Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well yes, ... and the tax dodgers ... Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows A previously unknown focus of an I.R.S. audit is a dubious accounting maneuver that effectively meant taking the same write-offs twice on a Chicago skyscraper. nytimes.com WWW.NYTIMES.COM  
    • more detest the insurrectional ex variety dx
    • Laura, I was surprised that the Director said that you hadn't appealed twice. I thought that the letter you posted on 24th June was the second appeal and that was to the IAS. And they did say that there was no further appeal possible. Could you please explain how many times you appealed. I am going to read your WS now. PS  Yes I meant to say that the keeper did not have a licence therefore it was wrong of them to assume he was the driver and the keeper. Thanks for picking that up.
    • In answer to your questions yes even though it wasn't called that, it was the NTK. Had it been a windscreen ticket you would not have received the NTK until 28 days had elapsed. In earlier times if the warden was present then a windscreen ticket would have been issued. It nows seems that the DVLA and the Courts don't see a problem  with not issuing a ticket when a warden is on site. A period of parking must mean that ther e has to be a start time and a finish time in order for it to be considered a period. A single time does not constitute a period. I am not sure what you mean by saying it could be taken either way.  All they have mentioned is  the incident time which is insufficient. There are times on the photos about one minute apart which do not qualify as the parking period because they are not on the PCN itself. The reason I asked if the were any more photos is that you should be allowed 5 minutes Consideration period for you to read the signs and decide whether you want to accept them and you do that by staying longer than 5 minutes. if  more  do not have photos of your staying there for more than 5 minutes they are stuffed. You cannot say that you left within the 5 minute period if you didn't , but you can ask them, should it get to Court , to provide strict proof that you stayed longer than the statutory time. If they can't do that, case over.
    • I recently bought some trainers from Sports Direct and was unhappy with them and their extortionate delivery and return postage charges. I tweeted about being unhappy, and received a reply from someone claiming to be from Sports Direct asking me to send my order number and email address by pm, so a claim could be raised. Which I (stupidly) did. The account used Sports Direct's name and branding, and a blue tick.  The following day I received a call from "Sports Direct Customer Service", and with a Kenyan number. They asked for details of the issue, and then sent me an email with a request to install an app called Remitly. They provided me with a password to access the app then I saw that it had been setup for me to transfer £100, and I was asked to enter my credit card number so they could "refund" me. I told them I was uncomfortable with this (to say the least), and was just told to ring them back when I did feel comfortable doing it. Ain't never gonna happen.  I just checked my X account, and the account that sent the message asking for my details is gone. I feel like a complete idiot falling for what was a clear scam. But at least I realised before any real damage was done. if you make a complaint about a company on social media, and you get a reply from someone claiming to be from that company and asking for personal details, tread very carefully.   
  • 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 
        • 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

Is the bank taking your Benefits ?


MARTIN3030
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4096 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

Just to clarify too, my daughter is NEVER denied anything she needs even though the benefit money goes on DCA's. It's just easier as the debts are in my name and they come out of my account so we just use part of hubbys wage then to cover anything that would be paid for out of the benefit!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest littlesally

Lisa make your letter a personal one when you ask for the money back, rather than the legal type ones floating about here. I have made a couple of claims for others on benefits, legal ones get a straight 'no' the personal ones get it back.

If they still say no, ask if they could waive the charges for a month so you can get straightened out.

If you ring, crying is good!

 

Sally x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally
Hi littlesally - did your homeless gentleman ever get his 15 minutes of fame?

 

The bank paid up so he didn't need to, but he would have preferred the bank not to so he could have his picture in the paper :D !!!

Actually he was really pleased, he tried his account to see if there was a few quid there as he was so skint and there it was!

 

Making letters a bit personal is a much better way to go at the moment

 

Sally xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally

Still no benefit forum Steve?

Maybe when there is one you will be made into a mod as you seem to be the only staff who helps out with benefits.

Glad you're here

 

Sally xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest littlesally

I will put that to him when I see him, he's not been around for a while, but not heard anything which is a good sign :)

 

Sally xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know much about this kind of thing but you seem to have covered it pretty well IMO TideTurner.

