Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm trying to work through this step-by-step as I read the story again. There was a dispute over a will in respect of your grandfather's house but the dispute was eventually abandoned and it seems that the house was apportioned to your mother and her brother who presumably were the only two children. The will was unsigned and so we could say that the house passed to the two of them under the rules of intestacy. You then decided to buy the house for £50,000 and presumably the money you paid was divided between your mother and your uncle – you are the owners of the house. This was in 1999. We talking about 30 years ago here and so in respect of most legal questions I would have thought that some limitation period applied. (However the issue of the trust has been raised – and this wouldn't be affected by limitation) However, presumably the house was bought at a proper value given the market at the time and any work that it needed doing. Presumably the house was properly conveyed. Although a lot of things have passed – including home improvements, tenancies et cetera, from the store you have told us, neither your parents nor your uncle have been involved in this at all. Now you have received a letter from your parents saying that the house is really theirs and that you have simply been holding it on trust for them and they now want it back. Is this a reasonable summary of what has happened?   Although you have written a fair bit about bills, tenancies, and that you have lived in your parents home for some of this 30 years, I'm not sure what relevance that has to the problem. I have to say that your explanation is very unclear. A bit rambling in fact. If you think that part of the story is relevant then maybe you'd like to express it all a little more clearly and say in what way you think it is relevant to the problem. You are much more familiar with the story then I am but I don't see that those factors are terribly important on the brief understanding that I have. if if any money is owed to your parents because of you having lived with them et cetera then it seems to me that that is a separate matter and has nothing to do with your ownership of the property. You say that you have received a letter from solicitors claiming first of all that there is a constructive trust or that you might be subject to a proprietary estoppel. In terms of the estoppel, that doctrine is only available in very particular circumstances and could not be used to attack you in any event. Estoppel, whether it is proprietary or promissory can only be used as a defence. So the question of estoppel in this situation is completely irrelevant, in my view, although I don't see any basis for one in any event. So what remains is the possibility of a constructive trust. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that there is such a trust and I think that the first question needs to be asked is on what basis they consider that there is a constructive trust. Secondly, of course, even if there was a constructive trust, on the basis of what you have told us, it wouldn't only be your mother who was the beneficiary, it would also be your uncle. Furthermore, if you were a constructive trustee then at the very least you would be entitled to recover all of the expenses that you had laid out over 30 years – including the cost of the property plus interest – less any financial benefit that you had accrued from renting it out and so forth. I'm not sure how good this analysis is. This is well out of my experience – but I would suggest that you consider it and see whether any of it rings true. I would also start making a very detailed account of all the money which you have spent over the years on the property and also a detailed account of all the benefits you have accrued from it. I would supply this to their solicitor that if you end up having to instruct your own lawyer then I'm sure that you may be asked for this if there is any suspicion that a constructive trust may exist. Frankly it sounds like a load of rubbish to me that we will be very interested if you will keep us up to date. So there you have it. No particular answers. Just a few unsupported and unqualified opinions    
    • Hello and welcome to CAG.   I agree with dx, hiring a lawyer is unlikely to help as most of them don't understand fare matters, so you end up paying for their learning curve.   Your idea about involving your GP is a good one, it sounds as if you need their input with how you're feeling. And if they would write a supporting letter that could help too. Hopefully your medical information will be through in time.   HB
    • In the very first claim thread it mentions contacting the claimant is encouraged by the court etc. I was thinking about contacting them and asking about a Tomlin order to put an end to all this, at least I'd be able to stop worrying and maybe get some sleep (currently 4.52am) 😴
    • Hi I'm looking for a bit of help to deal with a claim form from Hoist/ Cohen referencing an old Capital One account please. I have filled out the details below as requested and submitted an acknowledgement of service intending to defend.   In 2007 I sent a SAR and requested a copy of the original CCA from Cap One on this account.    In 2014 Lowells sent a claim form for the same account. I have a copy of a notice of allocation to the small claims track hearing and a copy of the front sheet of ack of service with intent to defend but I have no recollection of its outcome and there are no CCJs on my credit file.    Name of the Claimant Hoist Finance UK Holdings 2 Ltd   Date of issue – 5/11/2019   Date of issue 05/11/19 + 19 days = 24/11/2019 + 14 days to submit defence = 7/12/2019 (33 days in total)   Particulars of Claim This claim is for the sum of £294 arising from the Defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no XXXXX. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a default notice issued pursuant to ss. 87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX CAPITAL ONE). Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1. The sum of 294  2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £369   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC I received a letter of claim & income / exp forms.   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? yes   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? Not sure claim is for Credit card   When did you enter into the original agreement 2003   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement not sure   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files yes, as closed   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor. Assigned   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment?  from HPH2 to HFUKH2L, I don't have anything from Cap One.   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes (2007) Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears” or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not sure, I’ve had letters from Robinson Way.   Why did you cease payments? illness and inability to deal with my debts, I had no money no job and my mental health was in a terrible state.   date of your last payment? 07/2014 paid to Robinson Way   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No (PPI and bank charges refunded)   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? Yes   Do I send a CPR 31.14 next asking for the agreement, notice of assignment and the Default notice?   Thanks.
    • It states the charge as: 'did enter a compulsory ticket area without having with you a valid ticket. Contrary to Byelaw 17 (1) of the Transport for London Railway Bylaws Made under paragraph 26 of Schedule 11 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and confirmed under section 67 of the Transport Act 1962.'   Then a brief statement of facts that the pass did not belong to me, and that I had stated it was due to financial reasons. It then contains information about making my plea and then the statement of the revenue officer.   I am of course planning on pleading guilty before the cut off point and attending court (I'm hoping to be well enough to attend anyway). I'm just concerned about the consequences and if there is any point in trying to still reason with TfL now that court application costs are at least involved.   I have debated getting a solicitor solely because of what I've read on the internet and what it says about ruined job prospects, I know it's probably scare tactics to get me to hire someone but it is the driving fear behind everything at the moment. 
  • Our picks

