Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • @BearLake1   I have a similar PCN from the same place. I've just received 'Letter Before Claim' today. I wonder if you are able to share your reply to CVS? Did you send your reply by email or mail?   Thanks!
    • Will this work?   I disupte this debt because, Firstly i only ever used my phone via wifi, there was never a notification regarding usage and data. The rules regarding roaming usage has changed,  the default was illegal and was disputed. This matter is between O2 and myself.   The debt purchaser has yet to provide any or all of the required documentation.
    • Hi all   Wow, do I have a situation to contend with now! I shall include as many important facts as needed.   I have received a solicitors letter today, by instruction of MY PARENTS claiming they are beneficially entitled to a property I purchased in 1999.   This property belonged to my Grandad who sadly passed away in 1993. He had hand written a will, not witnessed by anyone, leaving the property to my Mother and not his Son. Of course my Mothers Brother wasn’t happy with this and contested it which ended up in court. This dragged on for a long time, it could have been years? Until it was decided the house be sold and money divided equally. From memory I think the legal feels were around £30k ish.   At this time my parents didn’t have jobs and I was able to obtain a mortgage in 1999 and after going on the market purchased the house for £50k as it needed a lot of work. At the time I was very close to my parents and it felt a good thing to keep the house in the family circle as such (like cars sometimes) but was obviously in my name as the owner. I paid the mortgage and utilities on it and it sat empty for ten years whilst deciding what to do, more my Mother not wanting anyone to touch it and change memories.   The council kept writing to me until eventually said it would be a forced sale if nothing done with it. I then obtained additional borrowing to fund the complete renovation and then rented it out with the idea if it reducing the mortgage. Around the same time and during the crash I manged to buy another house needing work, by using equity on first as a deposit and a mortgage on the new house.   My parents would always refer to the 1999 as my house although this felt awkward. A few years along the way (2010/1/2) my Dad purchased their council house at a reduced rate.   I moved out of my parents home in 2014 and into the second house once it was all modernised, which since the relationship with parents has just deteriorated a lot. Arguing about lots and them saying I need to ‘sign the house back over to them’ on more than one occasion.   To fast forward, the tenants moved out of the property recently and my parents found because as creepy as it sounds, I think they used to drive by or watch them. The signing back over has been demanded recently to which I said was ridiculous etc…   Today I get this letter with 29 paragraphs and crux of which being to transfer to property, with vacant possession and mortgage free, to them and in addition any surplus rent from the previous ten years!   The letter is full of lies my parents have told the solicitor such as:   I lived with them rent free in lieu of paying the mortgage They paid all the utility bills and council tax They paid for and carried out most of the work back on the house in between purchase and 2008 when renovated My Father dealt with the letting agents recently and I ‘merely’ signed the tenancy agreement   There was a time, as my parents have always been high maintenance, I had written something for my Mum to say although I own the house, morally it belongs to her as probably thought it would help the relationship. A copy of this has been included, although I think looks slightly different to what I had printed and also says…about asking their permission to sell it and they could move in if they ever wanted, I really do not recall saying that! This piece of paper I refer to has no date or signature.   My goodness, this has completely knocked me for six. Its like history repeating itself!   I have checked with Eon, Council tax etc… so far and all have been in my name and paid for by me.   The letter also says ‘the facts of this case are familiar to you and you ought not to require any further enquiry’ which almost is like the solicitor knows this is all hearsay/BS and no proof? Also that I should respond to the claim within 28 days. The letter was also not recorded in case it makes a difference.   Another paragraph says advises my parents 'have a strong claim that I am holding the property on trust for them absolutely by way of constrictive trust and/or proprietary estoppel' I have no idea what this means!   One thing I should point out, I used to be very much in my parents bubble, asking them for advice, wanting their approval, very much lacking confidence in awareness of my own abilities. It is since I have started thinking for myself they don't have the hold on me their behavior  have become worse.   What are your thoughts please? I really have no idea what to think!   Many thanks in advance as always   E!
    • So I got a phone call on Saturday on my private mobile phone. This call was from Moriarty law ...I had sent my PAP docs back with no e mail address or phone number ...they said they had used a tracing company to find my details ....I have since called them and put in a complaint that they have breached GDPR regs ..they have now suspended any action pending a full investigation. The agent who called me was not very bright to say the least ..he wanted me to make an offer of payment even though as I told him it was only an allegation that I owed the money as ADCB had not sent the original paperwork back..... he then told me that they could take me to court even if I had not got a copy of my signed credit agreement ....I basically told him to jog on ...I'll let you all know the outcome of Moriartys GDPR breach investigation .
    • or should I sent a copy of Ericsbrother's template  ?    Please help!     Unfortunately for you, I was not born yesterday so I will not be paying the demand as there is no liability in this matter because the signage is prohibitive and not an offer of a contract so none has been breached and anyway the POFA limits any charge to the specified sum so your demand for £160.00 is nonsense. As VCS (Vehicle Control Services Ltd) has been spanked at court on this very same thing several times before I suggest that you discontinue this foolishness. Should VCS decide to continue then I shall be asking for a full costs recovery order for unreasonable behaviour and then seek damages for the breach of the DPA/ GDPR as per VCS V Philip, Liverpool CC Dec 2016. Even Will and John, the parking world’s worst solicitors seem to have got fed up with Simple Simon’s stupidity and greed and presumably that it why you are wasting your ink on his behalf.
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1117 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

