnerability and bailiff enforcement is a subject that is of great importance and sadly, it is a subject that is very much misunderstood. The LGO have made a number of decisions regarding the 'definition' of vulnerability and the following case is another one where the LGO confirm that a 'vulnerable' debtor must provide evidence to demonstrate how their vulnerability affects their ability to deal with the debt. PS: The following is a shortened copy of the decision. A full copy can be accessed from the link at the foot of the post. Background: (9) Mr B has received 5 penalty charge notices (PCN) for parking offences since 2014. A parking enforcement officer placed two on the car and Mr B received three through the post. On the telephone, Mr B told me that he did not take account of parking laws as he believes there is a law from the year 1600 that means he can’t be fined and so can park anywhere. (16) The Council has said that Mr B first used the words’ vulnerable’ about his wife and him both having Blue Badges on 3 December 2015. (17) The Council said it advised Mr B on 5 July to contact the bailiffs for them to consider his ‘vulnerability’ and for him to provide them with whatever evidence they need to confirm his status as vulnerable. The Council advised Mr B that if the bailiff did deem his to be a vulnerable household the Council would withdraw the warrant and cease activity. (18) The Council said Mr B did not supply the bailiffs with supporting evidence. It has said the blue badge issued to Mr B, shows they have met the criteria of limited mobility to have a blue badge issued but may not necessarily be vulnerable. (19) The Council says that Mr B thinks that his vulnerability means that he is exempt from paying these fines. The Council says it disagrees with Mr B’s interpretation. It considers he is still liable to pay these fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how these fines are paid, e.g. deferring payment periods, accepting lower instalments until debts paid. (20) The Council has asked Mr B to provide supporting written evidence of his ‘vulnerability’ for it to find out if there are other conditions from which he suffers that may fit his interpretation of vulnerability, e.g. Mental health, depression, post- traumatic stress, at risk of self-harm, inability to understand and engage with the process. The Council says that if Mr B does meet any of these criteria, then it may withdraw the warrants and close the cases. Mr B has not provided supporting evidence. Analysis from the Local Government Ombudsman: (23) Mr B complained a business centre issued the warrants rather than a court and so were invalid. The TEC is the court appointed by the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport to deal with registration of debts arising from penalty charge notices. I can find no fault on this point. (24) Mr B complains the bailiffs did not have the correct warrants. The Council has said the court sends the warrants electronically and so there are no paper copies. For completeness, I will ask the Council to send me its electronic records showing the warrants but I can see no evidence of fault on this point. (25) Mr B believes that under the Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2010, (updated 2015) as soon as he told the bailiff company finds out he is vulnerable (with no explanation) they have to withdraw. He believes that he does not need to provide details of his details of his vulnerability; it is then the Council’s job to prove he isn’t. (26) The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, part 2, regulation 10 set out the circumstances in which an enforcement agent may not take control of goods. It says an enforcement agent may not take control of goods of a debtor where a child or vulnerable person is the only person present. The legislation does not give any further guidance about how a vulnerable person is defined. (27) Mr B told the Council he was a vulnerable person. However, he has not explained why he considers he is vulnerable. He considers that it is the Council’s job to prove he is not. (28) It cannot be right that a person can say they are vulnerable and all outstanding debts are written off without them giving further information. If this was the case, then there would be no way for the Council to enforce any debt collection as anybody could claim vulnerability without evidence. I do consider it reasonable for Mr B to explain why he considers himself to be vulnerable. (29) In any case, a vulnerable person still has to pay the fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how the debtor pays the fines, e.g. deferring payment periods or accepting lower instalments. It should also allow the vulnerable person time to get help and advice. (30) I have found no fault in the Council’s actions. The Council gave Mr B the opportunity to appeal the PCN’s and to appeal to the court. No further recovery action has been taken once he told the bailiffs and Council he is vulnerable. However, I do consider it reasonable for him to give details of his vulnerability if he wants the Council to consider removing the warrants. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-017-119
  16. Hi guys, I took part in a WCA not long ago (I've been on ESA WRAG for the last year and this was a reassessment). They found me fit for work but I hadn't been able to secure all my medical evidence in time so instead submitted it along with my MR and the decision was overturned and I got letter saying I had scored the 15 points. Now here is the confusing part..... before I had all my evidence (and could submit my MR) I had to claim universal credit for around 4-5 weeks. I didn't fit the gateway conditions but I didn't have a choice at the time. I wasn't informed I am living in a "Live service" area and should have claimed old style JSA instead of UC I was just told to claim UC, now that my decision has been overturned will I go back onto ESA or will they try keep me on UC? I'm concerned as it means I lose out on money and apparently will be subjected to harsher conditionality (And shouldn't be on UC in the first place). I don't even live in a full service area. Does anyone have any idea what will happen? or what my next steps should be? There wasn't a change in my circunstances at all I was just forced to wait for more medical evidence and then appeal the decision and had to make a claim for UC or i'd have been without money. Thanks in advance for any help. Universal credit is really making a big mess of things.
