Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oh and the judge is very familiar with the Parking Eye supreme court case.   It will be my turn soon, not feeling good. 
    • Thank you so much for your response. Do I need to reply to their letter as I presume the SAR may take weeks to come from them? How can I find out what I earned back in 2004?   I was self employed but from memory I didn't pay myself a wage because I didnt have the funds - hence why I needed Tax Credits
    • Thanks Andy Your right, it is nonsense!    At the directions hearing would I be able to ask to have it struck out?  She missed the last deadline and made no effort to contact the court. Surely he can't give her another chance, its madness.  
    • The significant majority of C’s claim (£8,245.76) relates to a restitutionary claim for compound interest on the £570 default charges. C relies on Sempra Metals to justify such an entitlement. However, the relevant parts of Sempra Metals on which C relies were overturned in the recent Supreme Court decision of Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKSC 39, as explained below: “In Sempra Metals (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) Ltd v IRC the House of Lords held that a taxpayer which had paid tax earlier than it was legally required to do could establish that the Revenue had been unjustly enriched, with the enrichment consisting of the Revenue’s opportunity to use the money until the tax was properly due (so-called “use” or “opportunity” value of money). This enrichment was valued with reference to compound interest which the defendant would have had to pay to borrow an equivalent amount of money to that which had been received from the taxpayer and which, for the Revenue, was a rate which was lower than the commercial rate. Such a claim for the use value of money, which was subsequently    Page 4 2 considered to involve a freestanding cause of action distinct from a claim to recover the value of money received, would be available in respect of any unjust enrichment claim where money had been paid which was not due to the defendant. This aspect of the decision in Sempra Metals was, however, overruled by the Supreme Court in Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v HMRC on the ground that a claim for the use value of money was inconsistent with the analysis on unjust enrichment claims adopted by the Supreme Court in Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customers Commissioners, namely that the defendant’s enrichment involves a transfer of value which must be directly obtained at the expense of the claimant, who must have incurred a loss as a result of providing the benefit. As the Supreme Court recognised in Prudential Assurance, where the claimant mistakenly pays £1,000 to the defendant which is repaid by the defendant a month later, the fact that the defendant has had an opportunity to use that money for a month has not involved an additional and distinct transfer of value from the claimant to the defendant. It follows that a distinct claim for the use value of money is no longer available. The Supreme Court in Prudential Assurance also clarified the nature of the award of interest for a claim in unjust enrichment. In Sempra Metals the House of Lords has held, in obiter dicta, that compound interest should be generally available as of right for unjust enrichment claims at common law, which was inconsistent with the earlier decision of the House of Lords in Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington LBC that compound interest could only be awarded in respect of equitable claims. In Prudential Assurance the Supreme Court held that, where the defendant is liable to make restitution to the claimant, the award of interest is intended to compensate the claimant for the loss of the use of money and does not involve the reversal of the defendant’s unjust enrichment, because any benefit obtained from the defendant’s use of the money has not been obtained at the expense of the claimant since there will have been no transfer of the value of that benefit from the claimant to the defendant. Further, where the defendant is liable to make restitution to the claimant, a debt arises and it is the failure to discharge that debt immediately which justifies the award of interest under s.35A of the Senior Courts Act 181, which is consequently simple rather than compound interest”1 [emphasis added].
    • My question is can anyone help me find out an e-mail address for Barclays Bank UK?
  • 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

Court over ruling CSA and potentially charging me £1000p/m!!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2405 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 All,

 

Really need advice/help here as I am worried about the following:

 

I have 2 children in their teens who live with my evil ex. I happily paid my CSA payments (better/easier than dealing with my ex) for many years, about 12 now. I also loaned her my half of the equity of our house saving her about £24,000 in interest rates in the past few years (she has to give me the money back when the kids are 18). I've had good jobs in the past so paid anything from £800-600 a month to her. Naturally she did everything possible to stop me seeing my kids but the law doesn't care about that. Being a lazy bitch she also chose to work p/t despite moving 90 miles away to be near her parents for support.

 

Anyway, I left employment about 18 months ago to work on my own and so stopped paying my CSA payments (I'd over paid in the past by 9 months anway). Its been very very hard for me and what I have earnt has been mostly what its cost me to acquire business. Effectively I've not been earning.

 

My ex decided, despite knowing nothing much about my lifestyle that I am 'living beyond my means' and am obviously on the fiddle. Basically she wants money and won't pull her own finger out despite working p/t. My wife has a good job and so we can survive ok on her wages although this is not ideal. So, off we go to court and, cutting a long story short, the court said 'Provide us with just about every finiancial document you have' or we're going to (sorry for the language) **** you over massively. I said that's fine although I objected to my ex having full sight of all our financial affairs but there's nothing I can do.

 

So, what worries me is that the court could now say and, indeed, are intimating 'Ok, thanks for this but we've been through all you details and think you should pay anyway' even though I am not earning and therefore don't have to pay anything and despite me conforming to all requests for information and doing exactly as they and the CSA have said. I've said, on their recommendation, that I'll make an offer to pay some money but what really scares me is that they seem to be able to ignore CSA rules and do what they think and, at the moment, they think I should pay ALL the payments from the last 18 months as arrears plus future payment amount to not far off £1000 a month!!! Whilst I am not earning a penny!!! And despite me proving it!!!:mad2:

 

Can I fight this in court with my own lawyer if I need too because I feel totally against the wall on this. £1000 a month would be a killer for us and, quite simply, against the law (it seems). There is no proof of me having some hidden income as I don't have one!! I wish I bloody did.

 

Any help much appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Ok the equity loan does not come into this. That is something you did out of the 'kindness of your own heart' etc but the CSA will not take it into account. You might however be able to use it as proof that you have always had the best interests of your kids at heart.

 

Secondly you have a CSA agreement, you should have stuck to it. Over paying was stupid, you should have paid the amount they told you to pay each month and no more. I suggest you get proof of these over payments and use them to show that the arrears which have built up should be reduced. You say your kids are now in their teens? When was your CSA case opened? Only because for cases opened before a certain date they will take your current wife's earnings into account but for cases opened after that date they will discount them.

 

Finally is it definitely Court or is your ex wife taking you to a tribunal? I'm assuming you informed the CSA of your change in circumstances and didn't just stop paying? I just have a feeling they will say you are earning even tho you are saying its only enough to cover what you have spent on your business and that you should be paying something towards your kids. Pretty sure you can have your own legal representation but I don't think it will be an easy fight

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

Wife's income cannot be used as 'net income' figure but of she's not earning much and/or receiving tax credits, you will be given an allowance of 'exempt' income. (If case was opened before March 2003).

Equity cannot be considered by CSA.

Who took you to court? I would definitely involve your lawyer.

SAFU

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...