ES40 card completed, signed and posted 02/01/2012. DWP are clearly stating refusal to pay final entitlements on the grounds “you did not attend to sign your declaration” “If you do not attend this office when you are meant to we cannot pay you Jobseeker’s Allowance.” There is no reference to this 5 day rule. It would be interesting to see the law supporting this 5day rule.

After seven months on JSA I managed to secure myself a job and sign of JSA but DWP are refusing to pay final entitlements on the grounds“you did not attend to sign your declaration” “If you do not attend this officewhen you are meant to we cannot pay you Jobseeker’s Allowance.” Sequence of events:- 18/01/2012 signed on at jobcentre as usual: 20/01/2012 entitlement paid into bank account as usual: 24/01/2012 received phone call from prospective employer (could I attended job interviewon 25/01/2012): 25/01/2012 attended interview: 27/01/2012 received phone call from prospective employer (could I start work on 30/01/2012): 30/01/2012 started work: 01/02/2012 didn’t attend jobcentre to attend interview and sign on because I was at work. Receivedphone call from jobcentre saying I had missed my interview; explained I hadstarted work and was sending in my signing on card with all details: 03/02/2012 no payment from jobcentre into bank account (as expected): 14/02/2012 received letter dated 10/02/2012from jobcentre containing my P45 plus letter stating (We have looked at yourclaim again following a recent change. We cannot pay your allowance from the 19/01/2012. This is because: you didnot attend to sign your declaration. If you do not attend this office when youare meant to we cannot pay you Jobseeker’s Allowance.” 17/02/2012 believing I was entitled to allowances from the 19/01/2012 to 30/01/2012inclusive I sent letter appealing against decision: 08/03/2012 received letter dated 06/03/2012 stating they hadlooked again at their decision and where upholding their original decision andmy appeal would be sent to an independent appeal tribunal and they would writeagain shortly with more information: 21/03/2012 contacted CAB for advice; was told by adviser that the CAB was absolutelysnowed under with similar complaints of benefits being stopped for the mosttrivial of excuses. CAB is willing to help but I must wait until DWP write againwith further information. WHAT’S going on?

FPN not an issue it was successfully challenged on the grounds I wasn’t there it wasn’t me. But the article below from local paper suggests that the issuing of this “standard Letter” has mislead at least one innocent person into paying up! S33) is only relevant to CONTROLED WAST (S112) is only relevant to ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCES There is little information within this letter relevant to (S87) littering. It mislead you into thinking you may be prosecuted for a much more serious offence if you don’t pay up. Fined for passenger’s cigarette Published August 2006 A MOTORIST has blasted Council after he was fined £75 because a PASSENGER in his car threw a cigarette butt out of the window. ------------------------------, was astonished to find a letter from the local authority waiting for him when he got back from holiday. “I was out of the country on holiday and I got a text from my ex-girlfriend, who I used to live with, saying that a letter had come and I’d been fined. “I knew I hadn’t done anything to be fined for, so I was quite shocked. “When I got home I looked at the letter and it clearly stated that a passenger had been seen throwing a cigarette butt from the window of my vehicle. “How am I supposed to be in control of my vehicle and stop a passenger from throwing something out of the window? “I went to the council and tried to speak to someone, but I was advised that, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as the driver and registered keeper of the vehicle, I am responsible.” Mr ----------- quickly worked out who his passenger was at the time the butt was seen tumbling from the window by ------- -----, an authorised officer of the council. “It was my housemate, he accepted that he was to blame for it but he is on incapacity benefit and didn’t have the £75 to pay the fine. “We have, eventually, come to an arrangement but it has caused a real strain between us – that isn’t ideal when we have to live together. “I can’t understand why the council wouldn’t just take his details and take it up with him. “It just seems bizarre to me that they accept it wasn’t me but fine me anyway, it’s bureaucracy gone barmy.” Mr ------- did have the opportunity to appeal the fine, but had he lost the appeal the £75 fine would have been increased, possibly to as much as £2,500. “I couldn’t afford to fight it, £75 is a lot of money but £2,500 is unthinkable.

