Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Driver entered car park run by CEL Ltd .Tried to purchase lozenges  at Pharmacy , saw it was busy so left . Time there approximately 5 minutes . Left to go to pick up some goods  a couple of miles away . I have a copy of a collection of goods note with an approximate time on it  Stayed a while to chat with client On return journey stopped  to try again . Bought lozenges and left . There were no restrictions on returning  ANPR cameras registered first entry and last exit  Was sent photos showing vehicle with 2 blown up with the times on them   Company refuses to divulge landlord or show contract ....said it was data protection ! Photo of a sign blown up .....could be anywhere ! Been to site itself . No signs at entrance . When entering from main road nothing ! Where there is parking a few signs visible depending on parking space . Large sign on an external wall which can only be seen when walking out or entering from side road on the left . After a number of letters  I received demands from ZZPS ....a “debt collector “. They gave up on that ! This incident took pace in February . Now a Letter Before Court requesting details of my salary and how I intend to pay the debt  The length of stay is 40 minutes . Tiny car park !   Do know why there are even limits . Length of stay maybe 15 minutes in total . It is madness The pack of lozenges cost £185 ! Am 72 years old with multiple health problems ! Cannot let these cowboys win . Feel as though I am being intimidated . Very stressful ! Any  advice please ?I have drafted  together bits from all over the place ! Need it to stop ASAP !
    • Hi    This is my draft WS, please do let me know of nay changes or additions required, thanks.    IN THE County Court AT                                                                              CLAIM NO:      BETWEEN: CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED   -and- (DEFENDANT)     ___________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF        INTRODUCTION    1. I, XXXX, the Defendant in this case, make this statement in support of my defence against the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited.  The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary.    THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT    2. The Claimant states in Paragraph 3, ‘….refer to various documents, true copiesof which are contained in the paginated bundle to this statement marked “JK”1’, but then states in para 4, ‘Acopy of the reconstituted agreementwith associated terms and conditions….pages 1-10’. There are 3 versions attached of the alleged Agreement and Terms & Conditions and according to para 4 they are not the original but ‘a reconstitutedversion’. They have attached 3 Agreements namely, ‘Original Agreement’, ‘Default Agreement’ and ‘Terms of your Capital One Credit Card Agreement’.  The Claimant has provided 3 sets of generic/reconstituted Agreement and Terms & conditions.     3. The Claimant in Para 4 also states ‘On or around 5thNovember 2012 the Defendant entered into a Credit Card Agreement,’ but Page 2 of JK1 has a date inserted 2/11/2012.  It has my name, address and a date inserted in the form but no mention of how the agreement was made, online, post or telephone, and furthermore not mentioned in the Claimant’s Witness Statement.     4. As a rule of thumb I always ensure that no 3rdparty is to contact me or to send me marketing information via telephone, post or electronically’, but Page 2 of JK1 has an unticked box, another indication that this is not an original agreement.    5. Page 5 of JK1 has too many typo mistakes in the heading as follows: TERMSOF YOUR CAPITALONE CREDITCARD AGREEMENT, furthermore there are no ‘full stop’ punctuations at the end of each sentence, this surely cannot be a document sent out by Capital One.     6. The Claimant states in Para 9 that my defence is a ‘templated defence’, requesting documents pursuant of CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974, this is a defendant’s right for request of information but the Claimant has failed to provide the true original Credit Card Agreement and Terms & Conditions.   7. The Claimant states in Para 25 that, ‘the Claimant allowed the proceedings to be stayed in order to allow the parties to attempt settlement negotiations…..’ this is not correct as the Claim was stayed due to the Claimant not being able to provide the requested documents pursuant of my CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974.   8. Para 30 and 31of the Witness Statement requests to restore the proceedings, to strike out the Defence, has requested for a Summary Judgement, together with costs to be assessed summarily by the court. I, the Defendant, strongly object to the Claimant’s Witness Statement requesting to lift the stay and enter Judgement. I believe therefore, that this should be denied and I respectfully ask for you to strike out the claim. My reasons for this have been outlined in points 1 to 7.    9. By the reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief and invite the Court to strike out the claim.   I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.    Signed:  Dated:
    • District Judge has considered the statements of case and directions questionnaire filed and allocated the claim to the small claims track on 13th January 2020 for 1 hour.    Claimant has by 16th December 2019 pay the court trial fee or file a properly completed application, otherwise the claim will be struck out with effect from 16th December.    I have a few questions if possible to get an answer from anyone please.    The following directions apply to this claim: 1. It says that each party must deliver to the other party and to the court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing.  My understanding this will my witness statement, images of the parking area, out of time sent NTK documents. Is this correct? What else am I not thinking about?    2. I have to leave country for important work trip from 10th to 19th of January 2020. Is there anything I can do to postpone this case since its booked for 13th January?  Thanks!      
    • However having had a quick look at the consumer rights act, I see that it doesn't seem to apply if you have bought second-hand goods sold at a public auction and you had the opportunity of attending the same person – section 2 (5) Unless someone has some better ideas, I'm not sure what you can do.
    • I'm trying to understand your story because is not completely clear. You bought the car auction and you were aware at the time of the purchaser there was an ABS fault. Subsequently an ABS fault developed both this was a different fault and not of the type that have been flagged up at the auction. Is this correct? If you bought the car knowing that there was a particular ABS fault then I don't think you have any comeback. However if the fort which subsequently occurred is not the one which was flagged up at auction then you may be in a better position
  • Our picks

Ghost00

Letter from DWP, Compliance department

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 570 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

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!

 

 

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.....

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are the government to differentiate between such spurious claims and valid reports without holding the most basic of investigation?

What would you have them do??

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I ask again, but you’ve again said your life had been “ruined”.

What makes it ruined by these events, and why is it unrecoverable?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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 ....

Share this post


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’.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...