Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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 
      • 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

poss going to prison for benefit fraud? - ** RESOLVED WITH SUSPENDED SENTENCE **


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3817 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

  • Replies 241
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

My friend who went through the IUC said the people were very kind and helpful and it wasn't frightening at all (the interview itself wasn't, just the fact that she had inadvertently claimed when she wasn't entitled and the fear of what might happen was frightening) however as said before she has not been taken to court despite owing £34,000 and is paying it back at an affordable level

Link to post
Share on other sites

A classic Living Together case.

 

There are loads of these where someone is adamant that they are not living with anyone when it is fairly obvious that from a benefit point of view they are.

 

Don't get confused by how often he stays there.

 

You have a past, present & planned future together which shows stability. He helps you financially with rent & bills, his mail goes to your house, there are loans in his name at your address & surveillance would show him to be there on a regular basis.

 

The investigators should have evidence of all this & plenty more.

 

What will change when you get married?

 

It won't change the overall benefit decision, but how you answer this in the IUC will help explain why you don't believe you have been living together previously.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A classic Living Together case.

 

There are loads of these where someone is adamant that they are not living with anyone when it is fairly obvious that from a benefit point of view they are.

 

Don't get confused by how often he stays there.

 

You have a past, present & planned future together which shows stability. He helps you financially with rent & bills, his mail goes to your house, there are loans in his name at your address & surveillance would show him to be there on a regular basis.

 

The investigators should have evidence of all this & plenty more.

 

What will change when you get married?

 

It won't change the overall benefit decision, but how you answer this in the IUC will help explain why you don't believe you have been living together previously.

 

Yes, I totally agree with this assessment by Jabba.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrt how you are going to live financially after this, you have two choices.

 

1. Decide that you and he have a future together, talk to him, decide together that you have that future and he provides for you financially and you place a joint claim for anything you are entitled to or if not entitled then he supports you fully financially from this point on

 

or

 

2. You decide he is a waste of space, someone who has anger problems and is unlikely to change, isn't the sort to take his responsibilities seriously and will not provide for his family and who obviously puts his own needs first and you decide you have no future and tell him so and end the relationship once and for all. (I say once and for all or else this will happen all over again). Splitting up means he is free to move on to other relationships. But this will mean you can place a claim again as a single person. He won't be allowed into your home and he won't be allowed to pay any bills for you including top up rent. He can however pay child maintenance directly to you or through the CSA, all declared by you to the DWP and the LA. Child maintenance is not taken into account when other benefits are calculated and if you use your child maintenance to pay the top up rent that is your decision. However if it is then difficult to manage financially because you need the child maintenance then you could move to a more affordable rental property to free up that money.

 

Either decision you WILL manage financially though only in option 1 if your partner steps up to the mark. Option 2 means you have to end the relationship. There are options here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so they will deffo stop money after interveiw? what if say i go with eaither option, i will have to pay back alot of money, so even then im not going to have any money am i? Omg this is so stressful, didnt realise i was doing anything wrong!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will stop your money if they believe that you are either living together or he is financially supporting you and there is evidence of both in all probability in your case.

 

You will have to pay back any overpayment but they only take payments back at an affordable level so they look at your income and leave you enough to live on before asking for any payments back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will carry on paying you till after the interview and decision has been made on your claim.

If they decide you are a couple then you claim will close and an overpayment will be raised from the date they decide you became one..

 

If the decision that you are not a couple they will pay you untill he moves in eg when you marry.

 

If found living together he will have to support you all as a family, claim working tax credits etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

so iv been to CAB.

 

Im now even more worried, as i have NOTHING to say he doesnt live here. i feel sick, and have been sick.

 

I have a free half an hour appointment with lawyer on tuesday, but the CAB doesnt think they will go with me to the interview!?

 

i cant cope, i think if i hadnt got kids i wouldnt want to be here anymore.

 

I asked CAB if it would just be easier to move him in and tell them hes just moved in. she said no the damage is already done.

 

i dont know what to do, would the solicitor be able to ring the jcp and find out what proof they have? help!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like you've had good advice from the CAB and well done for getting a solicitors appointment. Is it someone experienced with benefits cases? Hopefully they will give you good advice on Tuesday.

 

Hang in there, I have a friend who went through this, she owes £34,000 and she got through it and all is ok and she's paying it back at an affordable level. It wasn't nice, but she got through it and so will you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks hun, its just being able to afford to live after which is worrying me, i went onto the entitled too website last night and we get a whole 20 working tax, but only 140 a month hb which means finding 400+ a month, his wage will not cover that at all, and to be able to eat aswell.

 

its gotten that bad that i have even thought about becoming an escort!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to make an appointment with a homelessness officer from your local council. Explain what your rent is and what your incomings are and say that you cannot afford this and hopefully the council will accept you as homeless and help find you somewhere affordable to rent. Ask for a face to face meeting with a homelessness officer to discuss the situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

so iv just got back.

 

I told the truth, me and my "partner" arnt living together, he pays rent else where ect.

 

I have never felt so **** about myself right now. They were awful, and doubted everything i said to them. Wouldnt even show me any evidence what so ever, just told me every time i answered a question it didnt match up to what he had seen/been told!! Im sooo mad that they didnt even get me a leg to stand on. Its obv they dont believe me and im going to prison ect!!

 

I spend 2 hours in there!! its the worse 2 hours iv ever had. Although my lawyer was brilliant [and fit!!! haha]

Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't go to prison but they will probably reassess your benefits entitlements,Friend did virtually exactly the same as you and has to repay the amount at an affordable rate.She then married her b/f (father of 3 kids) and they struggled like pooh to live even with HB and tax credits because they had got used to wages and full benefits and it was a massive financial shock..They have split up (wether I believe it's for real is debatable) and she has reclaimed but she has been prewarned that they knew she was fiddling before but couldn't prove it but now they will be checking very closely so be careful,,if he is so unreliable is it worth hanging all yourfutures on him? And get yourself a good Family Liasion person,,she will help you get rehoused etc (your doctor knows how to contact them)

When the benefit investigator says he knows differently to your answers he would be partly bluffing but will know some truths,,I got investigated but I wasn't in the wrong,,I just happened to be the one they chose to check on,but it scared me too,,honesty is the best policy hun,as crap as it is,the DWP can and do watch us

Lillibelle

 

I only know what I know cos I know it,I only give advice,I'm not legally trained nor do I pretend to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry about spelling.

 

Just wondering why they wouldnt show you evidence at a IUC, the bloke doing the interview said he wont show me it, its making me wonder if he really did have solid stuff to go on, as he kept saying "what your saying and what i have isnt the same, so its proof your lying", i am now thinking hes saying this to get a confession. Like he said i will have to redo the whole interview for housing/council benefit, but still wouldnt show me proof! i saw NOTHING!

he said he spoke to OHs boss, but asked for where he worked?

 

im confused!

 

help!

Link to post
Share on other sites

welcome to the country where you are presumed guilty first, before any evidence is shown....cant really answer your question there should be people on here who work for dwp etc who will be able to advise but you may have to be a bit patient till they can have a look at your post...

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3817 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...