LEISURE & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Dear Mr----------- RE: Environmental Protection Act 1990,S87. Please find enclosed a Fixed Penalty Notice for the offence of depositing litter from your vehicle Registration :- ________ Please note if you do not pay the Fixed Penalty Notice under Section 88 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, you may be taken to court and prosecuted by virtue of S33 (5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. "If wast is carried and deposited from a motor vehicle then the person who controls or is in a position to control the use of the vehicle is treated as knowingly causing the waste to be deposited whether or not he gave any instruction for this to be done". This is an offence under S33 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if taken to court and prosecuted the fines are unlimited. If you were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the offence then pursuant to Section 112 (4) of the Road Traffic Act 1984 I require you (under penalty of prosecution and fines up to £400 for non compliance) to complete and sign the declaration below and return it to me at the above address, within 14 days of this Notice. If the fixed penalty or a completed and signed declaration is not received within the stated 14-day period, legal proceedings will be considered. The maximum fine for the litter offence under S87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is £2500. The maximum fine for an offence under S33 (1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is unlimited. Yours sincerely Ms _________ Enforcement Unit Is this standard letter sent out with a postal fixed penalty notice for littering APPROPRIATE? MISLEADING? or LEGAL BULLYBOY TACTICS to make you pay up? Your thoughts appreciated.

hi quick update latest letter to administrator and solicitor "Please can you confirm in writing how the sale of goods - to which neither the company, nor the administrators, had obtained good title by paying in full, and knowing that I had a reservation of title claim in operation at the time of the sale - was undertaken. It is my belief that the sale of a company asset, which was not in reality an asset, is in contravention of Section 12(i) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). As consideration for the railings has not been given by the Company, they have never obtained good title to the railings. As such they cannot be considered a company asset, and should not have been included in the sale. Your claim that the railings now form "part of the fabric of the building" is clearly erroneous, and is refuted. The railings can be easily removed, without any detriment to the building, as has been highlighted in my previous communications. In order to resolve this matter in as reasonable manner as possible, I am prepared to accept either of the following solutions: 1. Immediate payment of the balance due to me as shown in the proof of debt form. 2. Written acceptance and agreement to my Retention of Title claim, with a date when I can attend the site and remove my goods. I request that you confirm in writing your intention and proposal to resolve this matter within seven days of the date of this letter"

Hi took your advice posted on UK Business Forums - the UK's most active help and advice forum for owners, managers and entrepreneurs of small businesses and startups. i will keep both posts open might be of interest to you if any Good advice is forthcoming. thanks

Hi blueboy987 tried the solicitor root, they all ask the same initial question "Howe much is involved" as soon as i say £1665.00 they all say small claims court can't recover cost. of the few that where willing to talk further, would only give general advice. for an opinion on my personal case it would involve charges. all quoted charges of £180.00 per hour plus with no initial free assessment. hence my posting hear. i am looking for genuine honest opinions from those who have a knowledge of the small claims procedures because i cant get my head round sum of the legal jargon. its a pity to loose out on Justice simply because of costs and a lack of knowledge of the legal system. thanks your opinions are very welcome

Hi letter i propose to send to administrators solicitors appreciate your views anything to add, change or omit thanks With reference to your letter dated the 22nd May 2009 ------ ------ ------ in administration. Order number 10021 was generated on the 08/01/2009 as a result of ----- ------ the resident park warden issuing their order number FM766. It was posted, to----- ----- ---, ----- ----- ---on or about the 09/01/2009 to confirm receipt of their order. There was no covering letter. You state that it is your assertion “that the railings have now become part of the fabric of the property and as such they are now a fixture of the property rather than a fitting and title in them has passed” I wish to inform you that “the railings” is a collective description of a number of individual items fitted together, (five tubes of epoxy resin, twelve posts, eleven panels, forty two M10 stainless steel nuts, forty two M10 stainless steel bolts, and forty two M10 stainless steel washers) of which only the five tubes of epoxy resin has changed state and could be deemed to be incorporated into the wall. It may be argued that the twelve posts attached directly to the wall with the epoxy resin, are now a fixture, but the posts are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. The eleven panels fitted between the posts are not attached to the wall, they are not a fixture of the property, they are bolt on fittings, they are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. The forty two stainless steel nuts, bolts and washers are also fittings, they are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. I would insist that I have a valid retention of title. I am informed by your client that these railings have been sold as part of the Company assets without prior notification or my permission. You are aware I claim retention of title for the railings fitter to the retaining wall of---- -----. Will you confirm, and provide documentation proving when and who purchased the railings, i.e. that they were specifically included and itemised within the sale of the Company assets. This issue has dragged on long enough. I have done everything I can to have this issue resolved, I am of the opinion your client haven’t done everything they could to resolve this issue, either agree to the return of the goods, agree a settlement over these goods or give me permission to apply to the courts for a resolution regarding this issue.

