Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I think your starting position is that you should make a claim through UPS using the usual claim process. Of course they will knock you back and they may well refer you to Packlink – but the important thing is that they knock you back. It's that point that you send them a letter of claim. Your letter of claim is fine. Don't forget to head it up "letter of claim" and then when you eventually sue them – as you surely will have to – make sure that we see your draft particulars of claim before you issue. Begin your claim process against UPS – and let us know what happens and will see if your letter of claim needs to be refined at all. Make sure that you read around on the sub- forum about all the stories – mainly Hermes – but the principles are broadly the same. Make sure also that you read around on this forum about starting a small claim in the County Court.
    • you appear to have everything correct and have done what you needed to do at each stage.   now, looking thru you state:     i would be questioning them what this was actually for, they should not be just taking money without PROOF , and as you state you had never had any benefits before period this puzzles me and we've seen very historic tax credit grabbacks that date back 10's of yrs. so try and nail that one down, don't get fobbed off they are simply right all the time.   as for the rest of it, to me it sounds like they want to ensure you did get all you were entitled too as you situation changed many times. nothing to be afraid of.   dx    
    • 3 copies court sols your file   no to mediation 1 wit you   the rest is obv.   on the copy to CEL or their sols if they state one do not give them email/sig/phone.
    • usual game by erudio in that the last confirmed deferment was about 2011 but erudio didn't issue a DN until some 5yrs later  so i was thinking of:    alternative whereby claimant intimates SB date=defaulted date and that has been registered months after the last payment . 1 The Claimant's claim was issued on dd/mm/yyyy.  2.The date last payment made was the dd/mm/yyyy   3.The Default Notice was issued dd/mm/yyyy and served several months after the initial breach thus the cause of action delayed by X months and the Limitations period prolonged to 6 years and X months which in effect allows the creditor to stop time running and the creditor having effective control of when a limitation period begins or even starts to run.  4.Therefore the Defendant contends that the Claimant's claim so issued is a claim in contract and is statute barred pursuant to the provisions of section 5 of the limitation act 1980. If, which is denied, the claimant contends that the Defendant is in breach of the alleged contract, in excess of 6 years have elapsed since the date on which any true cause of action for breach accrued for the benefit of the Claimant.  5.The Claimant's claim to be entitled to payment of £x or any other sum, or relief of any kind is denied.   as we know drydens will claim thus its not SB'd.   sadly this case is somewhat complex in that there was some confusion by the OP upon this being paid off already, so had before they came here filed a defence stating such.    once the story was fully relayed, but which remains somewhat confusing still,  and things sorted out, it transpired this was for an honours student loan settled through Link/Thesis etc and nothing to do with the ones sold to Erudio.   it also transpired that a deferment direct to the SLC before 2013 sale, did not actually happen and SLC kept the details awaiting the OP to resubmit it, which never happened. this resulted in SLC taking payments because the Op's account was in arrears, this also latterly enabled Erudio, without permission nor any contact, to use the existing SLC DD to take payments in 2014 i think. which should not have happened.   i think thats it in a nutshell.    
    • Hi, I just wanted some advice from anybody who may have had a similar problem or might know what's going on please?   Last March, just as this pandemic took hold my  husband lost his job. No furlough, no redundancy pay or anything. Just finished. We knew nothing about claiming benefits but we managed to put in a claim for JSA and then UC (they just deducted the JSA from anything we were entitled to from UC)   later in the year, I made a claim for carer's allowance as I am my mums full time carer. She receives attendance allowance. I waited several weeks to hear anything back but the claim was successful and I reported this to UC.   My husband got a job again in August. This too was reported to them and his earnings meant that we received very little or nothing during that time. He then lost this job in December yet again due to covid and again we reported this and he again claimed for JSA.   He got another job in January and again told UC and JSA. We received pretty much nothing and the last payment we did receive, they deducted everything that was left for a tax credit over payment that we apparently owe from previous years.   We have now received a letter in our journal saying that we have had an over payment due to back pay of carer's allowance that I received last year after all the weeks of waiting. Fair enough, I don't really understand still how all of this works as we have always worked but they told us before that all earnings etc and things from DWP get reported to them anyway so they knew what carer's allowance I had received.   I then replied to ask if we can set up repayments for this and we then had another letter in the journal saying.. DO NOT IGNORE THIS MESSAGE We are carrying out a review of your information, and so I need to speak to you BOTH about your universal credit claim. We'll be checking a few details with you on this call to make sure you're entitled to universal credit. You might also be asked to provide additional evidence but we will discuss that on the call. If we can't get in contact or speak with you, your claim will be suspended and ultimately closed. There will likely be an over payment and this will be recovered from you.   This seems a bit serious is there anything I should be worried about? Or is it purely just a review to maybe close down the account now that my husband is back in work and earning more money? It doesn't mention the over payment so I am not sure if it is about that or not but my husband suffers very much with stress and anxiety and now he is panicking over this because he thinks that they are going to make out we have been up to something when we most definitely have not.   Admittedly, we have struggled with it because we have never claimed before and not been able to attend any face to face appointments etc but as far as I am concerned, we did everything asked of us.   The only other thing is that I now have £2000 in the bank sitting there as we are in desperate need of another car as this one we have is on it's last legs but I was told you only need to declare £6000 and over.   Any advice or anyone had the same please? Pretty confused. Thanks.
  • 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

