Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Channell J in Prudential v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1904] 2 KB 658 gives a broad definition of insurance.  Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1413 confirms that extended warranties are insurance must be regulated. Over 90% certain that the parcel delivery companies parcel protection schemes are "insurance" and that they are unregulated and therefore the parcel delivery companies are committing an offence by selling it. Regulated means that the insurance is authorised but possibly exempted from certain conditions by the FCA. Notice that on all the parcel delivery companies websites, they are at great pains to avoid using the word "insurance". But in all probability that is what it is. A defence to the offence of selling unregulated insurance is that you exercised due diligence and this would mean that the parcel delivery companies would have to show that they had sought and received counsel's opinion that what they were doing is completely lawful. The fact that they are selling unregulated insurance to a certain extent is a sideshow because it still doesn't permit an exemption to section 57 of the consumer rights act. So in other words, even if it was regulated insurance – they would still be contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and also section 72 as it is an attempt to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable care and skill
    • Thank you for the update - at least it's all over now. I'm a bit confused by what you say happened. What did your barrister think? HB
    • Hi everyone! Thanks for all your advice during this stressful journey. Here’s a quick update of what went down today.    The court hearing itself was very quick, lasted about 5 min.  The magistrates got me to pay the amount I owe (the outstanding travel costs), as well as a fine and surcharge. They reduced the court fees from £375 to £200.  The magistrates told me the amount I need to pay but didn’t mention anything about a criminal record. Does this mean they didn’t give me any or is it implied by giving me a fine? Please let me know. Thanks!! TD 
    • Natalie, whom I assume works for Mr Schnur, emailed me to advise that "Please be advised that Parcel2Go.com is not an insurance broker and is not backed by any. We do not offer any kind of insurance policy on any of our services. We give all our customers the opportunity to cover their goods to a preferred value so that if a claim does arise, we are able to compensate them. All our claims are self-certified, and we are not a regulated company." (full copy of her email attached)  I responded:  "Good afternoon Natalie  Have you read my email below? Are you aware of the court cases of PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729)? In both cases it was held by the courts that there was no need for additional ‘protection’ on top of the standard delivery charge, and P2G were required to settle both cases (by then also incurring court costs and interest) in full. This will happen again with this case if I am not recompensed in full (£265 + £9.10 = £274.10) before 1 May 2024.  Tick tock, tick tock……" 22Apr24 - email from P2G responding to my email to Schnur of 19Apr24.pdf
  • 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

DWP claiming I owe them £11k in overpayment of income support from 16 years ago! They've applied for DEA! Help!


nikkikitch
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2338 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

 

When I was at university as a single mum, I claimed income support, which you're entitled to do. This was back in 2001-2004!

 

The DWP have contacted me a couple of times over the years saying I fraudulently claimed and didn't declare I was a student. I absolutely did and in any case I would've still been allowed to get income support.

 

They have now written to me to say they have asked my employer to commence deductions from my earnings. The debt is over £11,000!

 

My understanding is that a debt becomes statute barred after 6 years so are they allowed to take this form of action? Ive appealed their decision twice over the years and they've dismissed it, the last time they didn't even look in to it, my bet is because they don't have the paperwork anymore!?

 

I dont actually owe them anything, it clearly says in law that you can claim income support if a student and a single parent so I don't understand it!

 

Can anyone help?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Benefit overpayments are caught by the Statute of Limitations after 6 years. This includes overpayments of income support, job seekers allowance, pension credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit and social fund loans.

 

Having said that even if benefit overpayments becomes unenforceable they can still be recovered by withholding future benefit entitlements

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks. But what do I do about the DEA? It's actually my company, I'm a director so I can hold off making the payment but what are the legal implications? It says in the letter that the company is required by law to make the payments. Ive requested proof of the overpayment three times over the years and they haven't been able to provide it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure, seek advice.

But I would think you cant wear two hats at the same time.

You as company director must comply with lawful instruction and your not party to the reasons why, just to comply.

