Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A never ending torrent of **it Outrage as ‘tidal wave’ of sewage floods historic market town’s unique chalk river WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Exclusive: Water firm pumps sewage into river Misbourne, Amersham on 21 ‘dry days’ during nearly five month period  
    • Worth noting that all of these firms - either the alleged EIS investment, the rebate company themselves or the payee were all registered to the same address. Clavering House is 3 miles away from HMRC Benton Park view offices.   Wardrop - unfortunately unsuccessful due to late appeal - assessments opened by HMRC in March 2019. Scammed by Richard Hall (Capital allowances consultants ltd - Clavering House) investments into Cryoblast Limited 15/16 (Paul Huggins - Clavering House) and Eco Cooling solutions 16/17 (Anthony Fitches - Clavering House).    Mccuminsky - scammed by Capital Allowances after providing his details to Stefan Brown Alpha Tax Consultants (Clavering House) payment made to Eco Cooling Solutions.    Robson - scammed by Capital Allowances - 15/16 paid to Cryoblast 16/17 paid to Eco Cooling.    Myself - scammed by Allan Maxwell - MaxTax (other business Maxwell electronics) registered to Clavering House.   Cryoblast Solutions and Fast Tax - Alan O’Hara    Please note there are two Cryoblasts involved - Cryoblast limited (Paul Huggins and Clavering House) and Cryoblast Solutions Limited (Alan O’Hara also director of Fast Tax).    My return simply said “Cryoblast” another thing that should have been clarified as part of HMRC guidelines before paying out the claim.    Cryoblast limited was already suspected to be involved in fraudulent claims before my investment as Huntly had open assessments issued in November 2018.    Cryoblast Solutions, the same company director as Fast Tax where my money was sent was dissolved before my claims were submitted. 
    • On the d-day issue, * we know sunaks shameful self-interest preferring a hope at using lies for self-promotion over honoring our heroes, * we know Starmer demonstrated his statesmanship with other statesmen and women,  ** BUT where was Farage? Was he in a pub looking for self-promotion? .. Surely as a wannabe statesman - he should have spent a bit of his (someone elses?) cash attending the ceremonies? or wasn't he offered a seat near enough the front to interest him?   mind you .. "I said I wanted my county back. Well now I want my life back ... I am not a career politician... I won't be changing my mind again, I promise you" - Nigel Farage, stepping down from public life. 5 July 2016  
    • dont need them.   let the defendant play the terms game
    • I am reading the thread now and think although its probably very similar to my predicament,  I have no way of obtaining the terms anymore due to MyParcelDelivery having being dissolved and their website not being active now. I have nothing to quote from and they didn't send me a copy at the time of order, the website that I believe they reinvented themselves as P4D has terms I am looking at now but however similar they may be I wont be able to quote from them in this case. Thanks 
  • 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

Going to tribunal after court for benefit fraud


sarahj22
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5084 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

Hiya I have asked a few questions for my friend before who has been prosecuted for benefit fraud.

The DWP had originally made a decision that she had been lining with a partner from July 05 to July 09. The council took her to court where even the defence said they didn't have enough evidence to get a conviction for the 4 year so they came to an agreement of 7 months and she pleaded guilty to this and received her punishment.

 

When the origonal decision came through she appealed it straight away but never heard a thing. Today she has received papers for a tribunal hearing saying they re looked at the case and still decided she was overpaid for the 4 years. This second decision was made before she went to court but they never sent her any letters saying this even tho there is a copy of them with the papers she got today.

 

So my question is as the defence admitted they didn't have enough evidence to prove she was living with a partner during the dates the DWP decided dose she have a good case to get the desertion changed to the same dates that her conviction in court was based on.

I'm a little miffed as to how the DWP think they have got a strong enough case to say she was guilty and has been overpaid when the defense quite clearly doesn't agree otherwise they would have taken it to crown court and pushed for the full amount.

 

Thanks for any advise.

Edited by sarahj22
Link to post
Share on other sites

The court decision is based on what is beyond reasonable doubt & the benefit decision is based on probability.

 

She has been prosecuted for the period that can be proved beyond doubt, however this doesn't change the benefit decision & the full overpayment period will stand pending the appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I see, Thanks for that information. It's gets me so mad tho that they can lump someone with a huge debt based purely on probability.

I know she was not living with a partner for the time they are saying tho so I suppose that's why it angers me so much

I just wounder how many other people they do this to and get it totally wrong.

 

Have you any idea how these tribunal things work. Will she be able to call whiteness and provide documents and letters proving her side.

 

Are they also based on probability or proper facts ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

A tribunal will apply the law to the facts and the decision is made upon the balance of probability of which of those facts are correct.

 

That letter about the tribunal hearing - is it from DWP advising they have made a decision and it is going to tribunal or is the letter from the Tribunal Service?

 

I ask because, if the first tier tribunal have already made a determination, she can only appeal against that decision to the upper tier tribunal on a point of law.

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

Hiya the letter is from DWP. It says it's a copy of the appeal papers and a copy has been sent to the tribunals service who will get in touch with her to explain what happens next.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's fine.

 

What will happen next is she will be sent forms from the Tribunals Service about the appeal. They will ask if she wants an oral hearing or a paper hearing. It will also ask her to provide any further evidence she has in support of her appeal to them - she should send photocopies of any documents which support her appeal in good time.

 

If she chooses a paper appeal, all of the papers she has received from DWP in addition to any evidence she sends to the tribunal will be considered and a decision made on the basis of all of the facts on the balance of probabilities whether he was living there for the 4 years or for less.

 

If she chooses an oral appeal, they will still look at all of the paper evidence but there is also the opportunity for her and her representative (if she has one) to attend and she can answer any questions the tribunal may have to clarify the facts at hand. The tribunal do play an inquisitive role and she will be asked a lot of questions but it's not as formal as a court hearing. Once they are finished gathering all the information they require they will ask all parties to leave the room. Again, a decision would be made on the basis of all of the facts on the balance of probabilities (whether it was more likely than not) that he was living there for the period in question. They will call all parties back in and announce their decision - in most cases. In some cases, you don't get the decision on the day and have to await a written notice of the decision. Either way the decision will always be confirmed in writing.

 

It's quite common for appeals to be suspended pending the outcome of criminal proceedings for a related case.

 

As Jabba has explained, the standard of proof in criminal law is beyond all reasonable doubt meaning that if there is any doubt whatsoever, the case cannot be proven. In civil law, the standard of proof is much lower, on the balance of probabilities meaning they just need to show it is more likely than not.

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

Not for this offence, no. Even if they decide on the balance of probabilities that she was overpaid for the full 4 years. The civil case is completely seperate to the criminal case and one will not affect the other.

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...