Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are 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. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. 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. 9. 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.
  • 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

Contributory ESA and Pension lump sum


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2229 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

Hi all,

As this is probably quite an uncommon question, I don't know if anyone can help.

 

I currently receive ESA contribution based, in the support group. I also have two small pensions which total less than £85 per week so I have no deductions for them.

 

From next month (I will be 55!!!) I will be entitled to a further very small pension which would still keep me below £85 per week total, but I am considering just taking the whole lot as a lump sum (about £15K) to pay off the remaining mortgage. What I'm worried about is how DWP will view this - would it be considered capital and therefore irrelevant as I do not receive income based benefits, or am I likely to have to repeatedly prove I wouldn't have gone over the pension limit if I'd taken the annuity?

 

I am aware that taking the cash now is not likely to be the most tax-efficient or cost effective option.

 

Edit - I've found this fact sheet which I think says the money will be treated as capital, but I do read things wrong so would appreciate other opinions.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/417473/pension-flexibilities-dwp-benefits.pdf

RMW

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

the lump sum is not income so that wont change anything. How they view the use of the capital ias another matter as the law doesnt make it easy to guess what they are thinking. If they decide you have deliberately deprived yourself of the capital they will treat it as still being in your grubby little hands and then make adjustments to your income based upon a 5% interest income on money you don have as well as reducing your benefits as the amount will be over the threshold.. You will have to prove that using the money in this way is allowable and unavoidable ( replacing knackered car with something else that isnt flash is OK, buying a new Bentley isnt).

As for taking the cash being tax efficient, it is as you dont pay tax on the money (at least 25% will be tax free under old and new pension rules and the rest wont get you over the tax threshold) You wont goover the threshold for the lifetime pension pot as this is about a million quid and depending on the scheme annuities dont come into it, that are for personal pension pots that you have set up and not part of a scheme. If it is a stand alone just leave the money where it is as long as the management charges are 1% or less, it will earn a bit of money for you and you can take it any time before you are 75. If the scheme allows take half of it near the end of this tax year and the rest in the next one to make best use of your personal allowance. you will also get past the DWP capital allowance limit. If the scheme doesnt allow this then move the money into one that does. You can do this without attracting the attention of anyone as long as you dont withdraw the money as cash and then reinvest, it must be a transfer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the lump sum is not income so that wont change anything. How they view the use of the capital ias another matter as the law doesnt make it easy to guess what they are thinking. If they decide you have deliberately deprived yourself of the capital they will treat it as still being in your grubby little hands and then make adjustments to your income based upon a 5% interest income on money you don have as well as reducing your benefits as the amount will be over the threshold.. You will have to prove that using the money in this way is allowable and unavoidable ( replacing knackered car with something else that isnt flash is OK, buying a new Bentley isnt).

Sorry, I don't understand this - where would any suggestion of 'deprivation of capital' come in if I don't receive income based benefits?

As for taking the cash being tax efficient, it is as you dont pay tax on the money (at least 25% will be tax free under old and new pension rules and the rest wont get you over the tax threshold) You wont goover the threshold for the lifetime pension pot as this is about a million quid and depending on the scheme annuities dont come into it, that are for personal pension pots that you have set up and not part of a scheme. If it is a stand alone just leave the money where it is as long as the management charges are 1% or less, it will earn a bit of money for you and you can take it any time before you are 75. If the scheme allows take half of it near the end of this tax year and the rest in the next one to make best use of your personal allowance. you will also get past the DWP capital allowance limit. If the scheme doesnt allow this then move the money into one that does. You can do this without attracting the attention of anyone as long as you dont withdraw the money as cash and then reinvest, it must be a transfer.

 

I already pay tax unfortunately, so it won't make any difference how many lumps I take the money in. Also, it turns out I would have to live a very long time to have been better off not taking the cash to pay off the mortgage now and taking the annuity now or at any time in the next 10 years based on what they were planning to pay me.

RMW

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt say take an annuity, that is the last thing you should do. I said take the money as 2 lump sums in different tax years so you make best use of any residual tax allowances. If your income is above £11.4k then you dont need to do this as there will be no benefit. Capital earns a notional income of 5% so if you do cash it in use it quickly for the indicated purpose or they will assume that you are getting a return of £15pw from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...