Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes, I will, I have a million bookmarks and I will post it here as soon as I find it. EDIT: Here we go, took less time than I thought it would:
    • Could you link us to BankFodder's post please? The judge's office means something different to me. HB
    • Hi LFI, With regard to the ANPR cameras in your post #65, while I was on the phone to the Planning Department, they did take a look at Google Streetview and went back to 2012 where they could see the ANPR cameras in place so therefore they would have deemed consent. I had previously read the T&C Planning Regulations and had read the section on deemed consent so I understood the point they made on the phone. It doesn't matter though, that doesn't harm my case any, and I shouldn't really mention this now, (this is what you reminded me of on another thread) but in the past I was a member of a scheme that gave me access to legal advice, I have spoken to a barrister previously through this scheme on another matter and I think I am still a member. I am going to check if I am still a member of the scheme, and if I am I will discuss my case with a barrister or solicitor, whichever the scheme deems appropriate. I will let you know the outcome. I am also going to take Bankfodders advice in the sticky and go to the local court and ask if I can sit in on a case in the Judges office.
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx Yes sorry. they called it a deed at first in court.  Then Judge said she was happy to have it sealed as something else  exact names of orders in message above.     The disease was tested for when his cardiac testing was done immediately after purchase and part of the now sealed case.   However, results were disclosed incorrectly and I only found out  two days ago.   This disease did not form part of my knowledge during the case as I had been informed of a normal result that was not the case.   it is perfect clarity of a genetic disease where as the previous cardiac issue could be congenital until the pup is genetically tested. 
    • Hi, Halifax recently sold a credit card account of mine to Cabot. I am unemployed and have no assets and was thinking of making token £1 payments for 12-18 months in order to drag things out a bit and reduce the chance of Cabot being able to get the correct CCA documents from Halifax if I requested them in future. However, I saw on the pages on this forum about defending county court claims that one of the standard approaches when defending such claims is to say “I had an account with bank X, but I don’t remember the details and so don’t know if I owe this debt…”. If I made £1 payments to Cabot, would it prevent me from using such a defence in future? OC: Halifax DC: Cabot/Wescot Card account opened: 2016 Defaulted: 2023
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Urgent help needed. What tax years relate to my claim for Contributions Based JSA?


redpersian75
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5182 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I made a claim for Contributions Based JSA September 2009 . Please can someone tell me which tax years should be used to calculate my entitlement to this? They used years ending April 07 and April 08. I thought that it should be years ending april 08 and april 09 as claim was September 2009 and as such falls 5 months into the years ending April 2010 year. Please help , help urgently required . I have been unemployed since September 2009 and have not received a penny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a claim any date following the first Monday in 2009 they will use the tax years ending 2008 and 2007.

 

Its the last 2 complete tax years preceding the year in which you claim (not the tax year in which you claim)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really confused now as answers are conflicting. On Direct gov it says last 2 tax years which when you are in tax year ending apr 10 would be 09 and 08 so why would they use 08 and 07 or does it depend when in the calendar year you claim ? If they are going to use last skip one they should say. I may have to wait and try again after this April if that is the case when I will have been unemployed for 8 months with nothing coming in. I am at my wits end and have an appeal tribunal shortly . I wish I could get a definitive answer. Id seems silly to me as they used same two tax years when i tried to claim May 2008 . I think they must be trying it on .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have checked and stand corrected ...

 

The relevant tax years are those that precede the benefit year in which the claim is made. To make things a little more complex, the benefit year runs from the first Sunday in January whereas the tax year starts in April. This means that the tax years 2004-2005 and 2006-2007 (for example) would be the two relevant tax years for a claim made in February 2007.

Still totally confusing!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still a bit confused so if I was trying to claim in sept 2009 it would be tax years preceding the benefit year which would be the first sunday in 2009 in effect meaning that it is the the two tax years before January 2009? in which case I had better abandon all hope and cancel the tribunal. If I understand correctly if I were to make a fresh claim now we are now in the benefit year of 2010 being beyond the first sunday in january and therefore they would now use the tax year ending Apr 2009 and the tax year ending 2008? It is madness why don't they all use the same years?!!! Have I got it correct this time comments from all please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tax years used are the last two complete tax years preceding the benefit year in which you make your claim. This is so that everyone who claims in any given benefit year is treated in the same way.

 

So, if you claimed in September 2009, this would fall in benefit year 2009, which started on the first Sunday in January 2009 and ended on the Saturday before the first Sunday in January 2010.

 

The last two complete tax years are therefore 06/07 and 07/08. Tax year 08/09 was not complete on the first Sunday in January 2009, and so is not used.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you antone that is much clearer now . I just wish they had explained that before I appealed it could have saved a lot of hassle . Based on those calculations I will be able to reapply now and it should be ok , fingers crossed ,thanks for all your help

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...