Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ouch you really have been flying kites here and letting the claimant control things. it is worrying that the sheriff has tried several times to nail you about this (factious) payment,  but its also lucky and interesting to see he has not shut the door on your new issues . typically the situation you see yourself in, is one that we put the claimant in by our std defence (that you are reading now)    i think a bit of crawling is now in order( for want of another word) and it needs to be made 1000% clear to the sheriff ( even if by a little white lie) that it transpires there most probably never was any settlement made to HBOS by the ex   some vague explanation that he has confirmed he never did, and bring in the fact that he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad we believe and communication has been to put it politely very difficult due to the nature of his deployment..it might also now be time to mention the mental issue ( with proof) , your daughter suffers from and how these obviously contributed to the situation and p'haps of being thus exploited by the EX whom if one were to be honest m'lud, is a bit of what someone would describe 'as a rouge'.   then your defence focus needs to switch to  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on. (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand/Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment. © Provide a breakdown of the excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   particularly a.b.c. explaining in concise but brief detail why each if not produced , is fatal to any enforcement of an OD debt claim   have you yet included  The court will be aware that penalty charges and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   in anything to the court to date.        
    • Re a possible s75 claim - is your Amex card a credit card?  I ask because it certainly used* to be the case that some American Express cards, although commonly described as credit cards, were actually charge cards (where you had to pay the whole of the outstanding balance at the end of the month) and were not credit cards - and therefore not eligible for s75 claims.   *  I suspect that these days all AmEx are credit cards, but you might want to check to be sure.  If it isn't a credit card you might want to consider what you use it for.
    • In reply to your earlier message, the payments were made regularly to the S/C and A/C that I provided.  The payment was always made to this account for the card using the PAN number, however the error payment was made without any reference to the same. Lloyds bank changed the reference number from the PAN of the card to 2686XXXX not sure who changed it to this if it was Lloyds or Lowell or when it was changed.  Then subsequently Lowell changed the A/C number again to their one that they quoted on the POC.    All I can ascertain is that the payment was made from Santander to the A/C above in error but after Lloyds had sold the Debt and Assigned it elsewhere. However, according to Santander the payment was made with no REF number sent with the payment.   I also received the order from the court yesterday which I have attached. There are several items that the court is asking to have for the hearing but haven’t had anything from the Claimant.   What is the best next course of action as the court is asking that we attempt to resolve this before the hearing?   Court Order.pdf
    • Car value apparently £2200. ( post #3 )   Car hire possibly £3000.   Wonder why the third party Insurers Admiral are refusing liability to pay !   Not sure ths is really about who is at fault for the accident, but is more to do with AX and their expensive courtesy car.   Pretty sure this claim would have been settled by Admiral, had the Sister dealt with this claim not using AX.   Think that a complaint to AX should be made, but possibly after sending them an SAR to request all information including any phone call recording where any courtesy car was discussed.    
    • Hi again, just a quick update.   The collection has been arranged for tomorrow, 6th March, the refund will apparently be processed after collection is done and should be completed within 5 working days.   Will let you know when it's completed...    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

HMRC want paying for WTC joint claim - my wife forged my sig?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1493 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

If the man never signed it then I assume you are saying that the wife forged the signature?

 

Even if that was the case, if the wife was wanting to claim tax credits they would need to declare the husband.

 

Can you be more specific about why you are asking the question?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Blondbubbles, yes you are correct, my wife forged my signatue without my knowledge.

Just after my wife left me the HMRC said that I had to repay half of the over payments because it was a joint claim. HMRC sent me a copy of the original claim form which clearly showed by signature as forged. Anyway, HMRC said that I had to pay my half of the over payments because I was living here despite my signature being obviously forged.

I therefore assume you can be chased for money even if the creditor knows that your signature was forged. This also proves that a genuine signature is worth no more than a forged signature under British law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was aware that she was claiming WTC but I knew nothing of the process involved in applying for it.

 

All payments must have gone into her own bank account as we had separate accounts with different banks.

 

I later discovered that the overpayments came about because my wife didn't inform HMRC when I found temporary employment.

 

I have disputed the overpayment on the grounds that I have never filled out an application form.

 

 

HMRC didn't accept this and insisted that I was liable for half of the overpayment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did take professional advice

 

 

was advised to report my wife to the Police fraud investigation unit.

 

 

I did exactly that

 

 

I am now waiting for them to contact me.

