Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I think that rather than right, you should first of all telephone. However read our customer services guide. Implement the advice there. Then telephone and have a conversation which leads round to the loan and whatever agreement there might have been to repay. Get it recorded. Then write to him and asked him to confirm the telephone conversation. If he confirms it then you are on your way. If he doesn't confirm it or denies it then it becomes even more interesting and I think that you will properly have you more leverage. You say that you believe that you lent the money to the company and that the company has now sold. As long as the company has been sold and not dissolved then the loan to the company is still current and the company debt to you is still current. I think the first senior to do is to get the evidence – and I think you should follow the advice that I have given. The fact that the person has stopped contacting you is extremely troubling. The fact that the company ownership was transferred is even more troubling and so I think that you are dealing with somebody who is trying to be slippery about this – and so your way forward is clearly that you also have to act it in a slippery way. Come back here when you got the evidence and we will help you to the next step
    • Met usually use ANPR and get the timings massively wrong so they will be timed out. they must have used CCTV to watch the vehicle occupants "leave" and this is probably a breach of the GDPR as it wont be one of the specified reasons on their licence to spy on people so will breach protocols 1, 2 , 3 and possibly others in the list of the 8 main protocols of data protection.   It also breached the POFA as the timings are wrong so no keeper liability anyway.   The wording they use refers to the liklihood of the issuing of a NTD and thet never happened so the 56 day limit isnt applicable. My advice? ignore them as they rarely do court because they know they are incompetent
    • sorry, I meant to say UNLESS  so yes my answer reads the wrong way round
    • the terms in the contract will in many cases be unfair and thus you will be entitled to the bonus and there is case law on this. However, it is not a simple matter to resolve as it will have to take into account what the contract says and what the normal practice and expectations are for the bonus scheme. For example, Jhn Lewis pays out to anyone employed there on the relevant date so leave the day before and you lose out becasue it is a partnership and you would no longer be a partner. No schemes that withold bonuses until a certain time of the year MAY have to pay out but if your bonus is for the quarter that your resignation fell in then probably not. If it was for say Oct-Dec then you will ahve fulfilled the requirements of a qualifying period regardless of the contract saying no bonus and would more than likely be successful in a claim to recover such monies. A scheme that has been running for soem time would be part of yoru contract even if there is nothing specific included in your paperwork as it becomes implied as part of the conditions you agreed to when joining to co and staying there.   i know this doesnt give you a definite answer but hopefully makes it a little easier to see how your situation may work out
    • You have a big problem and that is proving the debt. for a debt to be created there must be an agreement that the money will be repaid, how and in what time frame. As far as the law goes you either gifted the money or loaned it in a way where you cant take civil action to recover it because there are no explicit terms. Now the BUSINESS doe owe you £2k and the debt will have passed on to the new owners but you still cant take steps to recover the money other than to ask the new business owners for it. They may deny the debt and you will be impossibly placed to prove it because there is nothing in writing. Proof of money transfer doesnt prove the debt exists nor how it should be repaid even if it did. you will lose a court claim due to the lack of paperwork showing how and when the repayment should take place. Sorry for your predicament but you are where you are
  • Our picks

caro

Back-to-work schemes are 'making mental illness worse' says charity

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1943 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

The government's back-to-work schemes are ineffective and damaging for people with mental health problems, according to campaigners. The charity Mind says unemployed people with mental health problems should be moved from mainstream programmes onto a specialist scheme. Mind surveyed 439 people supported by the government's Work Programme.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30415243

Edited by caro

 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The government's back-to-work schemes are ineffective and damaging for people with mental health problems

 

Whilst I would agree that the current range of schemes (and many of the prior programmes) are ineffective, I would contend that they are damaging to the majority of compulsory participants. Despite the promise of tailored and individual support, the black box approach is a one size fits all regardless of ability or circumstances.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whilst I would agree that the current range of schemes (and many of the prior programmes) are ineffective, I would contend that they are damaging to the majority of compulsory participants. Despite the promise of tailored and individual support, the black box approach is a one size fits all regardless of ability or circumstances.

 

 

 

It seems to me that the whole system is damaging to the healthiest person's mental health (not sure if that's what you meant).


 

What's Best for You?

 

 

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

 

Alliance & Leicester Moneyclaim issued 20/1/07 £225.50 full settlement received 29 January 2007

Smile £1,075.50 + interest Email request for payment 24/5/06 received £1,000.50 14/7/06 + £20 30/7/06

Yorkshire Bank Moneyclaim issued 21/6/06 £4,489.39 full settlement received 26 January 2007

:p

 

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

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...