 

You as the named party must fight it and stop it.

 

Id Sa if the company gets an order to make deductions you must do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You fight it as the person but if the company gets legal paprwork ordering deductions then I would avise to pay so asca company director you dont get in trouble.

But as the person fight it and then get payments back.

 

Seek legal advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need a court order

 

Go on their site

Fill out the free sar

Make sure they can prove it

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

Dx, with respect your advice has not answered the question posed by the poster.

 

The op is asking for advise on the DWP say 11k is owed. Appealed and dismissed.

Company now recievd instructions to deduct from earnings.

Company is owned by alleged debtor.

 

SAR the DWP, yes agreed but it seems that all efforts to get info has not been forthcoming.

 

So the question now posed is.

The company has recieved instruction to make deductions and the legal implications of not doing so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant how could they make the company pay if they don't have an order in place? I know what you're saying, I don't want the company to get in to trouble, but equally what can they do if I don't pay? They can't take the company to court as it's too old a debt?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Nikki, Could you say what DEA stands for here?

 

You say the company is yours and that you are a director. Is the company registered as a sole trader, partnership, or what?

 

The relationship between yourself and the company appears to be blurred, are you the employer or the employee? From what you've written it looks like you are both depending on whose perspective you look at it.

 

The fact that they are reluctant to provide evidence sounds dubious. Have you tried demanding what they claim to be evidence with your owner/company head on before a penny is parted with?

 

With your employee head on you could make a SAR request for all records they hold on you covering the period in contention. They are obliged by law to provide same within a month or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK thanks. But what do I do about the DEA? It's actually my company, I'm a director so I can hold off making the payment but what are the legal implications? It says in the letter that the company is required by law to make the payments.

 

 

Make payments}

 

 

Ive requested proof of the overpayment three times over the years and they haven't been able to provide it

 

 

 

Was that as the company ( not entitled to the info) or as the person (entitle)!

 

I cant colour my responses to the breakdown of the quoted passage. I've put spaces to try to clarify

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, direct earnings attachment.

 

 

We are a limited company and I'm a director so technically I am an employee of the company yes.

 

Ive asked them three times why they think I owe them the money and each time they've replied with it's because I didn't declare that I was a student so I shouldn't have been entitled to income support which is wrong. I was a single parent and so I was entitled. I have written in and appealed twice and they've dismissed it but with no grounds.

 

I only got the letter today but thats a good idea, shall I write to them from the company saying that I claim that I don't owe the money so they're reluctant to go ahead without proof? It says the company is legally responsible for setting it up though. Im just wondering without a court order and now they're out of time and can't go to court, what else can they do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant how could they make the company pay if they don't have an order in place? I know what you're saying, I don't want the company to get in to trouble, but equally what can they do if I don't pay? They can't take the company to court as it's too old a debt?

 

 

The company could be fined for non compliance

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont wear your company hat.

 

Tell the DWP that you'll fight them in court over it if you feel your entitled to the money.

 

But if your company disregards the DEA then the company, irrespective of if the money is owed or not, could face fines fr non compliance. There may be worse implications than that as well.

 

Your blurring the lines and boundries of your two responsibilitys.

 

 

Like it matters not a jot if an employee tells the company they don't owe the money. The company must pay. If found in favour of the employee at a later date then a refund is given

Link to post
Share on other sites

shall I write to them from the company saying that I claim that I don't owe the money so they're reluctant to go ahead without proof? It says the company is legally responsible for setting it up though?

 

You wont get an answer.

The company is not entitled to know the reasons why. DPA act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK got it from the companies perspective. But what about as the person ha, if they can't provide proof how do I get the action stopped?

 

 

SAR them. Look at the info, compare that info and your circumstances with the relevent law at the time.

Tell them to take you to court and you'll fight them .

Get legal advice

Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean DEA...

Not DCA...

 

Well as the payroll is every month on the say 23rd (isn't it!!:lol:)

There's a good few weeks to run

The DWP don't know when payday is...

Even if there is one...

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...