Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all,   I had an Lloyds bank overdraft in 2019 with the overdraft amount being £1350 maxed out by December 2019. I had left the account alone for two/three months as the overdraft fees were basically ruining me(Adding to the £1350 overdraft), i then received a letter from Lloyds asking me to phone them regarding this debt (This was January 2020). I had phoned Lloyds and we went through an expenditure on the phone and the outcome was i was to make payment of £30 towards the debt for 6 months and then after the 6 months is up they would get in touch with me to discuss further options. (There was mention in January that after the 6 months there was a possibility of a loan to pay of the remaining balance and then you make payments against the loan for however many years/months you choose.) It is worth noting that whilst i was making these payments they seized all interest on my account.    I have made every payment since January and have gradually managed to reduce my overdraft down to £1200. My problem is that the bank have phoned as it now at that stage for re-discussion, they have asked me to go through another expenditure and i panicked and over estimated things to make it look like i had less income; not loads but i was in a deficit of -£47. Due to this they said they could not allow me to take out a loan as it would only mean i was borrowing more to pay of debt which they would not allow. It then got passed over to another team and he said that i only had two options. Take a one month break with all interest etc stopped and this will allow me to seek financial advice elsewhere, or they said they would default the payment and i can then pay the minimum i can afford but the default would stay on my credit file for 6 years. He mentioned that they wouldn't take any money of me to help clear the debt as i had a deficit of -£47 and that shows i financially cannot afford to do that option. I have looked at the effects a default can make to your credit file and it impacts it tremendously.   Lloyds asked me how i cover my expenses every month and i mentioned that my Grandparents help me out sometimes with cash flow. So the gentleman at Lloyd's suggested going away and asking my grandparents if they could contribute money to me to help aid in my debt. so that he could go back to the original team(I think collections team) and say she now has this ____ He is due to phone me on Thursday (Tomorrow). I can afford to contribute probably £50-£80 a month but it would mean cutting down on fuel and some other expenses.   Its worth noting that i have a credit card with Nationwide maxed to £1000 too and this will soon be at the stage where they charge interest and i cannot afford to clear this either. Is this worth writing to them about?   Is there anyone that can advise me on what to do to help me pay as little as i can and avoid the default PLEASE, any help is really REALLY appreciated.   Thank you all in advance.
    • In terms of whether or not this is a private sale, clearly it will be for a judge to decide. It seems to me that we have somebody here who bred a litter of puppies and has sold several of them or all of them at probably around £1200 each. I think that is very different from selling your own private second-hand car to get what you can for it in order, for instance, to buy another one. Anyway it's for the judge to decide. In terms of whether or not the seller is aware of the defects – if they are a private seller – all it really means is that they are not subject to sale of goods legislation so that a purchaser in a private sale does not have specific protections. After that you have to fall back onto the common law of contract and once again I think that the liabilities are reasonably strict and I still think that even in a private sale if you bought something with defects which was represented to you as being without defects then you would probably have a good case. In this case, the dog has been accompanied by a health certificate and I think that is as good as any kind of representation dog is without defects. I think we are coming to an altogether more interesting issue. Apparently the dental defect with this puppy is observable and could have been detected by any reasonably careful examination carried out by a reasonable professional. But apparently also there is the possibility that there may be a more complicated problem which could be addressed by work costing up to £2000. What I'd like to know is whether this more complicated problem is as a result of the failure to spot the initial problem. Even if the initial problem had been spotted, with this still be a possibility that this more complicated work would be necessary? I suppose what I'm getting to his that at what point does one decide that a defect is an unacceptable defect or simply a risk that comes with purchasing all animals and therefore could still be considered as "satisfactory" because it would meet the reasonable expectations of any reasonable pet owner. To put it bluntly: are we saying here that if you buy an animal is less than genetically perfect, that you are purchasing defective goods and you are entitled to a refund? Does this mean that all animal traders are obliged to ensure that all the animals they sell are genetically perfect? This is dangerous territory: eugenics.  
    • a dn can be issued even on one default payment.
    • I think I still remain to be convinced that a court would not find the seller's offer to take the puppy back and give the OP a full refund both reasonable and acceptable.   Ignoring that this is the sale of a puppy, isn't this more akin to the private sale of a second-hand car?   I don't really know what the phrase:  "I recently bought a puppy from a home breeder. They have never breed dogs before and aren't a licensed business" means.  Is this a business to consumer sale, or is it simply the opportunistic private sale of puppies from a domestic litter?  I think the OP needs to establish this because it's not clear to me - yet.   AIUI, if I as a private individual privately sold, say,  a car with umpteen non-apparent faults or defects with it, but I was honestly unaware of them and could not be expected to be aware of them, then I'm not liable for any breach of contract when those faults and defects manifest themselves to the buyer a week later.  Isn't that what worried private sellers of cars are told here when aggrieved purchasers threaten to sue them?  It's not immediately obvious to me why this is necessarily any different - unless this is clearly a business to consumer sale.   The OP also says:  "Our puppy was sold as having passed a full health check from Vets4Pets", and so far as I can see this isn't disputed.  Unless that health check revealed the dental problem the OP is now complaining about, but the OP never was shown it (seems unlikely that the seller would mention it but not make the results available), then I think the seller may well be entitled to rely on it.  What more could they do to ascertain the health of the puppy?   I think this is not necessarily a clear-cut claim, and from the way the OP describes the breeder I think the question whether this is a consumer sale or a private sale may not have a black or white answer.     1.  The OP mentions following advice to buy puppies bred from a "home pet" (or similar such wording).  Not clear if this was the case here, but if it was, doesn't this suggest a private rather than consumer or trade sale?   2.  The OP also suggests that the health of the puppy was misrepresented, but is this necessarily correct?  They say the puppy was advertised as having had a "full health check", but that's not the same as saying the puppy was actually healthy.  And if it was a private sale, is the seller required to declare health problems they are aware of if they aren't specifically asked?
    • Ok,    I thought it may of helped as their DN stated 2 installments in arrears when it was issued on 10/2/17, but it would infact only have been 1 installment overdue 17/01/17.   I will keep to what I already know and stop over thinking further issues. 😁    
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
       