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hello all hope you all had a good christmas lol

well i dont know if i am allowed to put this in here

but i thought it may be intresting to u all as we all know that it is not allowed for the banks to take there charges out of our benefits dont we well take a look at this from inga kirkman

 

i am fuming

yes i have given her the acts where it is unlawful and if i remember right the fos says it is aswell if i remember rightly

********************************************************

good morning all

hi jan

hope u all had a good christmas

well here is what i have recived from inga kirkman

bear in mind i havent had a reply to my letter/fax 6th dec 07

anyway i asked her about the charges coming out of benefits here is the 2 replies i got this morning

 

without prejudice

the courts dont like that

 

dear ms miller

abbey national plc has not ignored your efferts to resolve this matter your emails have been responded to on each occassion

yeah after me sending reminders and no mention of the faxes either

i confirm that abbey nation plc has been made aware of your correspondence and in view of the imminent commencement of the TEST CASE

LITIGARION MY KINSTRUCTIONS remain to object to your application seeking to lift the stay currently in place

************************* ************************* *

 

2nd reply

 

Dear Madam

i have not personally examined your account and nor do i have access to your account to do so therefore i cannot respond to your question

however with respect your analyisis of the law in so far as it relates to any bank charges fees, which fees are paid out of the procceeds of any bank is incorrect.

************************* ***********************

 

i dont understand that bit is inga kirkman saying that the DWP/SOCIAL SECURITY benefits acts are wrong?

or is she saying i am wrong that charges wasnt taken from benefits

i have it all here as it was the only payments going in my account DWP and mobility

thanks for any help please

abg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi abg

 

The two Acts of parliament say that it is unlawful to make charges on income which derives from benefits. HOWEVER by 'charges' the DO NOT MEAN BANK CHARGES . What is meant is things like attachment of earnings.

 

My understanding is that, although there is some ambiguity, if you took a case to reclaim bank charges to court based on s187 of the SSAA 1992 or s45 of the TCA 2002 you would LOSE.

 

Sorry for 'shouting' but this needs to be made clear.

 

THe only difference that income being from benefits makes is that you may be able to claim hardship to get a stay lifted. However, to my knowledge, no one has succeeeded in doing this yet.

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi steven so inga is right in what she has said in her emailo to me then?

so what about the ss acts is that wrong and the fos does say it in there papers

so what do i do now it looks like i will lose then when i go to court on the 8th jany

abg

p.s. i have sent a hardship letter 6th dec and also the fos has it and dealing with it as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what inga wrote i nher e-mail to you so I can't say. The most important thing is to look at the court case. What did you put in your Particulars of Claim? Can you post them so we can have a look and see what we can do to help? (If you don't know how, have a look in the "CAG for dummies" link in my signature)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steven, still burning the midnight oil I see!!

 

I see your point completely, but surely this would come down to literal interpretation? In particular with the SSAA, the wording should have been altered until clarification is made on the word 'charge'.

 

In cases like these, each charge or penalty represents a large percentage of a persons income. By claiming a right to this money and by the act of taking it, does this not demonstrate a charge similar to goods or assets, similar to those placed on property on with an attachment of earnings order?

 

Just trying to be objective before we dismiss the argument. Shall I get my coat?

 

Tide

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not midnight here yet tide ;)

 

You would think they would make it clearer - but I guess the question has only arisen recently whereas the concept of charges in the sense that the two social security acts use the word goes back a long way - certainly as far as the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 and possibly before.

 

It's one of the pitfalls that arise when a word in common use is taken and given a specific meaning in a technical field - it happens in science and engineering too. A 'lay' person can easily fall into the pit, unfortunately.

 

What you say is true about bank charges being a large porportion of peolpe's income - you have only got to read this thread to see that. No one is saying that the banks have the right to take this money, only that you can't use the Socail Security Administration Act 1992 or the Tax Credits Act 2002 to stop them. Money taken from benefits is unlawful - but unlawful by virtue of the UTCCR1999 and the common law on penalties in contracts , not under the SSAA1992 or TCA2002 (unfortunately).

  • Haha 1

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

or try the Banking Code route on genuine hardship and benefits ie low income and raise a complant if necessary.

'rise like lions after slumber, in unvanquishable number, shake your chains to the earth like dew, which in sleep had fall'n on you, ye are many, they are few.' Percy Byshse Shelly 1819

Link to post
Share on other sites

As clinical as always Steven, maybe a rethink or simple reversion to plan A (UTCCR and common law) is in order.

 

All the best

 

Tide

 

PS You know I'll be up half the night now!!

 

It would be a nice sample letter to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Taras

 

What people need to do is to use the 'normal' proven CAG procedure for reclaiming charges whether they are taken from benefits or not. At the moment, though, any such clai would be put on hold (stayed) once it got to court because of the OFT test case that starts on 14 January.

 

depending on how that pans out we might be able to restart claims for personal current accounts soon (but don't hold your breath). It is worth starting the process now, at least so that the interest clock starts ticking.

 

Read some threads and read the 'New Member' stuff on the home page. We'll be here to help.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no benefit forum Steve?

 

I've put it in my task list for January. A lot of people are away/busy and the 'techies' are working on the debt forum upgrade.
Benefits forum now up and running (includes minimum wage issues too)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...