Hi thanks again much appreciated will get onto it and see what happens

Hi the Company was sold 8 April 2009 i was informed of this in letter dated 20 April 2009 the letter is as follows:- i refer to your retention of title claim against the above named Company and our recent telephone conversation. i note the railings to which you are claiming title have been attached to the boundary wall of plot 74 ------ ------ and that should they be removed holes will remain in the wall. i therefore have to conclude that the railings have been incorporated and consequently you are unable to claim retention of title. in any event you have failed to provide sufficient documentation to confirm that a retention of title clause was incorporated into your contract with the Company and that the goods could not have been supplied by another source. however, as you may be aware, the business and assets of the Company were sold to ---- ---- ---- and ---- ---- --- t/a --- Partnership on 8 April 2009. i understand that the railings are required under building regulations. it may therefore be appropriate for you to discuss a commercial settlement of this matter with the purchaser. contact details below. i did contact the purchaser and was told this matter was the responsibility of the administrators. i was not told that the disputed railings have been sold as part of the company assets. i was of the opinion that they could not be sold without my permission. i was also of the opinion that the railings could not be considered part of the Company assets because the Company never owned them. i was lead to believe that the new owners may been prepared to purchase these railings because if i where to remove them then something would have to replace them to comply with building regulations.

Hi a update :- Letter sent 13th May 2009-05-27 With reference to your letters dated the 20th April 2009 and 5th May 2009 ------------------------- in administration. I note that you have rejected my claim for the retention of title to the railings I supplied and fitted to the retaining wall of 74 ---------- ---------- on the following points. I also note your somewhat dubious advice that it is a offence” to issue proceedings against a company in administration without leave of the court. You reject my claim on the grounds that if the railings are removed holes will remain in the wall therefore you have to conclude that the railings have been incorporated. You reject my claim on the grounds that I failed to provide sufficient documentation to confirm that a retention of title clause was incorporated into my contract with ----- ---- ----. You reject my claim on the grounds that I failed to provide sufficient documentation to confirm that the goods could not have been supplied by another source. With reference to point (1) The goods are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. A judgement referred to a buyer who bought engines and incorporated them into generating sets. This incorporation did not alter the engines. They were still identifiable and could be unbolted and removed. In this particular case it was decided that both incorporated and unincorporated engines could be recovered. May I bring to your attention; the holes that would remain in the wall if the railings were removed would be holes that are the result of the fixing processes and not the result of damage caused by the removal process. May I further point out that these holes could be filled or even the bricks containing the holes could be replaced leaving no trace of the removal process. In any event as we discussed over the phone I am willing to remove the railings by ether of two other methods that don't involve leaving holes in the wall. The first being cutting the post at the base (no contact with the wall). The second being only the removal of the bolted panels (again no contact with the wall). With reference to point (2) may I bring to your attention that in the first instance there was a verbal agreement endorsed by the acceptance of my Order number 10021. My letter dated the 24th February 2006 included a copy of my Order number 10021 which clearly states GOODS REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF - ------------ UNTIL PAYMENT IS RECIVED. This Order was generated on the 8th January 2009 by the issue of------- ---- --- order number FM766. May I also bring to your attention my letter dated the 11th March 2009 “On the 15th November 2008 I was approached by --- ---s resident warden --- --- who asked if I would provide a quote for railings to be fitted to a retaining wall on the property of Mr and Mrs----- ---- ---- -----. Terms and conditions were discussed at this meeting ( I stated that I required no deposit and would not request payment until the work was done to their satisfaction, but I would require payment in full as soon as they were satisfied the work was complete. ----- ---- pointed out that payment in full could only be made by head office on the production of an invoice and that work could not commence without a order number being issued. I agreed to this on condition that the goods remained my property until full payment was received.) I consider these agreements where endorsed on the acceptance of my quote by ---- ----- on the 17th November 2008 and further endorsed on the 8th January 2009 by the issue of their order number FM766 and confirmed the Order dated the 8th January 2009 (copy was enclosed with my letter to you dated the 24th February 2009) The goods were delivered, and the installation work completed on the 31st January 2009 with a Invoice dated the 31st January 2009 issued for payment (copy was enclosed with my letter to you dated the 24th February 2009) With reference to point (3) may I bring to your attention that I have supplied you with a copy of Order number 10021 and a copy of Invoice number 10019. The copy of Order number 10021 contains --- ---- --’s order number FM766 which relates directly to the railings fitted to a retaining wall on the property of Mr and Mrs--- ---- --- ---. The copy of Invoice number 10019 clearly refers to 24mt railings 74--- ---. This invoice was in the words of --- ----- the Park Warden “rubber stamped” indicating that work was satisfactory and completed before he passed it on to head office for payment. I have also provided a photo showing these railing fitter to the property of Mr and Mrs --- ---- ------- --- ---- There are no other railings on or near to 74-- -----. The railing I supplied are unique, handmade and could not be supplied by another source. The railing I supplied are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. You have been supplied with a copy of a letter from - ----- verifying this. After seeking further advice and you are aware I claim retention