Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi T911 and welcome to CAG. As you say, an interesting screw up. So much for quality control! Anyway, our regular advice is to ignore all of their increasingly threatening missives... UNLESS you get a letter of claim, then come back here and we'll help you write a "snotty letter" to help them decide whether to take it any further with their stoopid pics. If you get mail you're unsure of, just upload it for the team to have a look.
    • Thanks @lolerzthat's an extremely helpful post. There is no mention of a permit scheme in the lease and likewise, no variation was made to bring this system in. I recall seeing something like a quiet enjoyment clause, but will need to re-read it and confirm. VERY interesting point on the 1987 Act. There hasn't been an AGM in years and I've tried to get one to start to no avail. However, I'll aim to find out more about how the PPC was brought in and revert. Can I test with you and others on the logic of not parking for a few months? I'm ready to fight OPS, so if they go nuclear on me then surely it doesn't matter? I assume that I will keep getting PCNs as long as I live here, so it doesn't make sense for me to change the way that I park?  Unless... You are suggesting that having 5 or so outstanding PCNs, will negatively affect any court case e.g. through bad optics? Or are we trying to force their hand to go to court with only 2 outstanding PCNs?
    • That is so very tempting.   They are doing my annual review as we speak and I'm waiting for their response once I have it I will consider my next steps.    The debt camel website mentioned above is amzing and helping to. Education me alot    
    • Sending you a big hug. I’m sorry your going through this. The letters they send sound aweful, and the waiting game for them to stop. But these guys seem so knowledgable and these letters should stop. Hang in there, and keep in touch. Don’t feel alone 
    • In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA. Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Not saying it doesn't happen mind. I've done some more digging on this: Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system. Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that. Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding. At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place. I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is unlawful, breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord). It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.  
  • 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

Fairfax Solicitors/Eversheds & Dept.Work & pensions


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5058 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 recently been involved in challenging Fairfax Solicitors Of Leeds for my daughter over a DWP overpayment from over 10 years ago.

She had no contact with the DWP over this for 8 years and no legal demand for payment or court action had been taken.

The letters received from Fairfax were to say the least amateurish and often contained mistakes in terminology and did not answer any of the questions aked.

I finally challenged them when court action was threatened which I believed was not possible as I had checked back carefully and found the debt to statute barred.

When they replied at first they only stated that Government debt cannot be written off.

I then lodged a formal complaint to Fairfax as they continued to demand a full disclosures of my daughters income and expenditure quoting court guidelines.

At last a reply stating debt is statute barred and legal action is not possible,debt to be referred back to DWP.

Letter received from DWP debt management threatening further action or referral to an outside debt collector.

Formal complaint on this sen to DWP, latest letter from them acknowledging matter sent to ''customer services'' for investigation.

One last big question remains, WHY IS A GOVERNMENT DEPT. USING THE LIKES OF FAIRFAX WHICH BY ANY OTHER NAME IS THE DISREPUTABLE EVERSHEDS ONCE CRITICALLY BLASTED IN A PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because like all Government departments they are cheap, DWP are horrendous, and rarely admit being at fault, having dealt with them personally over an error on their part which would have put me at a loss, the only time they ever sat up and took notice was when I sent them all the dates I wold be available to attend court, and the name of my barrister.

 

The DWP like to believe they are whiter than white, a gentle nudge in the direction of your local MP normaly gives them the kick they need.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying desperate measures in desperate times!!

 

Incidentally, I think I am right in saying that if ever your daughter claimed certain Benefits in the future they may stop some of that money to re-coup the overpayment. Not sure this is covered by credit regulations and as such cannot be time-barred.

 

If I am wrong, then hopefully someone with the correct info will be along soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Harrassed Senior you are correct but this is the only way the corrupt government we are now about to be rid of can recover any debt which is stat barred.

Even if they have a court judgement the 6 year rule can apply they would have to ask leave of the court to pursue.If however you never have to have a social security benefit they can whistle, great as most over payments by the DWP

are their own mistakes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree entirely, I have, in the past, been hit myself by this no-nonsense 'rule' I mean, fair enough if you have had and spent an 'overpayment' but how they can then recoup this out of the poverty line payments you get is beyond me.

