Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'rata'.



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
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

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 3 results

  1. 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:
  2. For a very long time I have raised concerns on here about inaccurate information regarding the enforcement of Magistrate Court fines. The reason for my concern is because, unlike any other debts, (penalty charge notices, liability orders etc) the enforcement officer has the right under the warrant to 'force entry'. Yesterday, the Parliamentray Under-Secretary of State for Justice; Shaliest Vara, clarified the position regarding enforcement agents fees....the 'pro rata' distribution of payments.... and most importantly, how courts deal with direct payments (after a warrant has been past to the enforcement agency. A copy of his statement features in my second post. By way of background, the following is a copy of a post that I made earlier this month: In the past couple of weeks I have received reports of six cases where a locksmith had been used to enforce a debt for magistrate court fines after a debtor had relied upon misinformation on the internet and believed that paying the amount only of the court fine (minus bailiff fees) to the court (as opposed to the enforcement company) would mean that the warrant had been satisfied. In four cases, payment had been made to the court on receipt of the Notice of Enforcement (when bailiff fees of just £75 had been added). In the remaining two cases, payment had been made following an enforcement agent agent visit (fee of £235 had been applied) In each case, the person had relied upon the following statements featured on social media sites (with close links to the Freeman on the Land movement). The warrant for court fines only enables the enforcement of the "Sum Adjudged". Section 76 of the Magistrates courts Act 1980. Pay the fine online. That extinguishes the power to control of goods. The warrant only gives a power to take control of goods for the "sum adjudged". In each debtors case, after making payment to the Magistrates Court they had received notification from the court that their payment had been forwarded to the enforcement company so that the company could properly deduct their Compliance fee of £75 and apportion the balance on a pro rata basis in line with legislation. By following the inaccurate advice, each debtor had incurred substantial additional fees. In four cases, an enforcement fee of £235 had been added and in each case locksmith fee had also been applied.
  3. Hello, I have recently finished working a job, the job was at an academy and was term time only and therefore pro rata pay. The working weeks were 39weeks a year. My pay was for 39 weeks a year plus holiday entitlement of 5.67 weeks a year. So i got paid for 44.67 / 52 weeks a year. The full time pay was £13650 and pro rata'd to 11.725.77 a year. They divided that payment into 12 installments which made it £977.15 a month. I worked from 1st September until the 31st October This was 8 working weeks and 1 week which was half term. I was paid two installments of £977.15 = £1954.30 Due to the way the pay is worked out it means that if you worked there for a year some months you would get paid when you hadn't actually worked and this would all balance out over a year, however due to the fact that I left early I think i might be entitled to some extra pay as I won't benefit from that. So if I get paid for 44.67 weeks a year at £11725.77 and I worked there for 9 weeks, means if 11725.77 / 44.67 = 262.49.. I worked for 9 weeks which is 2362.47. Or excluding the half term I actually worked for 8 full works which would be 2099.92. Either figure is less than the £1954 i was paid. Is there a way of working this out any better? Because the pro rata pay is evened out over 12 months and that means that you are getting paid sometimes when you are not working I feel I have missed out on some money. Any advice would be great, this may not be a huge figure but it currently is to us. Thank you
×
×
  • Create New...