of title for the railings fitter to the retaining wall of 74 --- ---- (my letter dated the 24th February 2009). If the goods are disposed of without my permission I will hold you personally liable. This issue has dragged on long enough. I have done everything I can to have this issue resolved, I am of the opinion you havn't done everything you could to resolve this issue. I give you 14 days notice to ether agree to the return of the goods, agree a settlement over these goods or give me permission to apply to the courts for a resolution regarding this issue. Please note that if you do nether I will apply to the courts for their permission to seek a resolution to this issue. Administrators reply 19th May 2009 I refer to your letter of 13 May 2009 and acknowledge safe receipt of same, As previously advised, this matter has been referred to our solicitors, Walker Morris, who will revert to you directly in due course. With regard to your intention to issue proceedings against the Company, the Joint Administrators recommend that you take independent legal advice in this respect. If you should have any further queries in this regard, please do not hesitate to contact me. My reply 21 May 2009 With reference to your letter dated the 19th May 2009 ---- ---- ----- in administration. After seeking further advice and you are aware I claim retention of title for the railings fitter to the retaining wall of 74 Lakeland View (my letter dated the 24th February 2009). If the goods are disposed of without my permission I will hold you personally liable. This issue has dragged on long enough. I have done everything I can to have this issue resolved, I am of the opinion you haven't done everything you could to resolve this issue. I gave you 14 days notice (my letter 13th May 2009) to ether agree to the return of the goods, agree a settlement over these goods or give me permission to apply to the courts for a resolution regarding this issue. Please note that if you do nether by the end of the notice I will apply to the courts for their permission to seek a resolution to this issue. Solicitors reply 22 May 2009 We refer to your correspondence with our clients, the joint administrators of the Company, in relation to your claim for retention of title on railings fitted to the retaining wall of 77 L------ --- ------- ---- -------. We have seen an order (number 10021) dated 8 January 2009 addressed to the Company relating to the provision by you of 24 meter railings for installation at 74 L----- ----. We have not seen any evidence to confirm whether this order was sent to the Company and as such please provide us with a copy of any fax header or covering letter under cover of which the order was sent. We note your comments to our clients regarding the identification of the railings and whether they can be removed from the property. Irrespective of this however, it is our assertion that the railings have now become part of the fabric of the property and as such the are now a fixture of the property rather than a fitting and title in them has passed. Yours sincerely ------- The letter I may send in response, any help or advice would be welcome! With reference to your letter dated the 22nd May 2009 --- ---- ------ in administration. You state that it is your assertion “that the railings have now become part of the fabric of the property and as such they are now a fixture of the property rather than a fitting and title in them has passed. I wish to inform you that “the railings” is a collective description of a number of individual items fitted together, of which only the five tubes of epoxy resin has changed state and would be deemed to be incorporated into the wall. It may be argued that the twelve posts attached directly to the wall with the epoxy resin, are now a fixture, but the posts are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. The eleven panels fitted between the posts are not attached to the wall, they are not a fixture of the property, they are fittings, they are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. The forty two stainless steel nuts, bolts and washers are fittings, they are still identifiable, they are in their original form, and they are capable of being removed and returned. I would insist that I have a valid retention of title and as we have failed to agree on this issue I request you agree a settlement over these goods or give me permission to apply to the courts for a resolution regarding this issue. I am informed by your client that these railings have been sold as part of “the Company” assets without prior notification or my permission. You are aware I claim retention of title for the railings fitter to the retaining wall of 74 ---- ---- and if the goods are disposed of without my permission I would hold your client personally liable, I now look to your client to agree a settlement over these goods or give me permission to apply to the courts for a resolution regarding this issue. This issue has dragged on long enough. I have done everything I can to have this issue resolved, I am of the opinion you haven't done everything you could to resolve this issue. Please note that if you do nether I will apply to the courts for their permission to seek a resolution to this issue.

Hi thats boosted my confidence i will get on with it and keep you informed of any progress thanks

hi took your advice and read as much as i could but the more i read the more confused i got. have no head for all this legal jargon. so been in touch with a firm of specialist solicitors who kindly arranged to give me some free advice over the phone. solicitor states that it is not a criminal offense to issue proceedings against a company in administration but no one can not issue legal proceedings against a company in administration without the permission of the administrators or the court first. advised that providing i am confident of my ROT (i am) i should inform administrators to accept and make arrangements or agree to disagree and allow me the have the issues settled by the court if they do not give their permission the i must seek the permission of the court to have my claim heard. solicitor also agreed the administrator is stringing it out with the hope i will go away. help with letter to administrator anybody? please

thanks read the artical very useful. will send letter monday as suggested. if i need to follow through with "an application under paragraph 43 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 for delivery up and/or under section 4 of the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977" along with a claim for costs incurred by such action I will need help as i have no idea how to go about this.

Thanks Andy who would you suggest i could PM. carn't access members list.