Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You can't, but you can (and really should) bring up the point that the lender isn't meeting their legal obligations in selling the property for fair market value. You'll have to do this in court, though.     A receiver is bought in by the lender, not you. If they're a registered insolvency practitioner, you may be able to raise a complaint to the insolvency service but there are no guarantees here. Many receivers are also registered with the RICS and self-regulate so if you know the name of the receiver you can check there, again no guarantees.   https://www.rics.org/surveyor-careers/career-development/accreditations/registered-property-receivership-scheme
    • China green-lights mass production of autonomous flying taxis — with commercial flights set for 2025 | Live Science WWW.LIVESCIENCE.COM The EHang EH216-S autonomous flying taxi is the first eVTOL ready for mass production and could lead the way for flying cars around...  
    • Lolerz - I don't understand you.  Rebuked you?   No. I simply replied to your orange comments with legal facts as I know them.  I've already worked through the s42 and s146 issues - over the last 3-4y - and these issues are (mostly) resolved legally.  In terms of posting evidence.  Sure I can post some.  But my most recent questions have been a) how can I enforce a sale before trial?  And b) how can I make a complaint and/or a claim v receiver? (E.g. to which body do I complain?).  At the mo I'm asking for some helpful pointers on those specific questions??  I'm not asking for help with how to prove or present evidence. Fwiw - all evidence for trial has been disclosed (although additions are poss). The lender sent me like 10,000 emails and docs.  There's also 000s of emails, docs, photos, videos, recordings and texts that relate to freeholders/ me.   I read, filed and categorised everything for ease of future reference.  Witness statements and evidence were prepared for trial in the 42 and 146 matters. (now joined with current claim to save duplication).  I've lived the process before.  My current statement and linked evidence has taken like 6 months to draft/ write - to ensure I can succinctly prove my defence and counterclaim points.   Whether I can convince a judge at trial w/o lawyer / barrister is debatable 🙄   But I've prepared.  And continue to try better prepare - which is why I visit this site (and clinics).  This is NOT my business or expertise at all.  I'm just trying.  Not that anyone should ever have to justify why they need help if they ask politely! 
    • Thanks for the other info will also take a look at that.
    • It doesn't use the word reconstructed in the cover letter.  Although, I have just noticed on the cover letter they have asked me to complete a financial statement and offer a repayment within the next 10 days, or they will continue to follow court directions.  They sent a separate letter on the same day advising me they will be continuing with their claim ?  They have done the same for both claims.  Is it worth just doing that - doing the financial breakdown and offering a x amount.    
  • 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

Letter from DWP, Compliance department


Ghost00
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2189 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

£10 is the fee for a SAR???? I'd simply go into a branch and get them to print them off for you, I wouldn't be parting with a tenner!

  • Haha 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

SAR? No idea, know nothing about this sort of stuff. What I find incredible is that some random person on the internet, just because I disagree with him, can decide to ruin my life by making up stuff about me. I would have thought the person would have to know me in real life, live in the same area etc! It's just utterly farcical.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can decide to ruin your life?!

 

Perhaps they got the impression that for a little effort on their part they’d get a disproportionate effect by you.

 

Engage with DWP, show them through the statements that it is a false accusation, move on with your (unruined!) life.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be clear here, a total stranger who can be from anywhere in the world, can "report benefit fraud" when they do not know if that person is on benefits, have no reason to think they are, and even if they are on benefits have no reason to think any fraud has been committed by that person. Indeed, their sole motivation is because of some argument about politics or whatever on facebook.

 

And the Government allows this. It is utterly immoral and disgraceful beyond all measure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People reporting fraud need to be held accountable. It is preposterous to suggest that it's desirable that anyone who throws a hissy fit can ruin someone else's life at whim. If the Government find it so impossibly difficult to differentiate between such spurious claims and valid reports, then of course reporting fraud from members of the public shouldn't be an option. And what's the point anyway since the amount of fraud involved in benefits is miniscule compared to the amount of fraud committed by big corporations and the very wealthy?

 

50% of the UK population have 92% of all wealth. The top 1% have the same wealth as the bottom 60%. The top 10% have nearly half of all wealth with the other 90% squabbling over the other half. The average person in the top 20% have one hundredfold the wealth as the average person in the bottom 20%.

 

The whole fabric of modern capitalist societies is morally devoid. The bottom half of the population, having just 8% of all wealth, are being encouraged to hate and despise other people in the bottom 50%. They want more money, not from the top 50% of people, not the top 10% of people, not the top 1%, but mainly from people who are poorer than they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Leaving aside all the “life is unequal and unfair” theme:

 

The tax-payers and lawful benefit claimants are the losers from benefit fraud.

What are you actually suggesting- it seems to me that you don’t want members of the public to be allowed to report fraud ; what about the benefit claimant who really can’t work but sees someone both falsely claiming benefits & working?

Or the person working 40+ hours per week on minimum wage who sees someone both working and falsely claiming??

 

You’ve also evaded the point that responding to an enquiry to show that their claim is a valid one doesn’t automatically become “ruining” their life!

Show its spurious, get on with your unruined life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

; what about the benefit claimant who really can’t work but sees someone both falsely claiming benefits & working?

Or the person working 40+ hours per week on minimum wage who sees someone both working and falsely claiming??

.

