Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi,    I have a couple of books that have suddenly shot up in value so I have listed them on Facebook. One I listed as Offers because I wasn't sure what to price it as and included a picture and listed as "Good condition"  The other I listed a price, listed as acceptable and put an extra picture of a small tear to the book.  This morning around 9am a buyer messaged me, he didn't ask for more pictures or questions just offered me a price. I was happy, accepted the price. He paid straight away and I packaged up and sent Special Delivery as I just had an odd niggle in my mind about it. Not being a big seller on FB  Tonight at 5pm he suddenly out of the blue said he hoped the book was in a very good condition otherwise he would be requesting a refund.  Hmmm... I replied saying I had listed it as good condition not very good condition and that he had offered a price, of he had wanted any further info prior to purchase I would have happily supplied pictures or answered further questions.  He's come back again and again saying I seem not to understand how PayPal works and if he is unhappy with condition he will get his refund. He hasnt even received it yet and he's scamming me I suspect!  So what do I do? I looked an Abe books for their condition grades and a good condition book is described as average used worn book with no pages missing. Which fits my book exactly. In fact even their very good condition probably applies as that says no years to spine and shows minor wear.    Where do I stand? He also says he's seen it on Ebay for half the price now. So what? Isn't that just down to his own failings not mine
    • No they came here to my address he lived here when he bought the car. Hes not listed as being here never has been he left home and came back briefly.
    • The owner of the Ellesmere Port plant says the halt is nothing to do with talks over its future. View the full article
    • Bankfodder, i use this forum and have learnt alot, i can assure you im not wasting any ones time. My sister is going to come on here after 8, she will be able to give you more details ect. Thanks.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Sure Start Maternity Grant - for first child:

Recommended Posts

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 Services involved etc.


prior to this situation arising, my partners daughter, had always resided with her mother and my partner, had regular access 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 child 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 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without reading into the issues you discuss in your post, not sure of the legal position here.


But what you can do, is ask the DWP for a written statement of reason confirming the legislation they have applied to decline your benefit claim and also how they have applied this legislation in your case. 


When you contact them asking for the written statement of reason, ask them to note that you will be submitting a mandatory reconsideration and will be providing further information, once you have the written statement of reason from them.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is taken from the Sure Start Maternity Grant application form.  I have made bold/underlined, what they have applied.   They have not applied any exception which you think should be applied in your case.


You may be able to get a Sure Start Maternity Grant if you live in England or Wales and


: • your new baby is the only child under 16 years of age in your family, or

• you already have a child or children under 16 years of age in your family and you are having a multiple birth, for example twins or triplets, or

• you already have a child under 16 years of age living with you who is not your own, such as a younger brother or sister, that you are looking after because he or she is not able to be looked after by his or her own parents and they were over 12 months old when this arrangement started.


Stepchildren or partner’s children under 16 years of age are counted as children living with you so if you have stepchildren or partner’s children under 16 years of age living with you, you may not be able to get a Sure Start Maternity Grant, and you or your partner are getting one of the following benefits: • Universal Credit • Child Tax Credit • Working Tax Credit which includes a disability or severe disability element • Income Support • Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance • Income-based Employment and Support Allowance • Pension Credit 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply from Frances sent but not to the thread.


Many thanks for your replies.  I have followed your advic in post 1 and written to DWP for statement of reasons etc.

However, your 2nd reply, which quotes parts of the legislation/ policy for the grant, seems very clear with regards to the 'exceptions' for having another child in family (under 16) in stating you must not be the parent of or other exceptions in terms of multiple births etc?


However, a  further publication 'Restricting payment of the Sure Start Maternity Grant to the first child' [Equality Impact Assessment - January 2011 (DWP)' gives very clear & specific guidance in its definition of a 'first time mother' being awarded the grant.  Even if their are other children in the family from her partners previous relationship.  It seems to suggest that provided children under 16 living with them, are from the 'fathers previous relationship, if the woman is then pregnant with her 'first child' a payment would be due?

It also states, that if the circumstances reversed, and it was the fathers first child, a payment would not be due.


All a bit misleading, as in the one hand there are very clear and specific circumstances related to other children of the family etc which seem to contradict the situation above?


confusing really?  But thanks for the advice.  Very helpful.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure start maternity legislation was subject to changes in 2012.


Are you sure the 2011 guidance still applies ?


Sometimes guidance is changed for a period, but Government then issues legislation to ensure that the benefit restriction they originally intended applies.

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

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...