Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • what solicitor is the PAPLOC from? then just search xxxx snotty letter dx  
    • moved to the debt self help forum. plenty of like threads here to read along with the ones you've done so far..good work. last thing you ever want to do is look at any kind of IVO/BK or anything alike concerning consumer debt, never do that, turns unsecured debts into secured ones in many instances. your best bet for now is p'haps looks at  Options for dealing with your debts: Breathing Space (Debt Respite Scheme) - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) sadly you have to go thru one of the free debt charities to invoke that but DON'T be tempted to also open up a DMP with them, just get the Breathing Space done. get that in place that gives you at leasy 60 days buffer you've also goto to realise you'll probably get a default once breathing space is in place, bit if not it might pay you to withhold payments even after BS then p'haps re start payments once a DN for each debt is issued and registered. at least that way, whatever happens in 6yrs the debt will drop off dx  
    • Hello, I am a private seller and recently sold a pair of trainers on eBay.  Everything seemed fine until just after the eBay 30 day mbg had expired.  The buyer contacted me with photos showing me that both shoes had ripped.  He wanted his money back, and after refusing to refund him, he then left me retaliatory and defamatory feedback on my profile to the effect that I had sold him fake trainers (this was removed by eBay).  He then initiated a chargeback via Paypal.  Invariably, the outcome was in his favour, and I have now been charged for the cost of the trainers.  I would have also been stung for the chargeback fee, but eBay refunded this.  Incidentally, I do have the email receipt of the trainers from when I bought them from a well-established and bona fide online retailer.  The susbequent conversation with eBay followed its predictable course, i.e. the chargeback is out of their hands etc. I have been in contact with citizens advice, and my bank.  Citizens advice told me that as a private seller I'm responsible for the "Title and description" of the goods, but not the performance, or the fitness for purpose.  To me it is clear; if you receive something that's not as described, you don't then use the goods, and more than 30 days later claim 'not as described'.  In my mind, this makes the claim fraudulent.  He's used the 'they're fake' card to give credence to a 'not as described' claim here, obviously, without any evidence.  My understanding is that the chargeback is unlawful, because the trainers were shipped as described.  However, I read something on an eBay forum regarding sellers having no statutory rights, i.e. no right to appeal against a chargeback decision, or to complain to the financial ombudsman.  Does this mean that if my bank disputes the charge on my behalf, it will be to no avail, even if it's recognisably a fraudulent chargeback?  I have reported it via the Action fraud website. Any advice, anyone?  Would be most grateful!
    • Thank you, I have drafted my letters and started to complete the reply form, printed from this site and not using the one they provided.    2 questions, on the forum link it says to tick box D & I, the reason for box D will be given on my thread, what would my answer be to "I dispute the debt"?  Do I send anything for the Vodafone debt they have included?  I've only done 118 loan s. 77 & capital one credit cards so. 78    Thank you  
  • 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

Panic room woman challenges bedroom tax


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3439 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

Somewhat harsh and judgmental, dear Chester! Clearly I've hit a nerve and you are one of these leftist types who takes any differing view as a personal attack and responds ad hominem to shut down debate.

 

I don't know if Chester is a "leftist" and neither do you. There is, however, a certain irony involved in accusing someone else of attempting to shut down debate while using epithets whose only purpose is to do exactly that.

 

As to the topic of the thread, I dunno. I can sort of see Conniff's point - on the face of it it does seem like there should be more effective ways of dealing with this problem than creating prison cells inside peoples' homes. But hey, I'm not an expert in this field, and I'd be astonished if the amount of money involved nationwide was really worth fussing about. Tentatively, I vote to allow the extra room in these circumstances and not charge bedroom tax.

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a requirement for security and maintaining sanity of the woman in question, then it should be permitted. Not everything is B&W and sometime, our beloved civil servants need to have a smattering of common sense and humility.

 

@conniff - perhaps they are housebound due the issues mentioned above...

 

When the is a genuine need such as this there needs flexibility...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not getting into the argument of how useful or effective a panic room may be - or why the person could not occupy a 2 bedroom property with her own bedroom being adapted to panic room standards

 

however i am not sure JR is the appropriate route to tackle this. surely other options should have been attempted. for example

1) going to a FtT to try to persuade a judge that the room is no longer a bedroom (quicker and cheaper than JR proceedings)

2) landlord re-categorising property as 2 bedroom, and offsetting any reduction in rent by applying a service charge for the provision of a panic room

3) applying for a DHP from the local council

 

I suspect that the DWP will argue that the availability of DHPs as a defence should there by any finding of discrimination. It has worked so far as a defence in cases where the claimant and/or partner are Severely Disabled.