Does anyone have any thoughts or comments regarding this weeks tribunal decision whereby judges ruled that Uber drivers were employees, not self-employed?

 

There were some very hard hitting comments from the judges regarding the company.

 

An estimated £314 million has been lost in tax and national insurance contributions every year, whilst this operation has been on going.

 

I am personally delighted and it is companies like Uber who are responsible for so many of their workers being driven into debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

Why are you delighted please?

 

My best,

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Honeybee.

 

Thank you for the welcome.

 

I am delighted because Uber were creating what is known as false self employment. Their drivers were effectively employees but were acting as self employed. It meant that Uber evaded paying millions of pounds in NI contributions that could have gone into an already impoverished National Health Service. Uber also evaded their employers obligations to their drivers. These drivers have none of the rights that most people take for granted and can be dropped at a minutes notice. When that happens, debt is not far behind.

 

HMRC are able to issue hefty fines on companies who abuse the worker status but their resources are limited. The more cases like this that are successful, the less likely these greedy employers are likely to try these short cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cld it set a precedent re other areas, eg courier co's continuously using the same self employed drivers?


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It could have interesting ramifications.

 

I would be interested to know the root of the legislation that the lawyers used.

 

Would it be EU led legislation?

 

Oh wait, we screwed that didnt wr


Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cld it set a precedent re other areas, eg courier co's continuously using the same self employed drivers?

 

It won't set a precedent as an employment tribunal decision. Only when a case goes to an employment tribunal appeal would it be a precedent (much in the same way that case law is). There are several precedents out there already. Most employers are now aware of the risks and use the legal (but wholly immoral) loophole of an umbrella company. However, the pressure is even on these companies to operate correctly otherwise they will leave themselves open to similar claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It could have interesting ramifications.

 

I would be interested to know the root of the legislation that the lawyers used.

 

Would it be EU led legislation?

 

Oh wait, we screwed that didnt wr

 

I would start with the Employment Rights Act 1996 and the Working Time Regulations 1998

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It won't set a precedent as an employment tribunal decision. Only when a case goes to an employment tribunal appeal would it be a precedent (much in the same way that case law is). There are several precedents out there already. Most employers are now aware of the risks and use the legal (but wholly immoral) loophole of an umbrella company. However, the pressure is even on these companies to operate correctly otherwise they will leave themselves open to similar claims.

yes, wrong choice of word. meant generally, as perhaps as you say re 'similar claims' re yr last sentence.


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not followed this case, but read the papers.

Do uber drivers use their own car?

If not, uber is definitely taking the mickey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they are not employees but "workers" which is different. Yes they use their own cars but so do care workers transporting little old ladies to the shops as part of their duties.

Uber claim self-employed but how the work is handed out and who controls the money and other things mean that the tribunal found it easy to make that decision. Yes, most companies like couriers and telecoms who send out people in vans and issue work and then claim the person driving THEIR van is somehow self-employed will be worried and rightly so. This is not about zero hours contracts, although all of these classes of worker are on that contract, it is about what real freedoms the people have to decide what jobs they accept. because people pay Uber when they book a cab and Uber decide who gets the work and then has performance mileposts to reach it cannot be said that drivers are self-employed or they would be running a one person band and not part of this outfit.

Uber hate it because they make a lot of money and do almost nothing for their cut and now they will ahve to pay employers NI, pension contributions and other benefits that any other zero hours contract worker has a right to.

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...