Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
    • Danny - point taken about the blue paragraphs.  Including them doesn't harm your case in any way.  It makes no odds.  It's just that over the years we've had judges often remarking on how concise & clear Caggers' WSs have been compared to the Encyclopaedia Britannica-length rubbish that the PPCs send, so I always have a slight preference to cut out anything necessary. Don't send off the WS straight away .. you have plenty of time ... and let's just say that LFI is the Contract King so give him a couple of days to look through it with a fine-tooth comb.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Housing benefit issue, advice appreciated!


gazmix
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4351 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

Hi

 

So now even more pain in the backside housing benefit changes, denials etc! What the hell are they trying to do?, make everyone eventually homeless if they just happen to need to rely on a benefit!! FFS.

 

Housing benefit entitlement for an under 35 living in a house!

 

1. Is it that the rates have been cut, or just if your living alone in a house, you now have to share?

 

2. Is this only for privately rented house/flat etc?

 

I have looked at direct.gov website, MoneySaving Expert & Shelter & they all seem to pint out that these changes apply to just 'Privately' rented!

 

Can anyone please clear this mess up for me please! :-):roll:

 

gaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Is it that the rates have been cut, or just if your living alone in a house, you now have to share?

 

You don't have to share. But you will only be awarded the shared room rate. That's regardless of how big your house is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know it only affects private rental, the benefit amount will drop so they wont order you to move but instead just not pay enough money to cover rent in anything more than a bedsit rate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It must only mean private rentals as there are hundreds of thousands of people all over the country that are on benefits that rent from a housing association or the local council!

 

What would happen then, all these people made homeless?? for gods sake because HB don't cover them! If its reduced to £60, there are very few places anywhere that are that cheap!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

So now even more pain in the backside housing benefit changes, denials etc! What the hell are they trying to do?, make everyone eventually homeless if they just happen to need to rely on a benefit!! FFS.

 

Housing benefit entitlement for an under 35 living in a house!

 

1. Is it that the rates have been cut, or just if your living alone in a house, you now have to share?

 

2. Is this only for privately rented house/flat etc?

 

I have looked at direct.gov website, MoneySaving Expert & Shelter & they all seem to pint out that these changes apply to just 'Privately' rented!

 

Can anyone please clear this mess up for me please! :-):roll:

 

gaz

 

They are to reduce the level of HB that is being paid to under 35's if they rent privately.

 

The HB level that they will start to pay will be based on the 'shared room rate' instead of the normal 1 bed rate.

 

Either you make up the difference out of other income/benefits or move out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be able to claim discretionary housing payments from the council.

 

I agree, but with the cuts that are being made I would anticipate that the 'pot' of money that the council hold in the future for this discretionary award will run out much earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, i heard about discretionary, i called Shelter as its much nicer talking to them than the 1 dimensional robots at the council or Direct.gov.. It's very much worth applying for as thats what its there for!!

Ironic thing is, its the arses at Direct.gov, be it housing, ESA or whatever have put the person in this position & they are the reason for applying for discretioanary!! grrrr:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh, i heard about discretionary, i called Shelter as its much nicer talking to them than the 1 dimensional robots at the council or Direct.gov.. It's very much worth applying for as thats what its there for!!

Ironic thing is, its the arses at Direct.gov, be it housing, ESA or whatever have put the person in this position & they are the reason for applying for discretioanary!! grrrr:mad2:

nfortunately it isnt ultimately their fault..this is down purely to this rotten government...removing the support and the money to fund it....
Link to post
Share on other sites

When you get your shared room rate, you must make sure that you're not sharing with anyone else; otherwise you'll get accused of LTHW or as if in a CP!

 

Yes that seems to be the way things are going at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

friend of mine who works at my council said they have decided to fund the difference for 34 year olds who have not moved for at least 3 years out of council tax revenues (this possible?) and are considering it for 33 year olds as well.

 

The reasoning is not out of goodwill gesture although I am sure they will say it is, but rather as I suspected that the council see it as more cost effective to handle it that way and in the long term be cheaper.

 

Also when I rang up to send my new tenancy agreement as I planned to lock in my council for a year I was politely told over the phone if I send it in they will reevaluate me under the new law, they told me to not send it in and they will not review my case, I was told over the phone to backup what my friend said because I am close to been 35 they may decide to subsidise the difference.

 

My council is labour.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...