Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

buttons124

Ex claimed joint tax credits without my knowledge - now being chased for overpayments

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1490 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

Hi folks,

 

So I'm in a bit of a complicated situation, I'll try to sum it up as briefly as possible. I guess I'm just curious what people think/advice/am I doing the right thing/anything else I could do?

 

Last year I split up with my ex. I knew he had looked into some sort of tax credits scenario a few months before we split, however I never filled in any forms and never saw any money, thus thought no more of it.

 

In June of this year I discovered he's been claiming joint couples working tax credits under both our names since last year. When phoning the HMRC about this they "fixed" their records, and proceeded to inform me that "overpayment letters" would likely be sent out. I told them I'd never received any money nor signed a form, nor knew he was doing this, they told me that I "must have" signed a form.

 

I got C.A.B advice and did a Subject Access Request for the initial application forms (as I disputed the existence of a signature), and while waiting for these to arrive I asked a solicitor for help and also (on a particularly stressful day) phoned my ex and told him to get this sorted out. He said he would, unforunately he uh... doesn't believe in working. Seriously. I don't think he works at all. So I can't really see how he can pay this back, and if he can't, they'll still chase me, right? Even though I never got the money and work hard every week to pay my bills!

 

The solicitor was skeptical about the lack of signature on the form, and I was even starting to doubt myself as to whether I had inadvertantly signed the form as the last few months of our relationship were pretty horrible/a bit of a haze of stress. Solicitor suggested he would send a letter to the HMRC explaining that I did not know about the claim, received no money, and for them to only chase my ex for the money. This letter was sent over a month ago, still no response for HMRC.

 

The past two weeks - letters start flooding in.

 

Firstly, the fruits of my Subject Access Request labour - a massive envelope containing, among other things, the initial application form. It is entirely filled out in my ex's handwriting, and there are NO SIGNATURES on it at all. Not his, nor mine. I can't see why these would be redacted (perhaps his, but why mine? Especially when I asked for it specifically?).

 

Finally, this week I've received two "notices to pay" for overpayments to my ex totalling about £4500. They have been sent to him too (he's told me in an email he's dealing with it). I just don't trust that he will when he thought it was ok to do this in the first place, and also where is he getting £4500 from?? The deadline for re-paying this is in October! If he has no money/offers a tiny monthly repayment, they might still come after me? I've thought of phoning them to say "hey guys, no signature, why are you chasing me?" but I thought it best to wait and see what the solicitor thinks.

 

So that's pretty much where it's at. I've told my solicitor about the S.A.R news and am waiting to hear from him... what a mess! Hope I'm approaching it the right way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi folks,

 

So I'm in a bit of a complicated situation, I'll try to sum it up as briefly as possible. I guess I'm just curious what people think/advice/am I doing the right thing/anything else I could do?

 

Last year I split up with my ex. I knew he had looked into some sort of tax credits scenario a few months before we split, however I never filled in any forms and never saw any money, thus thought no more of it.

 

In June of this year I discovered he's been claiming joint couples working tax credits under both our names since last year. When phoning the HMRC about this they "fixed" their records, and proceeded to inform me that "overpayment letters" would likely be sent out. I told them I'd never received any money nor signed a form, nor knew he was doing this, they told me that I "must have" signed a form.

 

I got C.A.B advice and did a Subject Access Request for the initial application forms (as I disputed the existence of a signature), and while waiting for these to arrive I asked a solicitor for help and also (on a particularly stressful day) phoned my ex and told him to get this sorted out. He said he would, unforunately he uh... doesn't believe in working. Seriously. I don't think he works at all. So I can't really see how he can pay this back, and if he can't, they'll still chase me, right? Even though I never got the money and work hard every week to pay my bills!

 

The solicitor was skeptical about the lack of signature on the form, and I was even starting to doubt myself as to whether I had inadvertantly signed the form as the last few months of our relationship were pretty horrible/a bit of a haze of stress. Solicitor suggested he would send a letter to the HMRC explaining that I did not know about the claim, received no money, and for them to only chase my ex for the money. This letter was sent over a month ago, still no response for HMRC.

 

The past two weeks - letters start flooding in.

 

Firstly, the fruits of my Subject Access Request labour - a massive envelope containing, among other things, the initial application form. It is entirely filled out in my ex's handwriting, and there are NO SIGNATURES on it at all. Not his, nor mine. I can't see why these would be redacted (perhaps his, but why mine? Especially when I asked for it specifically?).

 

Finally, this week I've received two "notices to pay" for overpayments to my ex totalling about £4500. They have been sent to him too (he's told me in an email he's dealing with it). I just don't trust that he will when he thought it was ok to do this in the first place, and also where is he getting £4500 from?? The deadline for re-paying this is in October! If he has no money/offers a tiny monthly repayment, they might still come after me? I've thought of phoning them to say "hey guys, no signature, why are you chasing me?" but I thought it best to wait and see what the solicitor thinks.

 

So that's pretty much where it's at. I've told my solicitor about the S.A.R news and am waiting to hear from him... what a mess! Hope I'm approaching it the right way.

 

Did the application require signatures or was it done online or by phone ? If it was done online or by phone, perhaps the SAR application is purely the information that was provided and there never was any signatures.

 

Think you just have to wait for HMRC to respond to Solicitors letter. I guess that the application was joint and they can pursue both of you, even if you did not know about it or received any of it.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did the application require signatures or was it done online or by phone ? If it was done online or by phone, perhaps the SAR application is purely the information that was provided and there never was any signatures.

 

Think you just have to wait for HMRC to respond to Solicitors letter. I guess that the application was joint and they can pursue both of you, even if you did not know about it or received any of it.

 

It must've been a physical written application because the copy I received was in my ex's handwriting (EDIT - At least I think so - if this was done online, would someone hardwrite a version of the online form and send me it? Guessing not, guessing it would've been a print out of the online form?).

 

I never received any of this money he's gotten, nor did I know he was doing this for the past year, nor was I living with him.

 

Considering the lack of the above, plus the lack of my signature, how can they possibly be chasing me for this money? If that's the case, disgruntled partners/ex partners could be screwing each other over for Tax Credit money left, right and centre (or maybe they are?).

Edited by buttons124
adding info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is handwritten he must have sent it to them. I doubt they redacted the signatures for the SAR, as i could not see the point in this. They would want you to see your signature on the form.

 

If you never applied for it, never signed any document and never received any of the money, then even if he made a joint application, i can't see how they can argue you are liable.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might want to read this thread - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421865-HMRC-want-paying-for-WTC-joint-claim-my-wife-forged-my-sig&p=4788786#post4788786

 

Have you actually made an attempt to dispute the overpayment?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tax-credits-overpayment-tc846

 

Have you reported your ex for claiming without your knowledge?

 

Please note the fact it wasn't paid to your account won't be relevant as it can be paid to any account of the claimants choosing however it will help you in explaining that you weren't aware of the claim.

 

Although a claim form should be signed, if it isn't, it's normally discussed over the phone with one of the claimants and rectified that way. Your SAR may include records of calls, it would depend on what you asked for.

 

If you are not successful in disputing, you would be liable to 50% of the overpayment.

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...