Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • well be careful if the debt is above £600 you could have HCEO bailiffs at your  and for the want of logging onto MCOL and typing just as your are here  - it could all be simply sorted.   dx      
    • well they do have an alternate, do nothing.   I cant see a past thread on this? why didn't you come here and ask for advice first?   all your threads have a nasty trait you still haven't got out of and that's blindly contacting DCA's    you have never earned above the threshold you should have simply sent a new SLC deferment form.   in a way I think you've paid this money under duress when you had no need too.        
    • Interestingly I've just had another alert on my Clear Score report:   Upcoming Updates A new credit or store card will be added to your January report. Organisation Name: BAIA0090 Account Number: ****9048 Company Type: finance house What does this mean? This could mean that you’ve recently opened a new account, or it might be because a lender has just shared some information relating to an old account. Why is this change not on my report yet? We get your credit report every month from Equifax, a credit reference agency. This update can be seen on your Equifax credit report now but will only be reflected in your ClearScore report when your report is next updated, which is on 2 January. If you apply for credit now, lenders will see this update on your Equifax credit report. Now, this looks very much as if Hoist have taken my agreement off and transferred it to whoever BAIA0090 are.  I've not seen any new notice of assignement or anything.  
    • Sorry i am Not putting details in here. This bank i did have an account with in 1993. That is the last time i used them.   I am going to let them ccj me.   I am not going to even think about this any more. My bin will get the letters and my door will be ignored.   Thank you for the interest but i will waste time for another 6 odd years while i get my mind right All the best
    • Particulars of Claim (for Reference - not to be submitted with defence)   What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim? 1.The Claim is for the sum of £2722 arising from the Defendant's breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced Under no xxxxxxxxxxxx   2.The Defendant has failed to remedy the breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.   3.The Claimant claims the sums due from the Defendant following the legal assignment of the agreement from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Ltd (EX BARCLAYCARD) Written notice of the assignment has been given. The Claimant claims 1.The sum of £2792 2. Costs Defence   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature.The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   2.The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC. 3. Paragraph 1 is denied. Whilst I have had dealings with Barclaycard  in the past I cannot recall the specifics of the alleged agreement.   4. Paragraph 2 is denied .I have no knowledge of who the claimant is nor have I been provided with any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   5.Paragraph 3  is denied.I am not aware of service of a Default Notice by the original creditor or Legal Assignment the claimant refers to within its particulars of claim .   6. It is denied that any amounts are due under any agreement.   7. On receipt of this claim I requested information pertaining to this claim from Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors by way of a CPR 31:14 request sent via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.Further to the above I sent Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 LTD a section 78 request via 1st class recorded post on 19/11/2019.  To date, neither Howard Cohen nor Hoist Portfolio are yet to furnish me with the requested information .   8.Therefore with the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to   a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for; c) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sec 87 (1) CCA1974. d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   9. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   10. On the alternative, if the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.6.   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. (Defence mainly taken straight from Micky the Hippo's similar defence)
  • Our picks


Deprivation of Capital

Recommended Posts

Hello, I’ve got a situation where an individual has a drug habit of over 12k from PIP and ESA since 2015.

Appointee is now aware of the situation.


For three years they’ve not sought help,

however has autism and depression.


During assessments he denied he was a substance misuser, but still being treated by a doctor.


User has gone on to seek ongoing help for problem and a report to social services has been made. 


Could this be seen as a deprivation of capital?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.


I've moved you to the Benefits forum where people should be along to advise later.


Can you tell us more about the report tp social services please? Also, I'm not sure what your point is about £12k from PIP and ESA, could you elaborate?


Best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, are you saying he has had £12k in savings since 2015 or that he has spent £12k on drug since 2015?


Presumably the latter, if so then it would be highly unlikely, unless he spent it all in one go, in order to obtain means tested benefits.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

User has ongoing problems with mental health.

Looking at Bank statements from four years, they’ve spent roughly 12k.


They currently have PIP and ESA for depression/anxiety and for autism.


the appointee has just found out and is livid.

She deals with their main expenses, in regards to council tax, and housing. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Deprivation of capital is very hard to prove,  there has to be evidence that someone has purposefully deprived themselves of capital in order to claim/claim more means tested benefit.


An example could be that someone has come into money, perhaps  from a gift in a will, if they then spend it on something that is not required for day to day living such as say a piano, and then makes a claim to an income based benefit such as JSA (IB), Income Support or Universal Credit and only declares an amount of the remains under the threshold then this would be considered as depriving themselves of money they had in order to get/get more benefit. 


If the person in question has spent money over a period of time whilst already claiming benefits then this would not be considered as deprivation.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post is a bit vague!


What type of ESA? Income (IR) or Contribution (CB)


Deprivation is about savings (not spending) which only matters for IR ESA and doesn't matter for CB or PIP.


You talk about they have spent 12k on drugs.... say for example I drink a bottle of Jim Beam a day for 4 years at £16 a pop that's £24 000 (give or take a ton). What they spend their money on or how much of it is not the issue of the DWP.. Unlike the red tops imho if a disabled person is made happy by spending it on cocaine and hookers then I'm all for it. 


If it's an addiction issue then since they're seeking help I'd concentrate my efforts on that. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


its regular outgoings of payments.

It’s income related they’re on, not contribution based. 

Mum and applicant were totally unaware of the rules in regards to deprivation of capital.


On income related ESA but claim housing benefit and council tax support.


He hasn’t came into a huge chunk of money.

It’s been spent over a duration of four years.

appointee’s livid, and worried that he’ll be homeless.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

So nothing to do with deprivation of capital, but bad choices of how they spend benefit monies.


Sounds like they are on a downward spiral to living on the streets and getting into an even worse situation.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

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...