Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'm still pondering/ trying to find docs re the above issue. Moving on - same saga; different issue I'm trying to understand what I can do: The lender/ mortgagee-in-possession has a claim v me for alleged debt. But the debt has only been incurred due to them failing to sell property in >5y. I'm fighting them on this.   I've been trying to get an order for sale for 2y.  I got it legally added into my counterclaim - but that will only be dealt with at trial.  This is really frustrating. The otherside's lawyers made an application to adjourn trial for a few more months - allegedly wanting to try sort some kind of settlement with me and to use the stay to sell.  At the hearing I asked Judge to expedite the order for sale. I pointed out they need a court-imposed deadline or this adjournment is just another time wasting tactic (with interest still accruing) as they have no buyer.  But the judge said he could legally only deal with the order at trial. The otherside don't want to be forced to sell the property.. Disclosure has presented so many emails which prove they want to keep it. I raised some points with the judge including misconduct of the receiver. The judge suggested I may have a separate claim against the receiver?   On this point - earlier paid-for lawyers said my counterclaim should be directed at the lender for interference with the receiver and the lender should be held responsible for the receiver's actions/ inactions.   I don't clearly understand that, but their legal advice was something to do with the role a receiver has acting as an agent for a borrower which makes it hard for a borrower to make a claim against a receiver ???.  However the judge's comment has got me thinking.  He made it clear the current claim is lender v me - it's not receiver v me.  Yet it is the receiver who is appointed to sell the property. (The receiver is mentioned/ involved in my counterclaim only from the lender collusion/ interference perspective).  So would I be able to make a separate application for an order for sale against the receiver?  Disclosure shows receiver has constantly rejected offers. He gave a contract to one buyer 4y ago. But colluded with the lender's lawyer to withdraw the contract after 2w to instead give it to the ceo of the lender (his own ltd co) (using same lawyer).  Emails show it was their joint strategy for lender/ ceo to keep the property.  The receiver didn't put the ceo under any pressure to exchange quickly.  After 1 month they all colluded again to follow a very destructive path - to gut the property.  My account was apparently switched into a "different fund" to "enable them to do works" (probably something to do with the ceo as he switched his ltd co accountant to in-house).   Interestingly the receiver told lender not to incur significant works costs and to hold interest.  The costs were huge (added to my account) and interest was not held.   The receiver rejected a good offer put forward by me 1.5y ago.  And he rejected a high offer 1y ago - to the dismay of the agent.  Would reasons like this be good enough to make a separate application to the court against the receiver for an order for sale ??  Or due to the main proceedings and/or the weird relationship a borrower has with a receiver I cannot ?
    • so a new powerless B2B debt DCA set up less than a month ago with a 99% success rate... operating on a NWNF basis , but charging £30 to set up your use of them. that's gonna last 5mins.... = SPAMMERS AND SCAMMERS. a DCA is NOT a BAILIFF and have  ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter WHAT its type. dx      
    • Migrants are caught in China's manufacturing battles with the West, as Beijing tries to save its economy.View the full article
    • You could send an SAR to DCbl on the pretext that you are going for a breach of your GDPR . They should then send the purported letter of discontinuance which may show why it ended up in Gloucester and see if you can get your  costs back on the day. It obviously won't be much but  at least perhaps a small recompense for your wasted day. Not exactly wasted since you had a great win  albeit much sweeter if you had beat them in Court. But a win is a win so well done. We will miss you as it has been almost two years since you first started out on this mission. { I would n't be surprised if the wrong Court was down to DCBL}. I see you said "till the next time" but I am guessing you will be avoiding private patrolled car parks for a while.🙂
    • It is extremely disappointing that you haven't told us anything about the result of the hearing. You came here at the very last minute and the regulars - all unpaid volunteers - sweated blood trying to get an acceptable Witness Statement prepared in an extremely short time. The least you could have done is tell us how the hearing went, information invaluable for future users. Evidently not.
  • 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

housing benefit reductions considered


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3208 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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33353318

 

I have a better idea - how about we start actually controlling private rent levels, which is what is driving the increase in housing benefit.

 

But no, let the well off keep the money and penalise the poor instead.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see this being implemented as is else it would discriminate against single people who would feel the full force of these payments while couples and single parents share the burden.

 

Council tax single people get a reduction so at least it is fair in that way.