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
       
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
       
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
       
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
       
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
       
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
       
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
       
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies
HOWLER

Marstons. Capital Contribution Order

Recommended Posts

Could we sell the property to our children and pay them rent? 

Would that stop em.?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No need, do as I say. that letter needs to go to the Chief Exec. No way, under any circumstances on this planet should they be going after your wife.  

 

 

  • Thanks 1

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

 

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

Along with the relevant legislation I have already posted in post #51...further to that....

 

2. Whose Resources are to be Assessed?

 

2.1 Individual and Partner 1. As well as the resources of the individual, the resources of his or her partner are assessed and taken into account. 2. A partner is defined in regulations as: (a) A person to whom the individual is married or in a civil partnership, and is not separated due to a breakdown of the relationship which is likely to be permanent; (b) A person with whom the individual lives as a couple; or (c) A person with whom the individual ordinarily lives as a couple, and from whom they are not separated due to a breakdown of the relationship which is likely to be permanent. 3.

 

This means that there must be a breakdown in the relationship that is likely to be permanent (i.e. at least one of the parties considers the relationship to be at an end) rather than mere physical separation if the partner’s means are not to be aggregated with the individual. Therefore a couple who is physically separated owing to financial or practical reasons, e.g. job location or the fact that one of the parties is in prison, hospital, residential care etc. must be aggregated. 4. Where it is advised that a couple are married according to English law but are not planning to live together until they have undergone their traditional cultural ceremony, you must aggregate their resources in the assessment. 5.

