Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yup, all I can add is that I was a victim of a Backdoor CCJ from Capquest, my fault for moving and not writing to them with my new address.  It sounds counter intuitive but the Best and most important thing to stay protected is to let your creditors know you are moving. Always in writing too, good old fashioned Royal Mail.
    • Sorry to pile more of the brown stuff onto your head – but I think that this speaks volumes. You are not an "ex customer" of Currys. To suggest that you are is effectively accepting that Currys' responsibilities to you ended the moment that they took your money and you walked away with the cooker. Currys' responsibilities are ongoing for the reasonably expected lifespan of the item which you bought and this means that you continue to be their customer for at least that period of time.   If you can start to adopt this mindset, you will start to find yourself pointing in the right direction. We will help to keep you focused
    • In terms of their refusal to comply with your subject access request, you may as well sue them in a separate County Court action. If you'd like to do that then we will help you. It would be very easy to do. You are entitled to claim damages for distress and I'm sure that you are hugely distressed by their failure/refusal to supply you with your personal data and I would suggest that you might want to sue them for £100. These people seem to be pretty disorganised and lack any understanding of how to run a business. I suppose that they would try to defend a data protection action on some spurious grounds – but it would increase the pressure on them and the risk to you would be very low – only about £50 or so in the unlikely event that you would lose the case. In the event that you would win then you would get your court fees back as well as the damage you are claiming unless a court decided that there were grounds for reducing the value of your claim. Pretty unlikely in my view.  
    • I think I have to add some clarification to the advice which has been given by my site team colleague above. Firstly, the Consumer Rights Act does not replace the existing law of contract. It simply supplements it and adds some additional solutions such as the short-term right to reject – and the right to reject within six months after giving a single opportunity to repair. These remedies are meant to be solutions but in fact we are finding – especially with car dealers – that the law is simply being ignored and frankly from that point of view the Consumer Rights Act is not a great success. There really ought to be in place a punitive measure for retailers who don't respect the 30 day rule and the six-month rule. But there aren't. So what is left is that even after six months, the item which has been sold to you must be of satisfactory quality and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. What is a reasonable period of time depends on the reasonable expectations of a reasonable consumer. If the item starts to develop problems early on in its life then I think it can be generally taken beyond doubt that the item has failed the test of "satisfactory quality" because it has not remained that way for a reasonable period of time. Where an item starts to fail towards the end of its reasonable life expectancy, then you have a more difficult problem and that is where as my site team colleague has suggested, that you would ideally have to find some expert evidence to show that the item had failed because there was an existing defect. You could do this by getting an independent inspection or else by finding other examples over the Internet to show that this was a known problem. My site team colleague is right that you would have to demonstrate a defect even if the item fails at an early stage in its life – but I think that if you are taking a cooker with a reasonable life expectancy of probably, say, eight years – then I think the fact that it has developed a serious defect in the first 12 months would be taken by any County Court judge as clear evidence that it had failed to live up to the requirements of the Consumer Rights Act – that it was not satisfactory quality. If the judge accepted that failure as evidence, then it would be up to the retailer to counter the presumption with evidence that there was nothing wrong with it. So what I'm saying is that in the first instance, I think that the defect speaks for itself and the question now is how to proceed. I'm sure that we can help you and I'm sure that we can help you get a result. I have to say now that you've been here since 2015 and I'm extremely disappointed to find that you seem to be unaware of the fact that you enjoy ample statutory rights to deal with this and that you seem to be lamenting the fact that you didn't take out an extended warranty and that furthermore you seem to be prepared to rely on a so-called 12 month guarantee provided by the manufacturer. You are asking how these companies can get away ripping off "innocent people" and I suppose that you are referring to "innocence" in the sense that people don't deserve it. Frankly I tend to see "innocence" in the sense of a certain naïveté – especially when people know about this forum. I don't particularly understand why you have put up with this for a pretty well five months instead of coming here. If you want to take that as a slapped wrist – then please do. Also it's a message to other people who visit this thread. Can you please tell us about the price you paid and any exchange you had with Currys. I understand that they have simply knocked you back to the manufacturer? Are you surprised? You're dealing with Currys. Another example of innocence. Blesséd are the meek. I don't fully understand the fault. Maybe you could put up a picture of the fault – in PDF format please. It will help us get a better idea what we are doing. Also, have you had anybody coming to have a look and see if it is actually repairable?  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Contributory ESA and Pension lump sum


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1146 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

Link not working RMW

 

Andy

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 OTHERS

 

 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

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 OTHERS

 

 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...