Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

ebay and selling


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4719 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

capital what is that leemack is their a amount that i can only reach say 500 or 1000 pounds sorry about asking but i am desperate

 

The savings limits start at £6000. Make sure you keep printouts and details of what you've sold in case it ever gets queried.

 

What you need to make sure of is that you're selling your own stuff. If you buy things for the intent of selling things on for profit, then that would be generating income and would need to be declared as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you started selling stuff regularly then it would be classed as a business, ebay car boot sales etc.

If you buy to sell then it's trading and a business.

 

If a person just wants to sell off some household items then that's not a business.

 

It doesn't matter about regularity, it matters whether its personal possesions or whether the person has purchased items with the intent of reselling at a profit.

 

You can sell as many personal possessions as you like over whatever period you like - as long as you declare any capital (savings) increases that may affect income based benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would look at how regular it was.

You could claim you were buying items, then sold them as you no longer wanted them and that would be fine.

But if you kept doing it regularly then they would be classing that as trading

 

No. There is a difference between being perceived by the DWP as possibly contravening regulations and actually contravening regulations, and also there is a difference between not doing anything wrong, and making up a story to cover benefit fraud. Certain behaviours may provoke further investigation.

 

If someone sells (for instance) all of their dvds and cds over the course of two years, that would be regular selling but not trading and could not be counted as income.

 

If someone regularly went to car boot sales and purchased dvds and then sold them on then that could be considered to be trading - however if the claimant can prove that there was no profit, and the intention was to buy the dvd to watch - then its still not income.

 

The thing that the DWP have to prove is intention. If these are items that were purchased a long time ago, before claiming benefit, then it is pretty much impossible to claim that they were purchased with the intent to sell for profit regardless over what time period they were sold.

 

If someone is buying items while on benefit and then selling them on, there are two options, either they purchased them to use and then once used, had no further need so sold them. Or they are doing it as benefit fraud and are CLAIMING the items are for personal use. Either way the DWP would investigate this situation, and it may well go to a tribunal. At tribunal imagine two different scenarios - number 1 - the person has been buying cds at car boot sales and then selling them on ebay. At tribunal (or even before) they provide records showing the cds were purchased and sold for 50p each and show that all the cds were ripped onto his computer - and explains this was his purpose, to obtain the tracks for his collection, once he has ripped the cd's, he no longer needs them. The tribunal would find in his favour. Scenario number 2 - The person has been buying cd's at car boot sales and then selling them on ebay. At tribunal the dwp show that the cd's had been purchased for 20-50p each and sold for £1 each, and in addition the postage costs charged were in excess of what they actually cost, making in total a profit of up to £1.20 on each cd. The person does not provide any evidence at tribunal except to say that they were for personal use and he sold them on after listening to them. The tribunal would decide on a balance of probabilities that the person had been trading and should have declared his income - he also might face prosecution.

 

Can you see there is a difference between what may be suspect behaviour and what the actual regulations state. I'm telling you that regardless of time period the regulations state that if you're selling personal items, then that is not considered to be income.

 

Whether or not the dwp would want to investigate a long term selling off of personal items is a different matter - but as long as the person could prove they had done nothing wrong - for instance receipts, records of transactions, bankstatements etc then there should be no problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I am saying if a person bought an item (say a necklace) for a tenner wore it once then sold it for £100 that's fine.

If a person bought a necklace 3 times a week wore it once each time and sold it for £100 each time it would be classed as trading.

Same event, but done regularly then the rules change.

 

No I think that's called fraud - if someone buys and sells 3 necklaces a week while on benefits and claims it was to wear them once, no one is ever going to believe they were purchased as personal items.

 

But you're talking about a pattern of buying AND selling. If you are just selling items you own already you can do that within the rules over whatever time period you like.

 

Also any time you buy something for considerably less than you sell it for is going to raise alarms. And even if you buy one thing and sell it on for a profit - if that was the intention all along then selling that one thing is still trading - even if they try and make up the 'I brought it to wear once' excuse. It wouldn't be considered reasonable that someone on £65 a week benefits would pay £10 for a necklace they only planned on wearing once.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...