Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello Peterbard.   Thanks for the reply mate.   My 0% rates have ended on all the cards and that's why I am now unable to pay the minimum payments. I have been careless and irresponsible and it has caught up with me.    I am in no way looking for a way to avoid not paying anything. I am Happy to work with the creditors or whoever it may be and get a positive resolution.    As for the credit rating as it stands I have missed 7 payments since October over the 6 cards. It isn't great as it stands. I am a home owner with a mortgage and that will be up for renewal in a few year so that will be the biggest thing in relation to that. We are on a fixed rate as it stands and would be looking to move on to another fixed.    Mortgage of around 130k and property around 160k.    Thanks again 
    • Hi IFR Many people have been in your position so try not to let it play on your mind. It can be sorted in a variety of ways, dependant on the outcome you want.   An IVA is seldom in your best interests  especially if you own your own property   You 0% cards will eventually come out of their initial period and you will stuck with interest on them also. So now is the time to develop a plan   If you want the creditors to stop pestering you immediately you could start a debt management plan, we can help with that There are several downsides to this  and although I used to advise this whole heartedly,   recent developments now make the idea less attractive.   Chances are you will end up with a trashed credit rating for six years whatever you do.  Is this a big problem for you?            
    • I am reading your post because I have a similar issue with unreasonable charges.  Researching the issue on line   . I found the following article Emma says... (breensonline.co.uk)    In a nutshell a legal loophole currently exists such that the freeholder can recoop legal fees from the leaseholder even if the leasholder wins the case!!! (Sometimes this amounts to '000s of £'s)   The government are going to address this yet if you have a court case prior to the change in the law  (I have)    if a leasholder who has been overcharged, wins the case then has to pay the freeholders legal fees is unspeakably unjust.    Please keep me updated how you get on.  I feel like i am in a noose with these guys no justice even with the courts!   
    • Hi dx100uk.    Yes all still with original creditor.    I just don’t know which is the best way to deal with the matters.     
    • all are still with and the people you are or should be paying..is the Original Creditor?  
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

mortgage interest and JSA linking rules


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2645 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 Group

 

Earlier this year in January while claiming JSA my Mortgage Interest help ran out as I had claimed MI help for the maximum 2 years.

 

I then returned to work in February but unfortunately became unemployed again in September and started claiming JSA again.

 

Will the 52 week linking rule mean that I am not entitled to MI help. As the new claim will be "linked" to my old claim which I had already received the maximum 2 years of MI help?

 

Thank you for your replies in advance

 

iain

Link to post
Share on other sites

For claimants or their partners who move into work or undertake programmes, there is a 52 week linking period where they were receiving payment of eligible mortgage interest when they left benefit to move into work or a prescribed government scheme. In such cases the claimant is treated as having been in continuous receipt of benefit and receives housing costs from day one of any linked repeat claim.

 

but

3.5 Two year limit for JSA claimants

From 5 January 2009 receipt of SMI has been limited to two years for Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants.

 

I dont think you will be entitled to help with the mortgage on the new claim

but when you make the claim declare the mortgage and see what happens

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...