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

stupid housing benefit yet again


JL12345
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4740 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 gave housing benefit my pay slips when I first started claiming, this is when I began work and was updating my change of circumstances. I was being emergency taxed at the time and assumed they'd realise this as it clearly states on my wage slip the emergency tax code.

So my income was £1000 lesser emergency tax took it down to £750 so they've used this income to calculate my benefits. When my tax code was sorted out its now £1000 lesser normal tax code making it £890 take home pay. Their trying to now say that I have commited fraud, however, I did not change any of my payslips, I gave them what they asked for, they've since asked for all my payslips which are the normal tax code and obviously theres a £140 difference. Is this my fault or theirs? I thought they'd know I was being emergency taxed, they could see my actual income was £1000 before tax...... help I don't know what to say to them, how to go about arguing my case that its their fault??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya,

 

My income never changed its always been 12000 per year. My first few payslips were emergency taxed but it still shows my annual salary on the payslip and my tax code. They asked for three payslips which I gave them, at the time I was being emergency taxed, I assumed they would have known this?? My salary has not changed in the slightest, they've just written asking me to provide my latest wage slip and when I dug out my wage slips that I had given them before I noticed that they were all emergency taxed and this one is just a normal tax code. Is that their mistake for not realising I was being emergency taxed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your wages stay the same, but your income changed. £1200/£1200 £750/£890.

 

The council wouldn't have known when your tax code changed.

 

How long has it being going on for?

 

EDIT

PS who told you about fraud? Thet can not say you have commuted fraud, as it's not them that decide.

They can say you're suspected of fraud.

 

 

.

Edited by Life-Goes-On
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought they calculated it on your income before tax?? Its been going on for about 4 months now, I honestly just never thought about it didn't think anything of it, I assumed if they had my wage slips and I never got a wage increase then there was no change of circs?? I'll have to give them a ring in the morning and see what they say, surly they must have known?? I gave them a letter from my employer aswell stating my annual income,, im worried now

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think they'll see this as fraud then? The overpayment can't be huge it's only been 4 months with a difference of about 150 in salary, even though I think its rather silly of them to be honest, I thought they'd be intelligent enough to realise i'd been emergency taxed. If theydo decide its fraud do they stop your benefit while they investigate?? I wouldn't be able to keep a roof over my head if they did that, thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just gone through all my paperwork and im going to send them all of my payslips from the date i started working, my tax credit awards, my P60, a letter from my employer, a letter regarding my childcare costs, just everything really so they can sort it all out, my benefit council are forever making mistakes and have messed my claim up majorly before and it took me 6 letters and 12 phone calls from me to make them realise they were overpaying me, so they can see in the past i've really veen on their case to make sure my claim is right, what do you think will happen? Do you think common sense will prevail and they'll see that this was a misunderstanding??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Housing benefit is calculated on net income not gross. So when the net income figures changed it was your responsibility to inform them.

 

Sounds like the overpayment is relatively small, so you should expect not much more than to have to pay it back plus possibly an administrative penalty of 30%.

 

Have you had an interview under caution?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No not yet, they wouldn't have noticed this if I hadn't og highlighted it so they more or less hinted that this went in my favour. I got some legal advice and housing benefit supposedly have a 30 week rule regarding this that's according to my solicitor anyway, my net income only differed slighly so I'm hoping they'll see it was a genuine error on my part and I can't see how there would have been a huge overpayment anyway, nothing worth taking me to court over anyway, is the 2000 rule they have a myth??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...