Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

Letter for IUC


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5145 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 Have Just Received An Iuc Letter Saying You May Have Commited A Criminal Offence In Relation To A Benefit Claim Because Of Your Income

What Does It Mean Sorry Im Absolutely Astounded

Im 10 Weeks Pregnant I Suffer With Depression And Panic Attacks

The Thought Of Going To This Interview Is Making Me Sick

I Just Dont Know What It Mean Does It Mean Another Benefit Or What

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly hello, not to worry too much you can get advise here.:D

 

 

Normally as the letter says they send them out if they have information which they should have been told relating to your claim. Could be valid, could be some nosey neighbour with a grudge has rung the agency. But they have to still investigate.

 

Along the lines of, if claiming as single parent, no patner and you have been reported for one living with you.

 

Claiming benefit and working.

 

But there are also many other reasons such as change in circumstances which they have not been informed off which might affect your claim.

 

Try to if want give a little more information without personal details, if nothing is relevant to the letter it could as said just be a malicious report, so if you are up to date with everything and reported all changes and not claiming for something not entitled for then try not to worry.

 

You do have to attend the interview though, but some others with good advice can add more later xxxx

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

no im married and claim income support,dla and incapacity hubby claims carers allowance because he cares for my grandma

 

do i have to go cos seriously i will have a panic attack im at my wits end

i just dont know what to do

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have anxiety problems as well, so know you must be stressed, seriously though try not to worry. If you know everything is above bored in that you are disabled and claiming what entitled to then it is likely someone has rung up as unerving as it is.

 

In any case I would ring them tommorow and see if you can get any more info. I would for reference record the call, some mobiles have a facility on the entertainment window, to record and hold it near the ear peice.

 

You are allowed someone to go to the interview with you, but you do have to go, or your benefits could be suspended. Welfare rights are another good contact you could ring once you know what the problems is. They are normally based under the council in cab and you could look where yours is, they are angels and could support you.

 

But do keep asking questions here if you need to, there are some great advisors here. You could also read some of the other threads and see quite a few people get these letters and see what advice and suppport you can get.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

ive read the other threads but it has mostly been about living with another not income

what does the income thing mean like another benefit or supposedly got a job or sorry i just havent got a clue

can the cab ask on my behalf what it is

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously I am no expert there are many scenarios and you wont know till you call them, so try to switch off till tommorow. You will find as long as honest and truthfull with the dwp they will be back.

 

Could be you are doing something wrong you had no idea of and as a result easily sorted, could be you are doing nothing wrong at all and just malicious call so again as myself a person who finds it hard to switch off do your best and come back tommorow when you know what the problem is.

 

You could refresh yourself as to the types of benefits you are on and the rules of them on the dwp gov site just to reassure yourself you are within the rules on savings and income etc.

 

Best wishes xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't tell the CAB or you much more than what is written in the letter, I'm afraid. You will find out more about the allegations at the IUC.

 

The income they think you have could be from another benefit, or from earned income; it could be any number of things which they classify as income. An IUC is performed because they have some information which suggests you may have been claiming benefit fraudulently.

 

You do not have to go to the IUC, however this will not stop the investigation. Would this cause more anxiety for you in the long run, or would it be better to go and find out what it is about? You can leave the IUC at any time.

 

If you do choose to go, you can take someone with you but they will not be able to speak on your behalf in answer to the questions. You can leave the IUC at any time, or ask for a break if you are finding it too much. If you need to get further advise you can ask for the interview to be postponed until you can obtain further advise.

 

It could all be a big misunderstanding. Loopinlouie's given you some good advice in regard to refreshing yourself to see if perhaps there is something that you haven't declared.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks guys i really dont feel confident to go on thursday i have bronchitis and feel crap if i decided not to attend i know you said they will carry on investigating and suspend my benefits will this be IS,HB AND CT

Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't neccesserily suspend your benefits but it is a measure that they can take.

 

If they do so all the benefits which are suspected of being claimed fraudulently will be suspended.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your income support is linked to housing benefit/council tax benefit then they may also be suspended. The DWP computer system sends a notification to the local authority when a linked benefit is suspended. The local authority normally responds by suspending HB/CTB also.