 

It could be a scare tactic so that when they do announce the new budget and do not include these measures it will soften the blow and we can all breathe a sigh of relief and not think too much about the other nasty cuts they employ.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite elegant, actually. It manages to screw the poor without interrupting the flow of taxpayers' cash to private landlords.

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

It's quite elegant, actually. It manages to screw the poor without interrupting the flow of taxpayers' cash to private landlords.

 

Indeed, very true! And the poor person on benefits who's having to pay some council tax, their 10% rent contribution, their bedroom tax, their energy bill (as they're also being screwed by the energy companies), their water bill, I'm not entirely sure how they're supposed to be able to afford to eat - especially single people and couples without kids - and that's without the costs of jobseeking if they're looking for work. Do you think anyone at the DWP actually did the sums from the perspective of a claimant?

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, very true! And the poor person on benefits who's having to pay some council tax, their 10% rent contribution, their bedroom tax, their energy bill (as they're also being screwed by the energy companies), their water bill, I'm not entirely sure how they're supposed to be able to afford to eat - especially single people and couples without kids - and that's without the costs of jobseeking if they're looking for work. Do you think anyone at the DWP actually did the sums from the perspective of a claimant?

 

I'm not sure that anyone at the DWP (at least, not at the higher, policy levels) actually knows or cares much how the numbers will work out for the claimants. The claimants are, after all, merely abstract instruments of policy. Their actual existence as living, breathing human beings with needs such as food and shelter does not seem to be a matter of particular importance.

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

I'm not sure that anyone at the DWP (at least, not at the higher, policy levels) actually knows or cares much how the numbers will work out for the claimants. The claimants are, after all, merely abstract instruments of policy. Their actual existence as living, breathing human beings with needs such as food and shelter does not seem to be a matter of particular importance.

 

 

I believe that many of the DWP/jobcentre staff are doing what they are very clearly instructed to do, and many are distraught at the plight of folkbut are unable to do anything other than what they do.

Not all of course, as in all areas there are people who are both able and willing to ignore others plights and just 'do as they are told'.

 

BUT Lets put the blame where it belongs - government policy.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Record low: living standards and investment

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

“This is specifically not allowed. Mr. Mansour used to be a Cabinet Minister in Egypt, he has given the Tories a huge amount of money, and immediately gets a knighthood.

That seems straightforwardly corrupt.  Shouldn’t they both be in jail?”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to Buy started this housing mess, so lets fix the raging inferno by pouring petrol on the flames by expanding right to buy............

 

:roll:

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right to Buy started this housing mess, so lets fix the raging inferno by pouring petrol on the flames by expanding right to buy............

 

:roll:

 

The one that Thatcher introduced and took away the cap on Rent rises!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

the proposal will impac ton both sides of the coin re: Housing Benefit

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know if this will just affect private tenants or will it also affect those of us in social / council housing?

 

They say that anyone with an income over £30.000 in the North and £40.000 in London will be effected (that includes social housing.

 

This is something the Cons have been looking at for some time but because they are now the ruling party expect it to rear its head on budget day,

At the same time they are expected to announce a higher inheritance tax threshold.

 

Proving that this Government really do not like the less well off do they.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claimants are, after all, merely abstract instruments of policy.

 

The term claimant is an abstraction in its self. The DWP also like to use the term cohort along with any number of other titles. This dehumanises the individual and makes it easier to treat him/her/them as a commodity to be used or sold.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

They say that anyone with an income over £30.000 in the North and £40.000 in London will be effected (that includes social housing.

 

This is something the Cons have been looking at for some time but because they are now the ruling party expect it to rear its head on budget day,

At the same time they are expected to announce a higher inheritance tax threshold.

 

Proving that this Government really do not like the less well off do they.

 

I actually think this is fair enough. If you earn £30,000, you don't need social housing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it takes 10 years to get a house where i live, so what else are we to do, they need to put a cap on PR, and stop LL racking 7 to 10 time more HB than they should get by letting the rooms out in 1 big house, as each one of them can claim HB so there for the LL ends up with so much more for the 1 house than he would do if it was let as a house, how much is that costing each year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a vicious circle where housing benefit feeds higher rent demands far more than true market forces would allow. (Yuck - that sounds so Thatcherite - but is true no the less)

Problem is finding a way to break that circle.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Record low: living standards and investment

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

“This is specifically not allowed. Mr. Mansour used to be a Cabinet Minister in Egypt, he has given the Tories a huge amount of money, and immediately gets a knighthood.

That seems straightforwardly corrupt.  Shouldn’t they both be in jail?”

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...