Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

diane9994

Jobseekers Allowance Query

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2415 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

Hi

 

I have recently applied for jobseekers, the first time in my life I have ever claimed any sort of benefit.

 

I have been told I have not paid enough in NI to qualify ????!!!

The 2 tax years they are using to access my claim are

2011 I earned £20115.00 and paid £1849.00 in NI

2012 I earned £38494.00 and paid £3767.92 in NI

 

I cannot believe I have not paid enough NI, can you. Any help or advice would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi

 

I have recently applied for jobseekers, the first time in my life I have ever claimed any sort of benefit.

 

I have been told I have not paid enough in NI to qualify ????!!!

The 2 tax years they are using to access my claim are

2011 I earned £20115.00 and paid £1849.00 in NI

2012 I earned £38494.00 and paid £3767.92 in NI

 

I cannot believe I have not paid enough NI, can you. Any help or advice would be appreciated.

In simple terms, there are two types of benefit for Job Seekers.... the first is based on National Insurance Contributions, and the second is not.

 

There should be no problem... and provided that you dont exceed the savings limits, you should receive confirmation of the amount you will get in due course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I'll move your thread to the benefits forum and leave you a redirect from here. Rebecca's given you some good information and other people may be able to add to it.

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are TWO contribution conditions and both need to be satisfied to qualify for JSA. The first is that class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as being paid or credited and must be at least 26 times the LEL (lower earning limits) The second one is that Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as being paid or credited and must be at least 50 times the LEL for each of the last two complete tax years before the start of the benefit year.

 

LEL = £107 p/w

Did you claim for JSA (IB) at the same time? x

Edited by scotgal68

scotgal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't the actual amount of NI that you pay it's the number of contributions you make in each tax year.

I think it is 26 weeks for each year but not 100% certain sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Thanks for your reply. As I have never done this before I just filled in the forms at the job centre as requested and no one mentioned what the requirements were or that there were 2 types.

 

Does that mean that

one type you have to have paid 26 x LEL ( £107 ) =£2782

type 2 50 x LEL =£5350

this seems an awful lot and a lot of the people there I spoke to ( IE jobless not staff ) have only been earning £12,000 + ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Rebecca, I have had a letter saying that I do not qualify ?? I can't believe it ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to have paid enough conts in the two relevant tax years, in your case 2010/11 2011/12. This applies only to the JSA© element. The JSA(IB) is not based on contributions but things like savings, pay in lieu of notice or why you left your job and if you have other income, ie from a partner, can affect entitlement.

You should qualify for JSA(IB) if you meet the conditions. I've not worked in JSA for years so I'm not up to date with

conditions of entitlement x


scotgal 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you make your claim in 2012 or 2013?


If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My husband has just had the same problem. The jobcentre said he was not entitled to contribution based JSA as he had not had enough contributions. We did not believe this so we wrote to HMRC for a breakdown which they sent to us and we sent this to DWP. They totally ignored our correspondence asking them where they got their information regarding NI contributions and sent them the report from HMRC. Only by getting in touch with our local MP who wrote to them on my husbands behalf did we get a reply to our queries. On receiving correspondence from our MP they finally wrote back to us (nearly 12 months later). They apologised that they had made an error when processing our claim(what a suprise), but they said they would not pay him JSA because failed to continue signing on. The reason he did not continue signing on was that they said we was not entitled to JSA. It is worth checking with HMRC about your NI contributions because the DWP do not know what they are actually doing. They have since sent my husband a 17 page claim form to complete for a very small sum for the 3 weeks that was signing on. He is refusing to send this back to them as it is a waste of taxpayers and our resources. What a shambles for a government department. My husband has been working since he was 15, now 62 and them saying he has not paid enough contributions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Jobcentre can make and does make mistakes when calculating entitlements. If you make a complaint make sure you send it to the Benefit Centre, not the Jobcentre. I believe the BC's have the last word over entitlements.


"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for Poundland"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We sent all our correspondence to DWP in Birmingham not the local job centre as they have really bad record in making errors. They made an error on my daughters Housing Benefit some time ago when she was going through a bad time and are making her pay back £1,500, they even admited it was their fault in miscalculating it but said she still had to repay it even though she appealed in writing. She is not receiving housing benefit now only child tax credits and statutory maternity pay until she goes back to work next month. She is really struggling financially and paying this back each month is making matters worse. I believe if they make the error then you should not have to pay this back. I hear the same thing over and over again about them making these errors and forcing you to repay the money.

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...