  17. When the Taking Control of Goods regulations came into effect in 2014, they not only provided a much clearer and fixed fee scale, they also introduced a fairer system whereby, in order to keep bailiff fees to the barest minimum, (of just £75) the debtor is given the opportunity of avoiding a personal bailiff visit (and an enforcement fee of £235 being applied) by paying the debt (including the Compliance Fee of £75) by the date outlined on the Notice of Enforcement....or alternatively, by agreeing a payment arrangement with the enforcement company. Most payment arrangements are for a short period of approx 3-4 months (sometimes even more). Where problems have arisen since 2014, is that many people receiving a Notice of Enforcement from the bailiff company, try to avoid paying bailiff fees by visiting the local authorities website and making an online payment of just the debt owed to the council. Such avoidance methods do not work. This is because, the regulations are very specific in that once the Notice of Enforcement has been issued, the debt owed includes the compliance fee of £75. Furthermore, and this is again in the regulations, any payments made after the Notice of Enforcement has been issued must first be applied towards discharging the Compliance fee (of £75). The bottom line is that if a payment is made to a local authority (minus bailiff fees) after the date on when a Notice of Enforcement is issued, the enforcement company are entitled to their compliance fee (of £75). The effect being that any payment made to a local authority (minus bailiff fees) must be considered as merely a part payment and accordingly, the warrant is not satisfied…and bailiff enforcement can.....and will continue. Since 2014, debt avoidance websites have inundated local authorities with many hundreds of Freedom of Information requests enquiring as to whether councils retain these online payment or pass the compliance fee to the enforcement company etc. These pointless requests have achieved absolutely nothing. There have been quite a few Local Government Ombudsman’s decisions regarding this scenario but a very recent one is of interest because, in this particular case, the local authority adjusted the amount of the Liability Order but failed to inform the enforcement company. The debtor also paid the council direct (minus bailiffs). A have copied the decision in the next post.
  18. WHi All Background: I was purchasing a property on mortgage (Clydesdale Bank) and it was a sub sale. Because of some delays at bank's side we missed the completion date and I lost about £60K. Losses fall into following categories, 1. About £20k - Penalty issued by the seller for late completion (this was already confirmed) 2. About £40k - Money lost in arranging the finances to complete on cash FOS decision is in my favor. However, they are awarding me only about £20K (The actual penalty issued by the seller which I had to pay). They are not considering my other losses even after submitting all the evidences. So don't know what to do? Already suffered a lot and still suffering. Have 3 options, 1. Take about £20K and forget 2. Approach County court 3. Approach High court - Judicial review Any guidance and help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
  19. In the main area of the forum a few days ago, a debate took place regarding a question from a member of the public regarding a letter that he has received from a firm of bailiffs in relation to a Liability Order granted 6 years earlier. The OP wanted to know whether the Liability Order was statute barred (which it is not). Another poster advised that a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman should be considered and that the LGO may likely make a finding of 'maladministration'. The following two LGO decisions would indicate that a complaint to the LGO would not amount to 'maladministration'. and furthermore that a Liability Order is not covered by the Limitations Act.