leigh04

under 25s to sign on weekly for jsa

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2563 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Just been informed by my local job centre that they have changed the way they deal with the under 25s; its now weekly instead of fortnightly for sign on.

 

Any body heard of this, i thought it would make alot more work esp at my local office cis they are slow enough lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not heard or read any about that, I thought it was all going to be done online to save costs, going back to weekly signing will cost more. Last time I signed on one had to sign on every week, and when I was sleeping rough I had to sign on every day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been a trial in some parts of the country where te 18 - 24 client group signing for JSA attend on their signing day with the signing team andten see their personal adviser for an appointment the following week.

I believe this is due to be rolled out countrywide yes.

It is to ebsure that the 18-24 group receive the maximum amount of help and support available to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

flumps why do the DWP feel they have to discriminate on age? is there a more urgent need for a 24 year old to be working instead of a 40 year old?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flumps why do the DWP feel they have to discriminate on age? is there a more urgent need for a 24 year old to be working instead of a 40 year old?

 

I'm wondering this too. So, you're going to have a 24 year old who worked from the age of 16 having to sign on weekly; but not the 40 year old who has been on various other benefits for years. Makes no sense. Yet, the 40 year old may be in need of more help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea sorry.

Weekly attendance is nothing new though when it was Flexible New Deal all clients were required to attend weekly for 6 weeks if they got to week 13 and then again week 26 in their claim.

 

The 18 to 24 group is the hot topic atm isn't it but it doesn't mean the support isn't there for over 25's (apprenticeships, work experience etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always been fortnightly at our job centre for as long as i can remember but i was enquiring at JC for my son (hes 21) thats when i was told about weekly, luckily my son doesnt have to do weekly but until then i hadnt heard of weekly sign on for under 25s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...