 

A couple do not have to be married for this procedure to apply; the aggregation rule applies to anyone living as a couple including partners of the same sex. Therefore the term partner includes a spouse, civil partner or anyone with whom the individual lives or ordinarily lives as a couple. 6. The means of the individual's partner are not included in the financial determination in the following circumstances: (a) Where the partner has a contrary interest in the dispute in respect of which the application is made. Means will therefore not be aggregated where the partner is the opponent or the potential opponent in the proceedings. The most obvious example is in a matrimonial dispute. Note:

 

It is not strictly speaking necessary for a partner to be the opponent in the proceedings to have a contrary interest. However, if he or she is not the opponent, the establishment of the contrary interest is more difficult. One indication is where the parties are separately legally represented in a dispute. This is not an exhaustive test since, for example, parties might be legally represented if there is only a potential conflict of interest rather than an actual one. Further enquiries may have to be made in cases of doubt and it will be a question of fact in each case whether a contrary interest exists. The guidance note on the financial application forms advises applicants not to include their partner's resources where the partner is the opponent in the proceedings. (b) Where the individual and partner are separated due to a breakdown in the relationship which is likely to be permanent.

 

In general, this will involve the parties living in separate locations. However, this may not always be the case. It is possible for former partners to live separate and apart (which in the context of matrimonial law refers to a breakdown in the relationship) in the same household. This would be the case if they regarded their relationship to be permanently at an end and no longer pooled their financial resources. An example of this would be where a couple have decided to split and have separated their finances and are now simply waiting for the house to be sold before going their separate ways. As is made clear by the definition of a partner in paragraph 1(c), even if they are physically separated (i.e. they live in separate houses) this does not necessarily mean that their means should not be aggregated; the couple must be aggregated unless they are permanently separated for the purpose of the regulations. Note:

 

2.2 Assets Belonging to Others 1. Regulation 16(5) provides for certain other circumstances in which assets belonging to persons other than the individual can be taken into account. There are two scenarios: (a) where another person is, or has been, or is likely to be substantially maintaining the individual or his partner. (b) resources from another person have been, or is likely to be, made available to the individual or his partner.

 

'Person' for these purposes includes a company, partnership, trust etc. 2. If either of the above scenarios apply, the caseworker has power to treat all or part of the resources of the other person concerned as belonging to the individual. 3. It is in the caseworker's discretion as to how much of the resources of the other person should be treated as belonging to the individual and the following guidelines should be followed. 4. The caseworker can assume, unless compelling evidence is provided to the contrary, that assistance given to and resources made available for the individual in the past will continue to be given/made available in the future and the assessment can be carried out on that basis.

 

This situation will most commonly arise where the individual has been supported by a wealthy family, even though the individual himself has no assets. As a rough guide, the caseworker should look at what financial support was given within the 12 months before the application, or from the date of commencement of the litigation if earlier. 5.

 

Note that the resources belonging to the other person should be assessed in accordance with the normal rules of assessment. If that other person refuses to co-operate then the caseworker has power to estimate the value of such resources. Evidence can be called for from the individual to show the amount of money either given to or received from the other person in the past. 6. Any payments made direct to third parties on behalf of the individual can also be included as income or capital by virtue of Regulation 16(5)(b). This could be, for example, mortgage payments made direct to the lender by an expartner, to pay the mortgage on the former matrimonial home where the individual is residing. This would count as maintenance income. Or, for example, a parent has paid off a credit card debt of £10,000 direct to the lender on behalf of their adult child or has purchased a car on the adult child’s behalf. This would count as capital.

 

 

 

 

  • Confused 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is if they were allowed to place a charge...they would have by now......as already advised Marstons cannot place a charge...only the LAA.

 

Read between the lines they are passing you off between them...sit tight pay nothing.....ignore......unless you receive anything from the LAA or the Land Registry.

 

Andy

  • Confused 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, I think you should write to the Exec as directed though, and demand your money back you've paid already.

 

Make them apologise and give the money back.  You are morally and legally in the right here. They are likely breaking their own code of practice by threatening a disabled person, and deserve to be had up. It's almost unbelievable to me that an employee could knowingly sneer at, and ignore a disabled, vulnerable person, and to threaten them, knowing the facts.  

  • Thanks 1

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

 

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
Posted (edited)

I don't want to bang on pointlessly about this and if anyone thinks I'm misleading HOWLER, please, please tell me.