 

It is not certain that they will suspend but be aware that it is something that they can do, and in some cases where there is a failure to show for an IUC they do suspend pending completion of the investigation, but they should write to you to inform you of any suspension.

 

You're not being a pain at all, we are here to help where we can.

 

I can't tell you to go to the IUC or not go to the IUC because you have to do what is right for you. But I am concerned about your anxiety. Is not going to the IUC and finding out what all of this is about, potentially going to make your anxiety worse; not knowing what is happening with the investigation, whether they are going to suspend your benefit, how you will cope financially with a suspension? If it's your bronchitis which is stopping you from going you can ask for a postponment - you can also ask for a postponement if you want to seek further advice. If you have a solicitor, the investigators will give disclosure to him/her prior to the interview.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

prob both its the thought that they will have substantial proof to call me in thats all

reading the other threads it says that solicitors arent really interested and i wouldnt get legal aid x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

It sounds like you're going through a similar situation as my partner. I would say there is a lot of good advice on here, and as it was pointed out that not all experiences on here are an example of what may happen in your IUC. Try to keep positive, you know you have done nothing wrong, and hopefully it can all be cleared up easily. As for solicitors, we found one that didn't seem interested, but are now trying for another, all we have spoken to have said that they will also intent the IUC for free, if it goes further, thats were costs are incurred. You can, as has been suggested, rearrange the interview for when you are feeling stronger or find a suitable solicitor. It might also be worth getting the solicitor to ask for disclosure and based on what the DWP give you, consult the solicitor if it is in your best interests to attend! Anyhow, good luck, remember you're not alone and we'll be keeping our fingers crossed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

prob both its the thought that they will have substantial proof to call me in thats all

reading the other threads it says that solicitors arent really interested and i wouldnt get legal aid x

 

Proof of what? I am not suggesting you have been commiting fraud but from your posts it is not absolutley clear. So I will advise below what happens when a person has been commiting fraud.

 

If a person has been claiming fraudulently and, and that person fails to attend an IUC, the invesitagtion may continue (depending on the evidence gathered) or stop. If there is enough evidence of fraud it will go to the Prosecution Division who then may go ahead and prepare a case for commencing criminal proceedings.

 

At an IUC, you get an opportunity to put across your side of the story, any mitigating circumstances and may (depending on the level of fraud committed if you have been commiting fraud) be offered a caution or an administritive penalty. Whether this happens is dependent upon a range of factors; the level of fraud, the type of fraud, the reasons why, etc.

 

I am not trying to scare you - I am very aware that you are anxious however you need to be in possession of all of the information to make an informed decision here about whether it is best you go to the interview, or not.

 

If an overpayment resulting from fraud is in excess of £2000 the case is normally referred to the Prosecution Division who will then decide whether they should go ahead with criminal proceedings.

 

I've attached a link to the sanction policy so that you can see how they operate. Sanction Policy

 

Nobody is saying whether or not you should go. That is a decision that only you can make. I have seen that the courts are far more lenient when a person admits fraud at the earliest opportunity.

 

Again, this is not a assumption - it's simply not clear from your posting whether or not you have been claiming fraudulently; you need to know all of the facts and these are some of them in cases where fraud is/has been going on.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again, my understanding, and it may be corrected by others, it that they don't have to have proof to call you in for an interview. They could only suspect you and need to ask you to clarify something. For example a car being parked outside of a house isn't proof that someone is living there, but it raises a posibilty/probability that someone is. Hope that helps.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutley. Once it gets to IUC stage they normally have some strong indicators of fraud. I've dealt with a few people who have gone to an IUC and seen the evidence and they have agreed that it looks very incriminating - but there has been a simple explanation for those indicators along with proof which contests it and the fraud case has been dropped.

 

Suspicious cases such as mentioned above by lightsup, are dealt with by compliance.

 

IUC stages normally have something more than mere suspicion, but again as lightsup states, those indicators that they have (or evidence as they like to call it) which look damning can have a simple explanation which is often communictaed in the IUC

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...