  20. Currently running at 87% of decisions same as original DM decision because.... This folks is why you should ignore the DWP and appeal! I'll give DWP DMs the benefit of the doubt here as although my last MR for DLA was refused.... the Mandatory Reconsideration DM actually didn't write against my new lower award but how I could win at appeal! Bizarre but true ! Reddit thread Rightsnet thread https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/11271/
  21. The following LGO decision (which was only released this week) is a vitally important one as it deals with a number of misconceptions and inaccurate advice regarding bailiff enforcement. For instance, this decision addresses the following misconceptions:
  22. This is another recent decision from the Local Government Ombudsman. This particular case addresses the common subject of single parents and whether or not they may be considered 'vulnerable' for the purposes of bailiff enforcement. There have been a couple of Ombudsman's decisions regarding 'vulnerability' and as in this particular case, the LGO confirm that it is for the debtor to provide evidence as to how their 'vulnerability' affects their ability to pay or deal with the debt. LGO Decision: North Hertfordshire District Council Miss X complains the Council has used bailiffs to try and collect a disputed council tax debt, even though she is vulnerable. The Ombudsman will not investigate the complaint as she has not seen any evidence of fault in the Council’s actions. The complaint 1 The complainant, who I shall call Miss X, complains via her MP that the Council has used bailiffs to try and recover a disputed council tax debt, despite her telling the bailiffs she is a vulnerable person. Back to top How I considered this complaint 4 I have considered Miss X’s complaint to us, the information her MP sent and the Council’s to Miss X’s complaint to it. Miss X has had the opportunity to comment, via her MP, on an earlier version of my final view. What I found 5 In 2010 the Magistrates’ Court granted the Council a liability order for a council tax debt it said Miss X owed. The Council passed the debt to its bailiffs in the same year. 6 Miss X disputed the debt, saying she should have received council tax benefit. The Council said she had made claim for backdated council tax benefit, but this was refused as it was outside the time limit for backdating benefit. 7 I note the points above as background, but I am not looking at why Miss X owes the debt as any complaint about her liability is be late, and the Ombudsman has previously considered a complaint about Miss X’s benefits. 8 In spring Miss X sent the bailiffs a ‘‘cease and desist’ notice saying as a single parent with a seven year old daughter she was a vulnerable person and the bailiffs should not be taking action to recover the debt. 9 The bailiffs wrote to Miss X asking for further information so they could assess her situation and decide how it affected her ability to pay. As Miss X did not send the information the bailiffs visited her twice later in the year. Miss X then complained to the Council about this. 10 In 2014 the Government issued National Guidance for Enforcement Agents. Paragraph 77 says - “Some groups who might be vulnerable are listed below. However, this list is not exhaustive. Care should be taken to assess each situation on a case by case basis.” 11 One of the groups listed who might be vulnerable are single parent families. 12 The Guidance is clear that if a debtor falls into the list the bailiffs must assess the individual case to see if they should take extra care in recovering the debt. Just because a debtor is a single parent does not, of itself, mean they are vulnerable. 13 The bailiff’s asked Miss X for more details of why she was vulnerable; she did not provide any information. So I cannot say the bailiffs were wrong to continue their recovery action. 14 I will not investigate Miss X’s complaint about the Council using bailiffs to recover a debt from a vulnerable person. Miss X did not send any other information to support her claim and the Council and bailiffs were not at fault to continue recovery action. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/benefits-and-tax/other/16-010-888
  23. Just thought that I would share this. http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/mum-daughter-team-who-won-12849258 This pair who both allegedly work in the legal profession seem to think they have come across some sort of legal loophole that nobody on the planet knows about. Maybe they should have asked Ericsbrother for advice and it wouldn't have even got to court in the first place
  24. Hi all, I'm after some advice... I claim wftc as a single person - my husband passed away 3 years ago. When he passed away my husband had his own business of which we were both directors and our acountant filed our annual tax returns etc. After my husband died (he had a pub) i had to change the pub in to my nme in order to keep it going - pubco insisted. I set up a new limited company of which i was the sole director and informed hmrc of the change. Sadly, i found it very difficult to manage after my husband died and hit some pretty rough financial times and decided to give notice on the pub. The limited company was dissolved at the same time. Whilst i did work during this period - too many hours to mention infact, i did not draw much more than £50 per week from the business and this is what i told hmrc for the purpose of tax credits. If anything, i over estimated. The company was dissolved before our fifrst set of accounts were due and therefore no tax / accounts etc were ever submitted. As i took my money as drawings and not as paye i never had a "tax record" of anything. After the company ended i decided to go in to some consultancy work an formed a new company at the end of the year. Payment wise is more and i advised the tax credits people of the increase. Our first accounts for the business are not due until august this year but the tax credit people are asking me for a P60 from period 2016/2017 which i dont have. What do i do - how do i explain this and should i have filed something?? I looked on the internet and it suggests that if you are a director you dont need to do a self assessment if you are not being paid a salary and only take drawings as and when available which is what i am doing. I'm stressing that they will close my claim and make me pay everything for last year back (the lady on the phone said this could happen). I will no way be able to afford that and i can't pay my mortgage without the current award as i'm building the business and only take a minimum amount out of it... Help!
×
×
  • Create New...