 

1.  I agree with what London1971 suggests HOWLER should do, but...

 

2.  Everything I've read suggests that a charge cannot be put on the property anyway.  So why not just point that simple fact out to the LAA?  (And tell them to **** off).

 

This is from one solicitors' website: 

 

"Following this change in the legislation, Legal Aid is now to be considered as a loan and not a gift. If as a result of receiving legal aid assistance you gain property that you did not own previously, you will have ‘won’ or ‘recovered’ it. If you keep some property that someone had attempted to take from you, you will have ‘kept’ or ‘reserved’ it. Some examples include a house, shares, life policies or payment of compensation.

If the result of your case is that you recovered or preserved property or a sum of money, and some or all of your legal costs are not met by your opponent, you may be required to pay back some or all of the costs of your case. This is called the ‘Statutory Charge.’ This Statutory Charge is likely to apply in cases involving money or property such as divorce and ancillary relief or personal injury cases."  [My bold].

 

https://www.worthingtonslaw.co.uk/legal-aid-the-statutory-charge-explained/

 

 

Now it doesn't say so explicitly but that implies to me that a charge can be applied if the legally aided person "wins" and they either recover or gain property that was in some way subject to the proceedings.  But that doesn't apply in HOWLER's situation, does it?

 

I don't know if my interpretation of this is correct or whether it only applies to civil rather than criminal cases (the legal aid part of the .gov.uk website appears to be useless) but it does appear to be in agreement with the legal aid guidance linked to previously.

 

Everything else I've read tends to suggest that the aided person must have kept, gained, won or recovered property or money in some way as a result of the proceedings before a charge can be applied.  Is that HOWLER's position?

 

As I said, if I've got this wrong or I'm misleading HOWLER or I'm giving him false hope, please somebody tell me (and him).

 

Otherwise go with a letter as suggested by London1971.

 

 

 

Edited by Manxman in exile
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the question should be asked if it was so easy to put a charge on his wife’s property, why go to a bunch of chancers like Marston’s to do it for them, and why wait this long.

 

Judging by how his case worker at the LAA potentially opened their organisation to a whole world of trouble. They really don’t know what they are doing.

 

Still, I say howler needs to go for the neck, make a huge complaint to the Chief and demand his hard earned cash back.
 

 

  • Thanks 1

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

 

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
4 hours ago, London1971 said:

 

 

Still, I say howler needs to go for the neck, make a huge complaint to the Chief and demand his hard earned cash back.
 

 

 

Can't argue with that.  Nothing to lose.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh dear 

 

Al this legal stuff does nowt for me. Can't understand a word. 

 

But am very impressed by the stuff you guys turn up. 

So are we in agreement with we go to top dog and complain again. C/w copies of letters. ¿???????? 

Thanks again guys. 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes .

 

Write to top person as directed.

  • Thanks 1

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

 

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

Do as suggested by London1971 and write that letter.

 

I think the view here is that if the Legal Aid Agency was able to put a charge on your property then they would already have done so and not involved Marstons.  Check back a page or so and I think the advice was not to worry too much about it unless they (or the Land Registry) write to say they are actually going to do it.  (Of course, if they do do it, there's not much you can do about it anyway as I don't suppose you've got £106k spare).

 

If you actually want to do something other than wait and see what happens, write as London1971 says.

 

If it makes you feel any better, I ought to be able to find this stuff out and understand it, but it's too complicated for me.  That's why I've asked if they can put a charge on in your circumstances because I read it that they can't - but I'm as confused as you and don't fully understand it.

 

PS - I am pretty certain that selling or transferring the flat to your kids won't be a solution!

 

(And as London1971 says, perhaps you ought to try to recover what you've already paid?)

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Andyorch 26/05/2020: confused . com

I thank you very much for your help but this just loses me i have no idea how to follow this. cheers

 

@london1971 26/05/2020: confused . com

Done today !st Class Recorded

Thanks again guys

I really dont know where id be without your help

THANK YOU ALL. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are welcome, let's see where this course of action leads! Report back when you receive a reply.

  • Thanks 1

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

 

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...