Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Guys, we have three days left in which to respond to this.   While I appreciate all the input we've received, at present we seem to be left with more questions than answers so is anyone in a position to advise what to do next please?
    • The only way I can guess that I Go 4 got my details was through a car insurance search website.  At the time of thisCCJ I insured with the RAC,  THEN THE sAGA.  aT NO POINT DID i TAKE OUT INSURANCE WITH ig4 .  They certainly never wrote to me saying I owed them money.  The debt is for £235., so if I did owe,  I would have paid it,  but I knew nothing about it and to this day have never heard from J C International or IG4.
    • Thank you, just received letter back " acknowledging that the account is now Statute Barred, whilst they do not consider that they have breached any law or regulatory guidelines, the account has been withdrawn from their regular collections process and closed. You won't be contacted by us our agents regarding this matter".   Thank you all for your help, nice to finally get it settled.
    • The points are that you believe that a person or court hearing a Statutory Declaration has the option of rejecting it if he or they believe it is untrue. You must presumably believe that the person or court has a duty to question (perhaps more properly, cross-examine) the person making the declaration. You started by saying this about the declaration as a whole then went on to concentrate on the 21 day rule. I asked you to let us know how you have arrived at that conclusion. In particular I asked why you had provided specific advice to the OP in the original thread (a) that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really did not know of the proceedings at all and (b) if she did not know at all, that she was likely to be questioned about whether she really found out less that 21 days before she makes her SD. I suggested it was unwise to warn the OP of something which would not happen. As far as I can recall you suggested that S14 of the MCA provides for SDs to be rejected if they are not satisfied as to its truth and I asked you to show me where the legislation is that provides for this (because it's certainly not in S14).   The position is that a Statutory Declaration must be heard if made within 21 days of the defendant finding out about the conviction and it will be accepted unchallenged. If it is made outside 21 days the defendant states why as part of the declaration. If the court agrees that the reason it was late (as stated by the defendant and without challenge) is acceptable it will hear the Declaration and once it is heard it will be accepted without question. For the final time, the making of a Statutory Declaration is not a court hearing and apart from being satisfied, in the case of a late declaration being made, that the reason (as stated by the defendant) is acceptable, those hearing it have no discretion but to hear it and sign it to say they have done so. No orders are made; no decisions are made; no discretion is available (apart from the 21 day matter I mentioned).   To emphasise the difficulty your misleading information has caused, the latest post from the OP on the original thread says this (when considering her court appearance on Wednesday):   I am hopeful that they will accept that I knew nothing of the earlier proceedings...   She should not have no worry about that because the court has no option but to accept her declaration that she knew nothing of the proceedings. However, because of your advice she has. I am, once again, about to allay her fears on that score and it would be useful if you didn't tell her otherwise.    
    • So ignore any calls/letters off DCAs and try and work with PayPal directly to pay small amounts that I can afford?  Like ive said, I’ve opened a new bank account and transferred my regular in’s and out’s to that account. I’ve removed my old debit card from PayPal but left on there my old bank account info, reason being I’m hoping that makes it easier to send payments to PayPal. Does this seem a good idea? 
  • Our picks

MW35

Review after 2016 ,, and I received a letter with the ESA50 questionnaire

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1407 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

I was kicked off ESA the end of 2014, successfully won my appeal March 2015, scoring 27 points from the original 0 that ATOS gave me, the letter I received from the appeal court, states review after 2016, but to my surprise the other day I received a letter with the ESA50 questionnaire that I need to send back by 5 February, This as seriously stressed me out, as I didn't think I would be called so soon especially after the appeal court letter stating review after 2016.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happens, unfortunately. The review date given by the Tribunal is advisory only - the DWP doesn't have to abide by this.

 

One thing you could do when you return the ESA50 is enclose a copy of the report from your Tribunal and point out that your condition has not changed since then.


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks I will do, I've got an appointment with my citizens advice on Wednesday I will mention it to them also.

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...