Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • once a debt is sb'd nothing not even a judge can unbar it no harm in talking to BC at all. they are nothing to do with the claim they sold the debt in .........see NOA letter    
    • Here are the Particulars of Claim   Name of the Claimant ? Hoist Finance UK Holdings Limited   date of claim - 30th January 2020   Date  to acknowledge) = 17/02/2020   date to submit defence = 02/03/2020    Particulars of Claim   1. The claim is for the sum of £7939.36 arising from the defendants breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no xxxx926xxxxxx03   2. The defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3.The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd(Ex Barclaycard) Written notice of the assignment has been given.   4.The Claimant claims 1. The sum of £7939.36 2. Costs   What is the total value of the claim? £8449.00   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes dated 02092019   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? Not sure   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address?Not sure 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 ?  After April 2007 actually August 2007   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Can't recall   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ?No idea   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. Claim issued by Hoist, so assigned.   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Howard Cohen solicitors says yes. I say no   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not to my knowledge   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No   Why did you cease payments? Costly divorce and failed small business   What was the date of your last payment? Over 6 yeras ago I believe   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? Spoke to them many years ago   Will get on with CCA and CPR tomorrow.   Is there a danger that if he attempts to call BC he could take it out of staute barred?  I will have to contact him Spain so need to advise him what not to say.
    • DX ,thanks for spacing post BankFodder,  sorry, point taken,   FS
    • defence due by 4pm Monday 2nd   has he...   .  get a CCA Request running to the claimant https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/  leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed . .  get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] . . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . . type your name ONLY no need to sign anything . you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]   get him to ring BC ask last payment date tomorrow.    
  • Our picks

aw248

Government to overhaul 'cruel' disability benefits system

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1209 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

Oh dear, the very word 'consultation' means they have made it more 'work focussed and harder to claim' than easier for people to get what they need to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why when they overhaul benefits we always end up worse off, either in money terms or emotional/psychological or health terms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo these ideas aren't meant to actually help people into work, but just help reduce the social security budget by making it harder to claim/stay on it.

Share this post


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.......

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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"

Share this post


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,

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!!

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When they talk about mental health are they meaning things like panic attacks and depression or are they also referring to clinical diagnosis such as Bi Polar, BLPD, Schizophrenia and the likes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes for some serious scary reading sadly. :(

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And who are these employers with their arms wide open waiting to employ a mentally ill person, they did not exist before this paper - what difference does this all make, outside once again making the ill jump through hoops.

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...