Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have added their poc in your above post for clarity.   you need to address para 3.    bump point 3 forward down 1 number and add in:   3. Paragraph 3 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served in yyyy by either the claimant or the original creditor .    if mcol is still flaky ….   MCOL is only one way of responding to a claim.  . If you are having problems logging in, or would prefer not to use MCOL,  you can fax, email or post your response to the Court instead.  If you send your response by e mail  please send it to ccbcaq@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk and ensure you quote “Claim defence response” and quote the claim number in the subject field.  . neither by email nor MCOL do you need to inc I confirm that the above facts and statements are true to the best of my knowledge and recollection.
    • you should have done the pictures weeks ago not leave it till 1 min before you need to file a defence. you've been here +6yrs and have numerous court threads and numerous private parking ticket threads  but somehow always seem to screw up one way or anther..   if you look on google earth street view you can see the cameras and the entrance/exit layout which matches the photos from that link I gave you and your upload which I've now redacted properly now .   POC   1.Claim for monies outstanding from the Defendant in relation to a parking charge (reference 00000000) issued on 10/10/2019.   2.The signage clearly displayed throughout KFC (Walkden Manchester) states that this is private land, managed by ParkingEye Ltd, and that it is subject to terms and conditions, including a max stay period, by which those who park agree to be bound (the contract).    3.ParkingEye’s ANPR system captured vehicle 000000 entering and leaving the site on 07/10/2019, and overstaying the max stay period.   4.Pursuant to Sch 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012, notice has been given to the Parking Charge payable upon breach.   5.As no response was received, an alternative service address was obtained and further correspondence issued (CPR 6.9(3)).   defence:   1. i am the registered keeper of the car Reg No. xxxxxx mentioned in the claimants claim.   2. the defendant denies that any monies are due to the claimant because there was no breach of contract to create a cause for action.   3. The claimants Accredited Trade Association, the BPA has a MINIMUM grace period of 10 minutes to allow the necessary consideration of the offer of conditions to park and other actions before any contractual condition can be applied.   4.The defendant denies exceeding any free parking time in addition to said grace period as neither the land owner who may have employed the claimant to manage parking with a current paid for contract covering the date of the overstay nor the claimant have any legal authority to vary any free parking period granted by the relevant council upon issuing the original planning consent for the entire walkden retail park.    needs firming up people...   you can file by email if MCOL is playing up still though from research today 99'9% of all PPC claimforms are being postponed for many months by all courts now,      
    • OK, excellent, please take pix both of KFC signs and also the signs in the surrounding car park, as I reckon that KFC has unilaterally tied to change the permitted parking time in their bit of the whole car park.   Also park in the main car park, not KFC, as I've read reports of invoices being issued for motorists who have parked in the KPC bit even if it's closed at the moment!!!   Could you reply to what I asked in post 57 please?  If you don't reply, it's difficult to give appropriate advice.        
    • I’ll get a picture of the signs tomorrow and see where I get ringing the council about the planning. Also how long do I have to get the defence in? I know you said I will have leeway but I can’t have that much.    Thanks  Andrew 
    • now read the letter properly and carefully.... doesn't say WILL anything...   unless you are purposefully buying these in bulk and knowingly doing it their client will not be the least bit interested in you.
  • Our picks

jadeybags

4 week housing benefit run on

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2092 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

My brother was originally on Incap for years, then they transferred him to JSA in March 2013. He started work last monday & is loving it. He is 31 yrs old. Single. No dependants. He has cancelled his JSA & housing benefit & isn't entitled to any housing benefit, but seems he will get about £50 a week working tax credits.

I understood him to be able to get a 4 week run on with housing benefit though. But the council have told him he won't. He did get sanctioned with JSA for getting the day wrong with an appointment a couple of months ago. Although the council said it wasn't to do with that. It was because he hadn't been on JSA long enough. Even though he was on it just over a year.

He didn't realise the time to be on JSA is 26 weeks for the 4 week run on.

Could it be because of the sanction do you think?

I think he is going to try ringing them tomorrow, but it's difficult for him because he is now working full time in a different town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think the sanction has anything to do with the council decision in your brother's case.

 

 

When a JSA claimant is sanctioned it triggers an automatic notification of a change of circumstances on the computer systems. This is conveyed to the council benefit offices and housing benefit stops at once. It happened in my case but I was fully reimbursed when I wrote to explain what had happened.

 

 

I don't know enough about the other issues you raise, sorry. There are a few here who do know and I feel sure they will respond when they next come along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was he in receipt of HB for every day of the 26 weeks prior to his starting work? That is, even if the sanction caused an interruption to his HB claim, was he eventually repaid the money lost?


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

Yes, he didn't have any problems with housing benefit when he got sanctioned, so I assume it all carried on fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the issue is not about HB being continuous for 26 weeks - but JSA being continuous for 26 weeks - if there was even a one day break in JSA - this would disqualify from run on, even if no break in 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
the issue is not about HB being continuous for 26 weeks - but JSA being continuous for 26 weeks - if there was even a one day break in JSA - this would disqualify from run on, even if no break in HB

 

Yes, of course - I missed that. Oops.

 

Does a period subject to JSA sanction count as part of the 26 weeks? I was never sure of that because back when I processed ESA, sanctions were so rare that the issue never arose.


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

HBR 72(1)© states:

 

the claimant or the claimant’s partner had been entitled to and in receipt of a qualifying income-related benefit, jobseeker’s allowance or a combination of those benefits for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks before the day on which the entitlement to a qualifying income-related benefit ceased.

 

It is my understanding that during a sanction a person has an (underlying) entitlement to JSA but is NOT in receipt of JSA


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
HBR 72(1)© states:

 

the claimant or the claimant’s partner had been entitled to and in receipt of a qualifying income-related benefit, jobseeker’s allowance or a combination of those benefits for a continuous period of at least 26 weeks before the day on which the entitlement to a qualifying income-related benefit ceased.

 

It is my understanding that during a sanction a person has an (underlying) entitlement to JSA but is NOT in receipt of JSA

 

Ah, that could be cool then, because he never stopped getting JSA when he was sanctioned, they halved it? so he was still 'in receipt'of it, just a lower payment?

They can't have it all ways, surely? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The starting point would be to submit written request for a run on (if he hasn't already) - then if it gets refused, request a written explanation as to why it has been refused


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
The starting point would be to submit written request for a run on (if he hasn't already) - then if it gets refused, request a written explanation as to why it has been refused

 

Ok great, thank you, that's a good idea, shall bung him a txt & suggest he does that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok great, thank you, that's a good idea, shall bung him a txt & suggest he does that.

 

If you and he have the time, it would be very helpful to us if you could keep us updated on what happens.


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

They wouldn't budge :| Apparently it is to do with the sanction after all. So it's almost a shame now that he got the job so soon after. If he had been sanctioned 6 months ago, he would have been fine.

I guess that's the way it goes. He got paid friday & paid his rent on line, & will set a direct debit up, so he is doing the right things by the sounds of it. I just think it's a shame, if he had 4 weeks to get set into a routine, considering he hasn't worked for about 7 years (he'd been on incap til a year ago) he could have done with those 4 weeks.

Thanks for all the advice though.

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...