Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Working Tax Credits taken away, Concentrix review


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3276 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

I am not working due to disability, I get ESA and DLA plus a small pension. My wife works but only gets a low wage. For the last few years we've claimed Working Tax Credits (WTC) and sent HMRC all the required info, we've not held anything back or tried to hide anything. They do the maths and send us an award letter. As far as we're aware we've done all that's asked of us yet they have sent us overpayment letters every year.

 

Anyway, we recently got a letter from Concentrix, on behalf of HMRC, asking us for pay slips, evidence of my self-employment (?) and so on. We sent them off, with a cover letter to complain about being told to send originals by post - we used special delivery and will never see that extra cost back!

 

HMRC have told us they are stopping our WTC as they cannot determine that my wife works 30 hours. She is a home carer and changed company towards the end of last year. The sad nature of this line of work is that people go into hospital, or even die without any notice, which means the carer then loses out as the company they work for will not pay them for visits they don't do any more. It can take a while for them to gain a new client, or shuffle calls about, to give that carer more work.

 

We had not realised what the backlash of this would be. It is not my wife's fault that her hours were sometimes cut back. You can't really blame the people she was caring for either. It is possible that some weeks she worked less than 30 hours without realising, but it was not deliberate. Obviously she's lost money through doing less hours, which made the WTC even more vital towards being able to pay the bills.

 

Concentrix said they would send a fuller explanation and we would be able to ask for mandatory reconsideration, that was 3rd February, 4 weeks ago. We've heard nothing more from them. HMRC sent a letter to inform us the credits had stopped and they were claiming an overpayment. Concentrix also say they may be giving us a penalty charge. Can it get any worse !

 

Obviously we will appeal the decision as we feel it's not our fault. My wife may have to get a letter from her employer to explain any weeks she worked less than 30 hours. It is confusing anyway as she is paid in 4 week periods, not monthly. We are unsure if Concentrix have mis-calculated her pay and hours anyway. For example: a recent payslip shows she worked so many hours but also had a day off for which she was only given half a day holiday pay as she didn't have enough days available. Because of this her assumed hours averaged 29.75 over the 4 weeks.

 

Has anyone else had this sort of action taken ? Is there anything we can do ?

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention self employment but then say your wife has an employer.

 

Is she employed or self employed? This will make a difference as to what evidence she requires.

 

If your wife's hours dropped below 30hrs for 4 weeks or more then she would no longer be entitled to working tax credits.

 

Although I can understand you saying your wife hasn't chosen to reduce her hours, if she wishes to claim a benefit then she does need meet the qualifying criteria.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mention self employment but then say your wife has an employer.

 

Is she employed or self employed? This will make a difference as to what evidence she requires.

She is employed, they were asking about my self-employment. I am not, I'm on ESA and DLA through disability. I've not worked since 2011 and left self-employment in 2005. We found it odd that they asked for evidence of my self-employment.

 

If your wife's hours dropped below 30hrs for 4 weeks or more then she would no longer be entitled to working tax credits.

 

Although I can understand you saying your wife hasn't chosen to reduce her hours, if she wishes to claim a benefit then she does need meet the qualifying criteria.

She was not aware her hours had dropped below 30 a week, from what we can see they have miscalculated through taking her 4 weekly pay slips as being monthly. Even so, one of the days was holiday where she only got half a day's pay as it was.

 

No warning, they just took the money away at a time when we really needed it and threaten a penalty as well. Still waiting for their letter of explanation.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've now gone over her payslips and looked very carefully at the number of hours and found that one of the payslips submitted was incorrect. She is asking her employer to clarify and we'll send the correct information in. It was not only her holiday pay they got wrong.

 

What annoys me is that the Concentrix/HMRC people have just taken the wtc away, threatened a penalty and want repayment of what we've had already - without any reference to us at all. All the payslips prior were OK, it's just the one where the hours were wrong.

 

I telephoned Concentrix and the bloke I spoke to was the most obstructive I've ever had the misfortune to make contact with in any call centre. Even the guys who claim 'you are infecting our Internets' have more tact. I ended up putting the phone down before I swore !

 

A letter of complaint is on it's way to HMRC as soon as we have the clarification from her employer. I will also query why Concentrix asked about my self-employment, when I'm not working full stop and have not done so since becoming disabled.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

In light of the article in the Independent - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/people-in-need-at-risk-of-losing-tax-credits-after-being-wrongly-accused-of-cheating-10060745.htm - I contacted my MP to let her know we had had our tax credits taken away thanks to the intervention of Concentrix. She has replied to say she will make enquiries on our behalf so I've been doing a bit of digging to find out where the claim is at present, who is dealing with it and so on. I can now pass that to her office.

 

It seems that any sort of appeal will have to go to Concentrix, which seems wrong to me. HMRC have washed their hands of the whole thing have they ? Concentrix say they have not yet had my letter of March 17th, sent first class. I make no wonder, they give an address of a PO Box in Lancing, which should really be Worthing according to the Post Office database, and then have to have it all sent over to Belfast ! I wonder who is paying for the second hop - oh, of course, the tax payer !

 

What they have done today, and not what I asked them to do, is to start the mandatory reconsideration process. I pointed out that that is useless without the letter and supporting evidence I sent. The supervisor I spoke to had no idea of procedures, he just wanted to get me off the phone. Of course, they will reach the same decision and will have wasted another 28 days in doing so. I'll then have to lodge an appeal against that decision, pointing out just why it was invalid.

 

I'm livid. All of this information is now being sent to MP. I don't know if they are still 'working' now that an election has been called. All this means is that we're not getting anywhere at all.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Had a letter from my MP, on plain headed paper as they're 'off duty' at present, to say she has contacted Concentrix and HMRC on my behalf to see what's happening.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No letters as yet, but wife tells me she's had a couple of payments into her account today... :-) Looks like we got through to someone.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep us updated with your progress.

 

I've also had my tax credits passed over to Concentrix. My payments have been reduced in the interim because I think the HMRC are questioning my self-employment. Tax credits cannot make any amendments because it is being handled by Concentrix, which leaves me short of childcare money.

 

Further problem is that the Concentrix systems have been down continuously for 2 days now, after being told yesterday morning that it would be a couple of hours - it doesn't inspire confidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Had some post this morning. Two letters from HMRC. Both are the standard end of year notifications of their calculations, no mention of Concentrix or the suspension.

 

The letters details then payments they've just made, a catch up on 2014-15 and a small payment for 2015-16 with notification of when the next will be made and what the ongoing amounts will be.

 

We are back on track with them, but no wiser about the mandatory reconsideration process that must have taken place. As and when we get that, or if nothing arrives in the next week or so, I'll be sending in a complaint as their actions caused us some big problems, mainly in not being able to pay bills as we had to put credit on our pre-pay energy meters or be without heating etc.

 

They seem to have no consideration of how we are affected when they pull stunts like this. I object to a third party processing my information like this as well. Yet again it is proving that this sort of thing is not working properly.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A brown envelope from Concentrix, advising that they are returning our original documents - they're returned my letter of complaint, but not said anything about it... :roll: It was obvious that this was not something that needed to be returned, unless it's their way of saying they are ignoring it ! All being logged and will eventually be added to a complaint to HMRC about these numpties.

Be good to those who give you advice that helps - click the star to give them your thanks by way of a reputation credit.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...