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

Weetabix999

Declined Application - PLEASE HELP!

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1949 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'm posting this on behalf of a friend:

 

He's just been made redundant from a 90K job in the UK.

He is Dutch but has a NI number.

He lived in the UK 1992-2010, but returned to Holland to work for 3 years in 2010.

He returned to the UK in February 2013 to work (the 90K job) and was made redundant last month.

He lives in the UK with his British partner and their 7 month old son - she has no NI number (yet) as she always lived and worked in the Netherlands.

 

He was told to apply for 'Contribution Based Jobseekers' but has been declined because​ he worked in the Netherlands during the period they assessed his legibility​. Is this a correct evaluation - is there anything he can do as he's struggling to pay his rent whilst Jobseeking.

 

Can someone shed some light?!

Many thanks - Weetabix.

Edited by Weetabix999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically the law says that a claimant has to be resident in the UK for the 2 years preceding the year the claim is made. Your friend, according to what you say, was not.

This is what the Jobseekers Act 1995 says about entitlement to Jobseeker’s Allowance:

 

Section 1, sub-section (2):

 

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a claimant is entitled to a jobseeker's allowance if he—

(a) is available for employment;

(b) accepted a claimant commitment”

© is actively seeking employment;

(d) satisfies either—

(i) the conditions set out in section 2; or

(ii) the conditions set out in section 3;

(e) is not engaged in remunerative work;

(f) is capable of work;

(g) is not receiving relevant education;

(h) is under pensionable age; and

(i) is in Great Britain.

 

Section 2

 

2.—(1) The conditions referred to in section 1(2)(d)(i) are that the claimant—

(a) has actually paid Class 1 contributions in respect of one ("the base year") of the last two complete years before the beginning of the relevant benefit year and satisfies the additional conditions set out in subsection (2);

(b) has, in respect of the last two complete years before the beginning of the relevant benefit year, either paid Class 1 contributions or been credited with earnings and satisfies the additional condition set out in subsection (3);

© does not have earnings in excess of the prescribed amount; and (d) is not entitled to income support.

 

(2) The additional conditions mentioned in subsection (1)(a) are that—

(a) the contributions have been paid before the week for which the jobseeker's allowance is claimed;

(b) the earnings factor derived from earnings upon which primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid is not less than the base year's lower earnings limit multiplied by 25.

 

(3) The additional condition mentioned in subsection (1)(b) is that the earnings factor derived from earnings upon which primary Class 1 contributions have been paid or treated as paid or from earnings credited is not less, in each of the two complete years, than the lower earnings limit for the year multiplied by 50.

 

(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "benefit year" means a period which is a benefit year for the purposes of Part II of the Benefits Act or such other period as may be prescribed for the purposes of this section;

(b) "the relevant benefit year" is the benefit year which includes—

(i) the beginning of the jobseeking period which includes the week for which a jobseeker's allowance is claimed, or (ii) (if earlier) the beginning of any linked period; and

© other expressions which are used in this section and the Benefits Act have the same meaning in this section as they have in that Act.

 

Section 3

 

3.—(1) The conditions referred to in section 1(2)(d)(ii) are that the claimant—

(a) has an income which does not exceed the applicable amount (determined in accordance with regulations under section 4) or has no income;

(b) is not entitled to income support;

© is not a member of a family one of whose members is entitled to income support;

(d) is not a member of a family one of whose members is entitled to an income-based jobseeker's allowance;

(e) is not a member of a married or unmarried couple the other member of which is engaged in remunerative work; and

(f) is a person—

(i) who has reached the age of 18; or

(ii) in respect of whom a direction under section 16 is in force; or

(iii) who has, in prescribed circumstances to be taken into account for a prescribed period, reached the age of 16 but not the age of 18.

 

(2) Regulations may provide for one or both of the following conditions to be included in the income-based conditions, in the case of a person to whom subsection (1)(f)(ii) or (iii) applies—

(a) a condition that the claimant must register for employment;

(b) a condition that the claimant must register for training.

 

(3) In subsection (1)(f3(iii) "period" includes—

(a) a period of a determinate length;

(b) a period defined by reference to the happening of a future event; and

© a period of a determinate length but subject to earlier determination upon the happening of a future event.

 

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may, in particular, make provision by reference to persons designated by the Secretary of State for the purpose of the regulations.

These conditions must still apply as they seem to be used in your friend's case.

Edited by Lapsed Workaholic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is correct, yes - when assessing a person for JSA©, the tax years used at the moment are the years 2011/12 and 2012/13. So if he paid little or no UK NI in those years then he won't be entitled to contributory JSA.

 

He could apply for income-based JSA if his savings are low and he has no other income, but if he did that, a determination would need to be made as to whether or not he is "Habitually Resident" in the UK for benefit purposes. This would take some time.

 

I'd start by checking with the Dutch equivalent of the DWP to see if he has any exportable entitlement there based on those three years of work in The Netherlands.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note that three years residence is not actually required for JSA©, however, in practical terms very few people who have lived here for less than three years will satisfy the contribution conditions.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he was working abroad and not volonteering to pay NI contributions then he will not be able to get contribution based JSA

 

He could apply under the means tested Income related JSA and housing benefit but they are MEANS TESTED

 

Savings and shares and all income will be taken into account


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if his partner does not have a NINO and has not applied for one, he would not be entitled to HB


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
if his partner does not have a NINO and has not applied for one, he would not be entitled to HB

 

Whilst op does mention he has a ni number the residency test would seem to be a valid point. I didnt read or8ginally on the fact he was dutch.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm - that all makes sense - I'll ask him to chase up the Dutch DWP and see if anything comes from that.

Thanks so much for your help.

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...