DWP investigating breach of savings limits.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1390 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

 

Back in february I had a call from DWP saying they'd received information that my savings had gone over the limit for income support and requested bank statements for the previous 6 months.

 

Some of those accounts had been closed and it was a bit awkward to get statements,

the bank however provided a closing balance that detailed the sums in the account between the dates they were asking for (backward from Nov 16 - present)

It also stated that thee was a zero balance and the account closed in January.

 

I'd heard nothing at all for three months and then this evening got a call from them saying I hadn't sent all the statements in which i have.

 

On the letter they originally sent,

there was also a line asking for statement for any other accounts dating back to Nov 2014.

I didn't send any in because there were no other accounts,

 

however, they are now saying they made an error in their original letter and that i should of provided statements for all accounts going back to 2014.

 

I've complied fully without hesitation up til now but the fact that they've only just (allegedly) started looking at my case and to not even notify me of the delay then claim it's MY error is crap. and I feel that I no longer wish to be so helpful.

 

I've had three months of worry and it's not fair.

Now I've got who knows how long before they make a decision.

 

What (if any) are my rights here?

I'm guessing that they'll use the non-compliance line and just stop my (and potentially my daughters too) benefits?

BTW, it did turn out that my savings DID go over the limit for about a week by a couple of hundred quid.

 

As soon as i got off the phone to the DWP,

i immediately checked my account and on going back about a month did find the problem.

 

I also called the investigator back and declared this- and this was caused by a large backpayment of benefits owed to my daughter for ESA and my benefits going in on the same day and a large deposit from the council related to 6 months of expenses they owed me).

 

I'm my daughter's full time carer and i manage her benefits in my account as she still lives at home - she has a severe mental disability.

 

All of this information is clearly shown on the statements i sent in.

I had assumed also that as we both get benefits in our own right that we are both entitled to the savings limits (6k each) Can anybody clarify this point.

 

I've always been super careful not to go over the limits as i know this automatically triggers a notice to DWP.

 

This often means that I end up having to buy stuff that is not really required just to stay under the limits

- an absolutely ludicrous state of affairs.

 

My daughter is now 20 and will soon be moving out into supported living and I have always tried to save a little money from her benefits to set her up in her own home when the time comes.

 

If anybody has some info or hints i'd be much obliged

 

Stool

Link to post
Share on other sites

so whichever why they wish to view it, it only went over because of benefit back payments on an entitlement of your daughter.

that is paid to the same account.

cant see that being a problem.

 

 

I know someone that does the same as you

they got pip/dla backdated from 2012 recently after a tribunal hearing.

they've had no issues.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...