Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you Andy    The Court have not confirmed solicitors so we shall proceed as agreed with the DQ by 25 January 2021.
    • Yes it should be in the UK forum. Are you able to move this to the corect forum?
    • why is this in the overseas forum? as you or steadypay not in the UK?   dx  
    • I recently applied for a Sure Start Maternnity Grant and received a decision from the DWP today, declining my eligibility; under the basis that there is another child (under 16) in my family/ household. My situation is this,  I am co-habitating with my partner/ father of my new/ first baby.  Within the last 10 months, my partner's daughter from previous relationship (age 13) had to be removed from her mothers care, owing to domestic violence issues.  The family Courts are still dealing with the situation as her mother is contesting her daughter residing with us, as she wants her to return to her home/ care - so obviously there is Social Sevices involved etc. Anyway, prior to this situation arising, my partners daughter, had always resided with her mother and my partner, had regular acess etc. I have cited the Sure Start Maternity Grant Act/ Policy and the more recently published 'Restricting payment of the SSMG to first child only' -  I have to say, both have left me further confused as if you read the 'restricting payment policy/ in one paragraph, it states that in a situation where a woman has her first child and another child under 16, residing in same household/ family and is from the partners 'previous relationship' this would be considered a 'first child' and will be eligible for payment of grant. If however, the reverse applies (ie: it is the 'father/ partner' first child, then payment would not be made.   This seems pretty straightforward, but then the policy starts to contradict itself and goes on to define, the only exception for payment to more than one child, is in the case of the child living in same household, is not from partner.  Or if you are adopting a child under 1 year old/ special guardianship etc, then you are eligible. It does not offer the scenario of any childd in household under 16, from partner previous relationship being acceptable?   Can anybody please clarify this point please???  I want to challenge the decision/ request a Mandatory Reconsideration - but wanted to include my reasoning/ the point of law they have not applied correctly?   Any help advice / greatly appreciated.   thank you 
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Utility Warehouse, Moriaty Law + Money Claim Online


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 806 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

I came home to a letter from Moneyclaimonline today, the instigator being Moriarty Law on behalf of Utility Warehouse.

 

They contacted me about a year ago for a debt they claimed I owed in 2014, during the phone call I asked them to provide me with proof of the debt which was never supplied plus this does not show up on my credit file with Experian to date (I checked today).

 

How this happened, if relevant is I needed an EPC for my home, the surveyor pressured me into consolidating my utility bills which I wasn't keen on but they kept telling me I was under no obligation and could always say no at the end.... which I did.

 

convinced me to take out the gas / elec / internet / phone but when my mobile came in the redemption fee put me out of pocket and UW wouldn't cover it so I had a huge mess but managed to sort it out.

 

After this I lost faith in the UW and requested to cancel the service with them, they were awkward to I went straight to my old utilities who transfered the services back. I wasn't aware of any outstanding debt, I believed my old company had figured this out.

 

So I'm concerned I have a small claim's court form to complete, potential damage to my credit file but no default on my account to date.

 

Any advice please?

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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 thread please PM me a link to your thread

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...