 

For instance, my sister is on State Pension which is a few and I mean a few pounds higher because of her working contributions, however, it is low enough for her to qualify for Pension Credit, but now the tax man wants over £1000 per year in tax from her. They cannot comprehend that that will take her £1000 below the poverty level over 12 months!! So as usual give with one hand and take back double with the other!!

 

Sorry I could not give you more help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has your sister income other than State Pension eg investments/savings that are paying interest, and does this exceed her tax allowances please consult man expert on this as soon as pos.

don't get ripped off by gov.by ignorance of your rights the now defunct Lab gov

has relied on this to rip off for years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an anomaly, although a debt to the DWP becomes Statute Barred after six years (five in Scotland) as in all cases of debt the debt does still exist morally although it cannot be enforced legally after that time. However the DWP can still collect the arrears from future benefit payments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly what I said but do not give in to threats from DWP they can only recover from benefits and you can appeal amount deducted.

You must be left with the amount THE LAW says you need to live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

reats

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Brig

 

She is disabled and had been unable to work through disability ten years prior to reaching 60. She has no savings, property, etc. She did not pay tax during that 10 years, and the Inland Revenue only jumped on the bandwagon when she took her pension in a lump sum - they took one third of the lump sum in tax - knocked her sideways did that. Then nothing for 2 years, then got a letter to say she had not returned her recent tax returns, and followed with demands for £3000 for 3 years since her 60th birthday. She says she will go to prison rather than pay it, and, knowing her that is exactly what she will do.

 

Oh well, shouldn't have hi-jacked your thread but thanks for the interest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Senior,

I sympathise with your situation I think you and your sister need to consult either a solicitor or an INDEPENDENT financial adviser or the CAB on this one

I thought lump sums from pensions are tax free.

I am no expert on tax matters but please seek the proper advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi brigjac,

 

Just thought I would share info gained from Tax office recently. My daughter is 13 and is receiving a very very very small monthly pension until she is 18 through my late husbands work pension. Income tax was taken off this under the code BR cumulative and when I queried it, I was informed that all of us attract the Basic rate of tax subject to personal allowances, and the only way to get this back is to ask for a temporary tax code for her. ??? So they get the money first and you have to do all the work to get it back !:rolleyes:

 

Regards

 

Dettie

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Detti,

Not sure how this is worked out especially as new personal allowances have been announced.

perhaps it might be worth seeking independent advice mean while I would certainly get a temporary tax code for her to put itaight and stop any further

deductions as it can take months++ to get a refund,rumours of 6months

unopened mail at some tax offices. Good luck

regards

Brig.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi brigjac,

 

Just thought I would share info gained from Tax office recently. My daughter is 13 and is receiving a very very very small monthly pension until she is 18 through my late husbands work pension. Income tax was taken off this under the code BR cumulative and when I queried it, I was informed that all of us attract the Basic rate of tax subject to personal allowances, and the only way to get this back is to ask for a temporary tax code for her. ??? So they get the money first and you have to do all the work to get it back !:rolleyes:

 

Regards

 

Dettie

 

There's a common myth that children don't pay tax - that's simply not true. In fact, they're taxed in exactly the same way as adults, which means each child can in the 2010-11 tax year earn up to £6,475 tax free from salary, savings or investments.

 

The difference is, unlike most adults, most children don't use up their allowance, so their savings interest is tax free.

 

Assuming your child won't earn more than £6,475 (watch out child prodigies!), ensure any interest is paid without the tax being automatically deducted by filling out the Inland Revenue R85 form (the bank should give you one of these).

 

If you've already overpaid, you'll need to fill out an R40 form to get it back.

 

Special rules for money from parents

 

However, there's a proviso that any interest earned on money specifically given to them by a parent is only tax-free up to £100 interest, per parent or step-parent. If your child earns more than £100, the whole lot is taxed at the parent's rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...