Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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

Government to overhaul 'cruel' disability benefits system


aw248
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2773 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

The Government is planning a major overhaul of disability benefits assessment - a system that has been described by critics as "cruel".

 

http://news.sky.com/story/government-to-overhaul-cruel-disability-benefits-system-10638235

 

I wonder why I got that dreadful sinking feeling just from the word 'overhaul'? Might it be because every overhaul so far as just made it harder for claimants?

 

And didn't the original version of ESA have a second assessment designed to identify specific issues which might prevent that claimant from getting employment, and wasn't it dropped almost immediately as being too difficult and time consuming?

 

And round and round we go ....

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On Monday, Work and Pensions Secretary Damian Green will launch a consultation on how to reform the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), which was overseen by Iain Duncan Smith under the last government.

It is used to determine how much financial support people with disabilities should receive while they look for work.

Typical we got it wrong again MSM , Those who are too sick to work won't be looking for work the WCA is used to deny ESA to the majority of claimants, we know this is a fact from their own stats, the WCA is and always been a Farce to enable them to reduce the numbers

 

The Government says it wants to provide more "targeted and personalised support" to help people return to work as soon as possible.The consultation will look at how people claiming Employment and Support Allowance can get enough continued help from Jobcentre Plus to re-enter the workplace.
Still using the same tory mantra , this is a negative response, those who have ever had dealings with the Job centre will know only too well that they don't actually help people find work at all they are too busy trying to find ways to sanction people to meet their targets

 

Labour's Debbie Abrahams has welcomed the consultation but says: "Theresa May needs to take responsibility for her part in these disastrous social security reforms. To suggest that these have been a success is derisory."

The shadow minister says the whole Tory approach is "cruel" and commits her party to scrapping the WCA and replacing it "with a holistic, person-centred approach, based on principles of dignity and inclusion".

Let's not forget which nasty party brought about the WCA and ESA labour under tony B-liar iirc why should we the public believe anything they say now, oh i know general election time is looming ,

 

"The current fit-for-work test doesn't accurately identify the barriers disabled people face in entering or staying in work," he said. "(People) need tailored employment support."
The fit for work test doesn't accurately identify any medical condition , because of who is carrying them out, and their rudimentary at best methods of assessing people what makes anyone think that this will change? What is the most aggravating onto of the very common discrepancies in their esa85 reports, is that these are given too much weight at tribunal hearings
Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this conversation on Rightsnet today...

 

Some confusing messages in the media today:

 

“In future, disabled people who do not work will be allowed to keep their benefits in full when they start to get help from jobcentres”

 

“the Support Group, is for people with more severe disabilities. They are given more money in benefits but do not automatically get job help.

 

Ministers believe the 1.5 million people in the latter group are not getting the adequate support and fear many who want and are able to find a job are being let down by the state.

 

Mr Green said: “We know the right type of work is good for our physical and mental health.”

 

“Those in the “support group”, who have limited capability to undertake activities to prepare for work, are not routinely offered help from their jobcentre but keep their benefits. If they get help to find work, they lose out.

...

A source at the Department for Work and Pensions said a new consultation would “look at how people on ESA can have access to the quality support they need to find employment — but without putting their financial benefits at risk in the interim”.”

 

““All disabled people should be able to access expert, tailored employment support”

 

“Mr Green said: “A disability or health condition should not dictate the path a person is able to take in life.

“No one wants a system where people are written off and forced to spend long periods of time on benefits when, actually, with the right support they could be getting back into work.”

 

I think I might feel nervous if I was in the Support Group.

 

So I'm guessing more pressure to be placed on those in the support group to find work or do work related activities?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they so obsessed with getting diasbled people back to work, when people who can work can't find jobs?

Because the government ministers are deluded and just don't have any clue about life outside the Westminster bubble ie reality, But perhaps this is linked to their quest for cheap imported labour, and rapidly expanding population due to the numbers coming here? something has to give or the money will run out sooner than perhaps they would like, because once that happens and it will if changes aren't made swiftly there will be chaos on our streets

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know where these employers are that are willing to employ those of us with unreasonable requests for work. There's reasonable requests (such as everything in large print, text to speech software) and taking the ****. I currently fall into the latter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People we've been through this all before........

 

This is the softening up narrative to change public perception 6-12 months before something really nasty happens.

 

Now add this too things that have happened over the past 3-6 months;

 

a, removal of mental health safe guarding from the DWP ESA Guidance

b, issuing of guidance to both DWP and MAXIMUS that except in exceptional circumstances there is zero WRA (Work Related Activity) that could cause mental harm. No no more Support Group for you naughty mental health claimants.

c, advertising for 80+ FTT Presenting Officer positions - appeals just got harder and S.O.R. requests will routinely be asked for by the DWP - training material for POs

d, shifting of suicide risk on to MAXIMUS assessors by the DWP

 

Add the above too

e, the removal of the WRAG payment under UC and ESA sometime in 2017.

 

Can anybody see the end game here?