If you have found my post useful, please click on the star at the bottom of my post and add some reputation points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is a requirement for security and maintaining sanity of the woman in question, then it should be permitted. Not everything is B&W and sometime, our beloved civil servants need to have a smattering of common sense and humility.

 

@conniff - perhaps they are housebound due the issues mentioned above...

 

When the is a genuine need such as this there needs flexibility...

 

If it's laid out in law then it is B&W, common sense has nothing to do with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat harsh and judgmental, dear Chester! Clearly I've hit a nerve and you are one of these leftist types who takes any differing view as a personal attack and responds ad hominem to shut down debate.

 

Reread what you said and I think the finger pointing from you is in the wrong direction

 

When this was mentioned IDS was shown to be laughing and that says enough about his brand of Tory and beliefs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if Chester is a "leftist" and neither do you. There is, however, a certain irony involved in accusing someone else of attempting to shut down debate while using epithets whose only purpose is to do exactly that.

 

As to the topic of the thread, I dunno. I can sort of see Conniff's point - on the face of it it does seem like there should be more effective ways of dealing with this problem than creating prison cells inside peoples' homes. But hey, I'm not an expert in this field, and I'd be astonished if the amount of money involved nationwide was really worth fussing about. Tentatively, I vote to allow the extra room in these circumstances and not charge bedroom tax.

The rooms are to make someone feel safe in their own home because the system has failed them

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... - or why the person could not occupy a 2 bedroom property with her own bedroom being adapted to panic room standards ....

 

 

There's the answer fair and square, there can be no opposition to that statement, that really is 'commons sense'.

 

 

This court case is politically motivated and my money is on the labour party funding it through the backdoor.

 

When this was mentioned IDS was shown to be laughing and that says enough about his brand of Tory and beliefs

 

 

Link to a youtube video showing that please or other proof ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

- or why the person could not occupy a 2 bedroom property with her own bedroom being adapted to panic room standards

 

How strange, everyone seems to have gone quiet.

 

Perhaps they were already living in this house? Perhaps it had already been converted and they were moved into it by the council? Perhaps the council didn't have a 2 bedroom property available and thought this a better option than letting them rot in a B&B? Perhaps they couldn't find a private landlord that was willing to allow the adaptations to be made to their property and therefore could only use council 'stock'?

 

Without the facts it's a pretty pointless argument.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a lot of the problem many disabled people have. They need the extra space to enable their house to be adapted and a lot of the time, the only option is more bedrooms than the law says they're entitled to. But if they move out, they may have to pay back the cost of the adaptions and then try to find a one bed flat where the same adaptions can be made.

 

Utterly ridiculous. It should be done on a case by case basis. So, in the case of the woman who needs this panic room, of course she shouldn't have to pay the bedroom tax. But if a single non-disabled person with no such issues lives in a two bed flat and isn't willing to downsize and has been offered somewhere smaller, they should pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a lot of the problem many disabled people have. They need the extra space to enable their house to be adapted and a lot of the time, the only option is more bedrooms than the law says they're entitled to. But if they move out, they may have to pay back the cost of the adaptions and then try to find a one bed flat where the same adaptions can be made.

 

Utterly ridiculous. It should be done on a case by case basis. So, in the case of the woman who needs this panic room, of course she shouldn't have to pay the bedroom tax. But if a single non-disabled person with no such issues lives in a two bed flat and isn't willing to downsize and has been offered somewhere smaller, they should pay.

 

Honestly couldn't agree any more with what you've written. Charging someone in the absence of suitable alternative accomodation is ridiculous, however if an offer of a reasonable alternative has been made and declined then, yes by all means they should be charged.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly couldn't agree any more with what you've written. Charging someone in the absence of suitable alternative accomodation is ridiculous, however if an offer of a reasonable alternative has been made and declined then, yes by all means they should be charged.

 

I agree with this too.

An even better solution, since the woman with this panic room is not disabled, would be to charge the cost of the adaptions to the violent tw*t who created the need for it in the first place. An attachment of his earnings or (more likely, benefits), kind of an "idiot tax"!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this too.

An even better solution, since the woman with this panic room is not disabled, would be to charge the cost of the adaptions to the violent tw*t who created the need for it in the first place. An attachment of his earnings or (more likely, benefits), kind of an "idiot tax"!!

 

Didn't think of that one. Does sound like a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with this too.

An even better solution, since the woman with this panic room is not disabled, would be to charge the cost of the adaptions to the violent tw*t who created the need for it in the first place. An attachment of his earnings or (more likely, benefits), kind of an "idiot tax"!!

 

What a good idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...