Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

single tax credit claim letter


sandy123456
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4835 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

Thanks for quick reply, the letter states 'your single tax credits claim;is it right? We check thousands of claims each yr to make sure we pay right, not to much or to little. It is instant your claim is right before we start our checks. If wrong you may be over paid and have to pay a penalty. If you call us now we will help to make sure your claim is right before we start making our checks and you wont have to pay a penalty. You are claiming as a single person but we know a lot of people dont tell us about their partner. It then states the meanin of partner and you are still a couple even if you act as a couple, support each other financially etc. Remember that the longer you leave it to put your claim right, the bigger the over payment will be,if yo have been over paid we will work out how much you would have been paid if you had told us about your partner on time. We will help you to check the info is correct and if not put it right. Remember if you call now to put your claim right we wont charge you a penalty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hundreds of thousands of those letters have been sent out to people claiming as individuals. It's part of a crack down on fraud because the largest volume of fraudulent claims to tax credit are from people who purport to be single when they are not, particularly so where there are also childcare costs being claimed. Some of the people the letters have been sent to are already under investigation without being aware of it, and others are not.

 

The letter alone does not necesserily mean an investigation is underway but it may form a part of an investigation if one is underway or carried out in future and covers the period the letter was issued.

 

I got one and I was less than impressed, I found it insulting as I felt it wasn't so much an enquiry as an outright accusation. I don't mind enquiries but this time I felt I was being accused and I didn't appreciate it.

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

I am slightly concerned and going to call monday, I have a partner but he doesnt live with me, but wondering if ex husband has tried to grass and cause trouble but if this was case would I not be contacted by job centre and council as well. I also worry if I call will I not be made to feel guilty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling any benefit department and using the word 'partner' to describe a person who doesn't live with you is a very bad idea. By calling you could inadvertently trigger an investigation. As Erika said, these letters have been sent out to thousands of single claimants. If you are single and living alone, you have no reason to call.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you living together? If so call.

 

If he maintains his own household, has no ties to your house apart from sometimes staying overnight, has no mail going to your house, and does not contribute to the household, then personally I wouldn't call. But its your choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah he has own place nothing comes here but letter states acting like couple socialising as couple which we do. I am certain ex has contacted them rather than just routine letter as none else in area same circumstances has had one

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't class socialising as a couple as anything to do with living together in legal terms. I'm suspicious that examples like this that have been given on your letter are examples of things most boyfriends and girlfriends do even though not living together. Surely you know if you're living together or not?

 

If the hmrc decide that you are living together - even if you're not - then your tax credits claim will end and you'll be expected to make a joint claim.

 

If you do call be careful of the language you use - unless you are living together, don't use the term partner. Don't be intimidated by the person on the phone and be very clear that he maintains his own household and doesn't contribute to yours. But I think you're being overly sensitive about thinking you've been reported. As Erika said lots of letters like this have gone out.

 

Edited due to further info from Erika

Edited by leemack
Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter specifically asks recipients to call. Compliance markers are placed on the records until a response is received. I called and it takes 5 minutes. They asked about a partner, I responded that I did not have a partner for their purposes but I was in a relationship and had been for several years with a man who lives miles away in his own home. They asked what name was against council tax, tenancy agreement, utility bills ect. I answered mine. I also advised them that he stays over approximately once every few months (long distance). I was reminded that I must inform them if I start to live with a partner. I asked them to go and check the history of my claim and they'd see that every solitary change is declared and I was still waiting for them to reduce my tax credit following a declaration that my childcare costs had dropped, which I'd been chasing for several months, pointing out that if I were trying to defraud them, I'd hardly be chasing them constantly to implement a reported change to reduce the money, and though I appreciated they had a right to check my claim, I did not appreciate the wording of the letter as it insinuated that I was commiting fraud, not just that they wanted to check.

 

You can see my thread about it here

 

Which is also how I know about the compliance markers. I did a SAR. I have some of my docs and recordings of phonecalls but not everything. HMRC think they have supplied everything but they haven't and another letter has been sent to them.

 

Initially I did not accept that it was a random check but I have since discovered via my circles that these letters are random and were sent to approximately hundreds of thousands of single claimants. They were planned to start in October last year. I am taking it further.

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

So i need to call them and state i am wondering why they have sent this accusation letter and do i can i ask if accusation has been made? I dont think i am going to win this though as partner does stay over i pay for bills etc we eat together sometimes- they would have to prove this though surely? I am feeling guilty and sure this is the whole point of this letter, what other questions did they ask?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You simply tell them that you don't have a partner, because you don't - not for tax credit purposes, from what you have said here. You have a boyfriend who you are dating but he maintains his own household with his bills in his name and you maintain your household with your bills in your own name. Tax credit criteria for a partner is very different to the criteria DWP use for a partner. So long as he has his own place and doesn't live with you (staying overnight now and then is not living with someone), he is not considered a partner for tax credit purposes.

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

Well that's exactly it. If it were an investigation into your claim, the other authorities (such as DWP and the local authority) would also be taking an interest.

 

It also depends who you get on the phone and how you handle the call. I was lucky enough to get a lovely lady. I answered the questions but made it clear (firmly but politely) that I did not feel the wording of the letter appropriate for a random enquiry. She did make one throw away comment, which I very quickly pulled her up on and expressed that I didn't appreciate what she was insinuating.

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

Sorry OP did not say that the letter stated it was mandatory to call. Of course if a letter says you must call then you must call. However I've seen clients in the past who've responded to letters which have been fishing expeditions and have been convinced on the phone that they are living together (when they are not) and have ended up with their single claim cancelled and told to make a joint claim. Fixing this can be a long and difficult process.

Edited by leemack
Link to post
Share on other sites

i've recieved the same letter but i'm not sure whether it states that its mandatory to call or not it does say "if you call us now we will help you make sure your tax credit claim is right before we start making our checks". it also says "please call me ...... we will help you check that the information that we have is correct and up tp date and if not put it right"

 

i'm in a similar situation in that i have a boyfriend that doesn't live wth me or pay any bills for my household as he does this at his own address

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm - that's interesting. Mine specifically states to call. This is the letter that I think is being referred to (identifiers omitted):

 

ttct1.png

 

 

 

tcct2.png

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...