Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to realise that for every person that does come to CAG and register and tell their story...there are poss 10'000 that don't but search the interweb whereby threads that are here pop up relating to like issues they are searching upon.   Most CAG siteteam and many other registered Caggers give advice that bears this in mind and post information which not only informs the starter of a thread upon what to do, but also takes into consideration the readers from the interweb that also read the relevant advice given that might not be brave enough to register and fess up.   to that end, there is very little alternative than to appear to give 'grief' [you deserve it - tough] to a cagger should certain previous advice not have been followed.....yours is a very classic case of such. hey I've found a backdoor CCJ.   to put it bluntly, had you have followed such previous advice, you most certainly would not be in the situation you are in here now.. .so by example, not giving you grief, for future readers...………..   ...never ever move without informing a debt owner of a move of address on any consumer debt that you last used or paid within the last say 7yrs. your credit file is a major key to ascertaining that information.... .but don't just read this advice come to the consumeractiongroup.co.uk website and let us help.   lecture over... what can you do..or more importantly....what can a claimant do now they have a default forthwith judgement against you. well we can't guess.... they might simply ignore it as 1000's of people with CCJ's find out..but it becomes an issue should you wish to say get a mortgage, remortgage or further credit.   i'm not going to enter into any of that here...that's for the reader to start a thread here and seek advice on their individual situation specific to them as you have done....   so...  bearing the all of the above in mind...over to you with regard to this backdoor CCJ.   as for the other debts that you didn't action before...go read your old thread and action what appropriate advice is given there for each type of debt that has been given should you wish to avoid any further backdoor CCJ's.   dx                    
    • hello my very good helpful friend. I am afraid to say that i did not. As i did not realise the relevance of it.   Should i be doing this right now of anyone on my credit file ?   Plz don't give me grief if u have already advised me...   do i do the ccs request now to everybody in that thread ?    
    • aha busted and stupid ...no wonder you've got mixed information here. never trust anything they say ..they have a very bad reputation for stating the truth.   now can you go get your credit file please..   there are cases whereby a council on historic CTAX debts do go for a county court CCJ, but a liability order from a magistrates court has far more clout legally than a county court CCJ and i've never heard of a court sending a bailiff out for 'multiple' CCJ collection.   me thinks he is pulling the wool here a bit and has looked at your credit file and seen CCJ's too so thought he'd chance his arm and use those as further leverage.   don't worry about the sat visit simply ignore do not answer the door if he appears. your task is too gather data at present.   credit file please..        
    • Hi there, the company name on the bit of paper is:   Bristow & Sutor   Says the total amount £990.49 and this includes £235 enforement stage fees,  The CTAX was owed to North Tyneside Council. The guy also said that it wasn't just for CTAX. Other debts were combined.   I did leave other debts behind too when I moved. Perhaps a utility bill, credit card debts and a Provi doorstep loan.   I think the guy said that he would be back Saturday too. This is what I'm trying to avoid multiple visits. Don't want my mam to get upset.   Thanks for the help.   Bear
  • Our picks

Whatnot

Change of allocation policy = age discrimination

Recommended Posts

 

.So I’ve been at the flat for a number of years , you had to be a certain age back then, now all ages and couples with young babies get put here , first floor , no garden not a good area not so bad either .

 

ive just had a letter to say I’ve been taken off the list to transfer to a more appropriate home ,  no notice just taken off, council are saying my age group no longer qualify.. I spoke to equality and human rights council they suggested I complain siting The Public Sector Equality Act 2010. ( The General Duty and Specific Duty)  relating to age discrimination. 

 

 

But I’ve also come across this in LAW Quarterly online Mag. 

 

LHA’s allocation scheme suspending applicant’s ability to bid (R (Alemi) v Westminster City Council)

The High Court has held that Westminster City Council’s allocation scheme suspending certain applicants from bidding for social housing for 12 months breached section 166A(3) of the HA 1996 (setting out which groups of people should be given reasonable preference when allocating housing).

 

Interesting i thought? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Whatnot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if they are no longer saying “reserved for older people” then they are being less age discriminatory?

(discrimination can cut both ways: discrimination against the elderly, but also discrimination against younger people).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bazza

I really don’t mind who moves here it’s out of the flats I’m after , but now I’m stuck here trapped unless I fall over and damage myself permenatly or sadly get a medical condition that requires ground floor accommodation.   I feel like in old age older folk require the right accomadation for their needs  to help them keep their independence , but to keep me here trapped in a first floor flats is not fair.

 

as a group to simply eliminate your place on the list due to age is nonsense I fully appreciate there is a housing shortage but by keeping me here is wrong? 

If the council were to have to house folk earlier in care homes due to residents being in isolation it’s certainly going to cost the tax payer a lot more , and as the population is made up of a very large % of elderly this policy is shortsighted to say the least. 


Whatnot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...