 

The tax-payers are losers from benefit fraud. But vastly bigger losers from rich peoples' fraud.

 

As I said, it's the bottom 50%, owning 8% of all wealth, fighting over the crumbs left. It's someone saying, I want more of the cake! But not from the people who have 90 odd% of it, I want more cake from those who have even less than me!

 

It's a question of priorities. We ought to be vastly more concerned about the tax evasion and fraud from the richest people. *That* should be the Government's priority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which doesn’t actually answer what you think should be done about reports of benefits fraud from the public, or why you think your life has been “ruined”.

Ahh well, better for you to pontificate about unlikely changes in policy than answer about reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, nothing should be done about reports of benefits fraud from the public. I don't see the purpose when we have much bigger fish to fry. Or rather, I do see the purpose, the purpose is to deflect attention from the nefarious activities of the rich.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I said, nothing should be done about reports of benefits fraud from the public. I don't see the purpose when we have much bigger fish to fry. Or rather, I do see the purpose, the purpose is to deflect attention from the nefarious activities of the rich.

 

The old lets tackle tax evasion rather then benefit fraud argument!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Tom, that would be preferable. Although it needn't be one or the other. My main complaint was the fact that a total stranger on the net who knows nothing about my personal circumstances -- what job, if any, I have, whether I'm on benefits etc -- is allowed to ruin my life. I mean shouldn't it be a neighbour, someone who I know personally etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Bazza, I'm not interested in your asinine games.

 

Perhaps people aren’t interested in exaggeration of “ruined” lives?.

Is this just a whole straw-man set-up for you to repeat your “life is so unfair, big business” arguments from Facebook, here?

If not : if you can’t cope with the fall-out from an easily rebutted report of benefit fraud, then lock your settings on FB down to “friends only” and stop irritating others there, as part of reconsidering if you have sufficient personal resilience to get into arguments on social media and being able to cope with the resulting fall-out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will have problems if my benefits are not paid next time since I won't be able to pay my rent! And my benefits are due before she'll have received these bank statements. So I have that huge worry, just for starters. Hyperbole can convey one's mind state.

 

I don't see why I have to agree with everything anyone ever says on the net, just so they won't cause trouble! I note the town where I live was publicly available.

 

Anyway, what you say fails to address the utter disgrace of random individuals, throughout the world, being able to maliciously report benefit fraud and they can simply get away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruined, I tell you! Ruined. “Hyperbole”, on a consumer action website?

Since it isn’t a literary site, I take your use of “hyperbole” to mean : Exaggeration for posh people (or “wanna-be” posh people).

 

Have your benefits actually been sanctioned, or is that hyperbole (Exaggeration) too?

 

You don’t have to agree with everyone. Ignoring something you disagree with isn’t agreement.

You can also choose where, and how, you disagree.

So, disagreeing here (if you’ve followed the site rules about identifying info) is unlikely to cause you woes.

 

You got into an argument on Facebook. You provided enough details to a stranger, on FB, for them to make the report. That makes you as responsible for the false report as them.

They fired the gun, but you handed it and the ammunition to them ....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghost00.

 

This is a consumer action forum. Recipients of social benefits are regarded as consumers of a service thus their concerns are addressed here as well.

 

I don’t believe this is a site to air your gripes about what you, or those you interact with, get up to of your own accord on other social media sites or outlets. If you have an issue with them, get them to sort it out for you, or are you expecting others to now sort out a mess of your own making for you?

 

I would commend colleagues who have taken the time and the trouble to address your issues thus far, undeserved as it turns out. To be turned on as being somehow complicit in your perceived victimisation is beneath contempt.

 

You have been told politely that it was by your own misguided interactions, which appear to have backfired, and an inability to keep your own affairs in order, far less the worlds’, you find yourself in your present predicament. For that, you have only yourself to blame.

 

No amount of advice or guidance will be of any use to you if you choose to ignore it.

 

Like the man said; ‘Get a life and don’t be so stupid in future’.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz, I have no idea what your problem is? What is the purpose of your posts to me? The net is choc a block with people like you who do not answer questions, apparently understand nothing, go off on a tangent, and generally say nothing of any interest whatsoever. Yes, I shouldn't be wasting my life attempting to converse with the likes of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lapsedwokaholic, I have no idea what that word salad means. If you have any objections to any of my posts, then paste in the part you disagree or have issues with, then provide details as to why you disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baz, I have no idea what your problem is? What is the purpose of your posts to me? The net is choc a block with people like you who do not answer questions, apparently understand nothing, go off on a tangent, and generally say nothing of any interest whatsoever. Yes, I shouldn't be wasting my life attempting to converse with the likes of you.

 

Yet, here you are!.

 

You are unhappy about the people you interact with on FB.

Unhappy with the compliance people at DWP

Unhappy with benefit fraud investigations

Unhappy with respondents here if they don’t agree with you 100%

 

Some might surmise the commonality in your unhappiness...... is you.

You remain the author of your own misfortune.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I like most people I interact with on fb. Anyway, no further purpose is served by me further contributing to this thread. I said I'd come back to let people know the result of the interview. My suspicion is that most of these compliance interviews are not routine. My advice to people is to retain their old bank statements. This would most probably have been all over with me if I hadn't thrown them out. I've learnt my lesson. And I've also learnt to not specify my location in fb.

 

Bye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...