 

Bye Bye WRAG.... the blurring has already started again to call it the can do some work group (dropping the in future bit)

 

I see they're dipping their toe into the physical disability pool to...... bad back scrounger headlines in 3.2.1.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hunt was backed by Duncan Selbie, the chief executive of Public Health England, who said health, wellbeing and happiness were “inextricably linked to work”. Selbie said: “People in work generally have better health"

I couldn't stop laughing when I read this. I know hundreds of people who don't claim any benefit and I would be hard pushed to find one where their "wellbeing and happiness is linked to their job"! Most, unless they fortunate enough to be in a job they love are your typical stressed miserable people trying to make ends meet and three of my close friends have recently been placed on counselling for depression due to work stresses. Another couple I know have decided not to have kids because they wouldn't want to put a child through all the stresses of living that they are going through. I can understand that I don't have kids myself... Selbie's wellbeing and happiness is probably caused by a massive pay-packet for doing nothing bar make stupid statements such as this!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit I've never understood the point of WRAG. Unless you have a short term medical problem or were a JSA claimant and recovering from surgery, for example.

The point was a money saving exercise if IBS had gotten his way , there would of been more opportunities to sanction , I would bet attendance of the work programme was a favourite method to get sanction rates up , think if that had been expanded upon

IB had it's floors but they where nowhere near as bad as ESA , with its Tory mantra divide and rule so the divided ESA

 

To quote from the msm (With all the evidence showing that work is a major driver of health, this is a big opportunity: to make sure that people get the support they need, improve their health, and benefit the NHS all at the same time.) So if that was true why aren't the Westminster elite all dead then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to know where these employers are that are willing to employ those of us with unreasonable requests for work. There's reasonable requests (such as everything in large print, text to speech software) and taking the ****. I currently fall into the latter.

 

 

Totally agree. This has been my argument all along. There is a massive difference between being able to tie up your shoelaces or pick up an empty cardboard box and hold down a full time job. And that's if you get employed by someone in the first place. The Government has this deluded idea that it's just one person who applies but it could be 50, 100 all going for the same post. Who are the employers going to choose? A young whippersnapper who is just out of school or in my case a middle aged bloke with vertigo who can't guarantee he will be able to come in every day or stay there all day. Its a deafening silence coming from employers when it comes to Government benefit decisions,. Nowhere within Government ideas and policies have I seen an employer saying "yeah no problem, we will employ x amount of people who can just do the hours that they are capable and if they have to have time off, no worries we have a cover plan in place. etc etc etc"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree. This has been my argument all along. There is a massive difference between being able to tie up your shoelaces or pick up an empty cardboard box and hold down a full time job. And that's if you get employed by someone in the first place. The Government has this deluded idea that it's just one person who applies but it could be 50, 100 all going for the same post. Who are the employers going to choose? A young whippersnapper who is just out of school or in my case a middle aged bloke with vertigo who can't guarantee he will be able to come in every day or stay there all day. Its a deafening silence coming from employers when it comes to Government benefit decisions,. Nowhere within Government ideas and policies have I seen an employer saying "yeah no problem, we will employ x amount of people who can just do the hours that they are capable and if they have to have time off, no worries we have a cover plan in place. etc etc etc"
that's because, in reality, those things aren't practical or reasonable to expect from the employer,
Link to post
Share on other sites

The current system, even if the WCA was applied 100% fairly, does not distinguish between someone who may be able to work full time and someone who may, on a good day, manage an hour or two of some very sedentary job - both are currently equally 'fit for work'. Whilst technically that may be true, for all practical purposes it's ludicrous.

 

Someone who can only stay at their workstation for less than an hour would, if they had no other issues, currently be found fit for work. Can anyone think of any job that person could actually do since by definition they will have to spend part of each hour lying down? Another example is someone with CFS. They might be able to do a couple of hours work on a very good day, but it would almost certainly have to be done sitting down at home as otherwise the journey to work would exhaust them. What are they going to do that's going to give them more income than benefits? Stuffing envelopes certainly wouldn't pay enough, nor is it likely to provide any benefit in terms of self-esteem or self-worth.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with both Reallymadwoman and Tommy. As Tommy says "practical or reasonable". If I may add the words "common sense". That's what the whole system lacks and the Government knows it because they can't all be that stupid to work it out. But it's not about people being fit for work, it's about getting people off benefits, simple as that. If they really wanted to support people in getting back into some form of work they would have 1000's of companies on the payroll willing to make allowances but there aren't 1000's, I would be surprised if you could find one.

 

 

Reallmadwomans example above is perfect. In truth what she describes is "seeing a task through to the end in reasonable time" - which is of course one of the descriptors, which of course a large majority of us didn't get any points for!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with both Reallymadwoman and Tommy. As Tommy says "practical or reasonable". If I may add the words "common sense". That's what the whole system lacks and the Government knows it because they can't all be that stupid to work it out. But it's not about people being fit for work, it's about getting people off benefits, simple as that. If they really wanted to support people in getting back into some form of work they would have 1000's of companies on the payroll willing to make allowances but there aren't 1000's, I would be surprised if you could find one.

 

 

Reallmadwomans example above is perfect. In truth what she describes is "seeing a task through to the end in reasonable time" - which is of course one of the descriptors, which of course a large majority of us didn't get any points for!!

I don't think it's the system that lacks common sense and logic , but the government regardless of which party lib/lab/con ,all have proven as much , maybe they have to go through some secret process of common sense removal as part of being in the Westminster elite?

 

But if things don't change for the better and soon , the people of this country will rebel there is only so much they can take

Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes for some serious scary reading sadly. :(
Looks like they want to be the nasty party yet again, all the talk about their failed UC system and re jigging of notices that they send to GP's after they have found their patient ffw using the unfit for purpose WCA

no doubt to discourage GP's in support their patients further , i hope that gp's have the sense to ignore the DWP or write letters of complaint

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...