 

 

I have a copy of the application form my wife filled out in 2006 which clearly shows my forged signature in my wife's hand writing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, no replies. I therfore assume based on HMRC rules that anybody can be charged for anything that requires a signature despite never signing anything. This also implies that a genuine signature is worth nothing. I am confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I received a nasty threatening letter today from HMRC demanding money for a working tax credit over payment.

 

This is the third time HMRC have asked me to pay back an over payment

despite me paying it back over two years ago in cash.

 

Also to make things worse,

I have never claimed or applied for working tax credit. Confused? yes so am I.

 

I paid HMRC over two years ago for something I have never claimed just to get them off my back.

Now they want me to pay it again !

 

I am looking forward to appearing in court.

 

The county court judge will ask me if I have anything to say before he passes sentence.

 

I will say "I've already paid the debt I didn't actually owe and here is my receipt of payment from HMRC.

The court case will be very interesting indeed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The county court judge will ask me if I have anything to say before he passes sentence..

 

Colour me impressed.

 

I've seen judgements from County Courts (who deal with civil cases)

I've seen sentences passed by Magistrates and Crown Courts, dealing with criminal cases.

 

"Sentence passed" by a County Court? : your previous threads have shown you to be special, and this reinforces that!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I shouldn't have used the word "sentence". However I consider a court judgement passed for a debt that was paid in full over two years ago to be a nasty and unjust version of a sentence.

A CCJ exists on your record for six years even if you have paid it back.

A satisfied CCJ still considers you as untrustworthy financial **** for six years.

Your personal insult against me suggests that you have completely missed the point of this forum.

Your post enforces that view.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK I shouldn't have used the word "sentence". However I consider a court judgement passed for a debt that was paid in full over two years ago to be a nasty and unjust version of a sentence.

A CCJ exists on your record for six years even if you have paid it back.

A satisfied CCJ still considers you as untrustworthy financial **** for six years.

Your personal insult against me suggests that you have completely missed the point of this forum.

Your post enforces that view.

 

What personal insult?

That you are special (because no one else gets a sentence in County Court?). That would indeed be something special, so how is that an insult?

 

That you would demolish your own house to avoid paying a debt : pretty special (as not many people would consider that).

That you would consider your property suddenly worthless because of a Family Law Act restriction placed on it by a spouse? : ditto.

 

With your County Court "sentence" exaggeration : taken with the above - would you prefer it if I instead suggested "not that special, just prone to exaggeration / 'drama llama-matosis' ", such as labelling people with satisfied CCJ's as

untrustworthy financial ****

 

Edited to add (now thread has been merged with your previous thread on the same subject)

 

This also implies that a genuine signature is worth nothing.

 

So, no drama / exaggeration, then!.

Link to post
Share on other sites

threads merged

 

 

have you ever sent them an sar?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

hay no sweat helps us too.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

I recently discovered this: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ntcmanual/applica_capture/ntc0070430.htm

 

I assume that proves that HMRC should have not told me that I am liable for a joint claim.

HMRC were therefore telling lies when the told me that my signature wasn't required to be held

responsible for a joint claim.

I want the money I paid to HMRC back.

HMRC seem to be just as corrupt as false claiments who forge signatures.

I am not a happy chappie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means there has been no criminality on your part but I'm not sure that this equals the right to reclaim the money that was duly paid. If your wife has been prosecuted then it would be a simple matter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your posting ericsbrother.

 

 

I think you are probably right.

 

 

However, 18 months ago I reported this issue to Action Fraud.

They gave me a case number and said they would be in touch.

I have heard nothing from them since.

 

 

I recently emailed them asking why nothing had happened.

I am awaiting their reply.

 

 

Maybe I should have never paid HMRC and just let them take me to court.

 

I would have brought my copy of the WTC application form to court with the obviously forged signature.

 

Today I contacted HMRC and explained how I was unhappy with the situation.

They are sending me a form to dispute the case.

They also told me to mention the HMRC website link that states that both claiments must sign the form for the application to be valid as a joint claim.

 

I am hoping that Action Fraud will soon take up the case,

prosecute my wife then inform HMRC of the prosecution so that I can get my money back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

action fraud will do nothing, they just collate things and publish statistical data. Your battle with HMRC will have to go on without their help. Best of luck, your hope will lie with where the money went, if it wnet into your wife's account then you may be able to argue there was no benefit to you and the repayment is "betterment" for HMRC and therefore illegal for them to keep the money you paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1493 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

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...