Crazy Diamond
-
Posts
505 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Crazy Diamond
-
Reserve - Have you checked your online statements recently?
Crazy Diamond replied to Crazy Diamond's topic in Barclays Bank
Well done! It's one on the back burner for me right now, but glad to see someone called them on it and got their money back, brilliant! -
I am loving this so much. I have to say a big Mea Culpa, I never thought of FOI as a terribly useful tool in all my years of campaigning, I must admit I was completely, utterly, and totally wrong there. Amazing work.
-
Reserve - Have you checked your online statements recently?
Crazy Diamond replied to Crazy Diamond's topic in Barclays Bank
Absolutely. Any way they can to screw us over. -
TBH, until a judge tells me otherwise, I will not accept that the selling of the debt means that the DCA now can collect from me. If the debt has been sold, it is then written off against tax by the OC. They've washed their hands of it. That money no longer exists, if it ever did. They made what profit they could from selling it and then wrote off the rest. Does that mean I owe the "new" creditor? I don't think so. I didn't borrow money from them, I didn't buy goods from them, I never had a contract with them, so they can f* right off as far as I am concerned. So far, not one of them has tried to test this with me in court. And that definitely goes with processing data too! (not that it bothers me if they do, I don't give a toss whether my credit file is wrecked or not)
-
Neighbours continually parking on my drive advice needed
Crazy Diamond replied to Jolivic154's topic in Rural communities
Buy a wreck for £50 and plonk it on there, they'll soon get the idea. Or get some great big "no parking" signs on the drive. Cones. Barriers. More than one way to skin a cat. -
Bedroom tax on a room which is not a bedroom?
Crazy Diamond replied to snugs1235's topic in Benefits and HMRC
This is a proper legal opinion, and it's from Govan, so well worth following: http://govanlc.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/glasgow-advice-agency-calls-for-local.html It IS valid for the while of the UK, not just Scotland, btw. and this thread here debates things too: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?382573-100-000-Scots-could-cash-in-on-bedroom-tax-loophole&p=4144240&viewfull=1#post4144240 and finally: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/landlord-reclassifies-homes-to-avoid-bedroom-tax/6525752.article -
Oh, and the assumption that because they've bought the debt, they're also entitled to process your data... I don't believe that this has actually been tested in court, and I am still of the opinion that no, you can't transfer data processing rights with no comeback from the victim, sorry, subject, IMO, once sold off, if I notify the buyer that I don't give them permission to process my data, they can sod right off.
-
I have in particular a problem with the "if they have purchased my debt, does it mean the amount is paid off? - No, (...)". I can think of plenty of circumstances where this is quite the opposite of the truth, to put it kindly.
-
Yeah, I thought so too, it almost looks professional! I think there are a few more things which may be, if not downright wrong, somewhat misleading, and yes, the 6 yrs and CRAs thing is one of them.
-
Yes. Sorry, that is not true. Yes and no. The transcript is actually because most courts are not well equipped to deal with anything not on paper, they're a bit behind like that. Also, when submitting evidence, a copy had to be sent to the other side as well so a transcript is best anyway, and letting the courts know that the recording is available if they wish to verify it. Removing the assessor's name could in fact prejudice the transcript as it no longer would be a true copy. Either way, it's up to the other side to object if they want to, not really our concern. Indeed, and again, that would be up to them to object in the first place. Not quite. The exemption still applies if the recording is used for things relating to one's personal affairs, which a tribunal clearly is, so a recording is still admissible by the courts. Precisely.
-
No worries, I had already decided to ignore it anyway, for precisely that same reason.
-
And finally, page 4 (cos that's the way I roll):
-
page 3:
-
page 2:
-
Here we go, sorry about delay, my scanner was "doing a pope", as it will henceforth be known.
-
Good stuff, but I wish you had left it open, if only so I could have said to NoLegion that I fully intended to do what they asked and ignored the newbie. Feel free to transfer this post there if you wish.
-
These are the notes I made to myself a few months back (it IS about DLA, mind you, don't forget that!) with a view to putting together some more research on the topic (like the few other hundreds things I have on the back burner, and not enough man-hours to do it all!) but would welcome input if anyone has ideas on the subject: ********************** Regulation 13C(3) of Social Security (Claims & Payments) Regulations 1987 is a free-standing power to revise DLA on review. It does not additionally require one of the grounds for revision. However, it can only be exercised where the claimant's condition has improved to a greater extent than expected between the date of decision and the renewal date or has not deteriorated during that period to the extent anticipated by the decision maker. ************* My point is this: If this is the case, then the tribunal's decision is a legally binding one on the DWP, they can appeal it if they wish, but it is unlawful for them to disregard the tribunal's decision weeks or months after the event! Transpose this to a criminal hearing: The jury find the accused innocent, the judge sets him free, but then the police re-arrests him every few months for the same offence and tries to get him judged again? Ludicrous. And unlawful.
-
The DPA is anything but irrelevant, it's what the 50+ pages of this thread are about! and contrary to what you seems to believe, I have submitted link after link, case law after case law to support my stance. Wrong again. I have said that there is NO law preventing such, and asked you to provide such law if you knew one and it had escaped me. Still waiting. Where have I been rude? I challenged your mistaken beliefs, that's not being rude. I will when you provide the case law as requested above. Wow, I doubt anyone could have guessed that from your postings! Because....? You mislead people, cause disruption on the thread and confuse people further, and you want an apology? Is that from the same rule book where recording on private property because you said so?
-
FWIW, I have always felt that if the tribunal "recommends" something, it's just a way of them *telling* the DWP to do so, allowing for exceptional circumstances where a condition may improve, and the DWP are choosing as a tool to do what they want and ignoring the tribunal. I always felt that there is a challenge waiting to happen there. I am of the opinion that when a tribunal passes judgment, and a recommendation is still a judgment, it is binding on all parties, and that the DWP are stepping over their authority when they take it on themselves to reassess people even though the tribunal has told them not to. I don't have the exact quote right now, but I know one of the SS act specifically states that (for DLA, but I don't see why this couldn't be extended to other benefits) the tribunal's decision is binding, UNLESS there is good cause to show that re-assessment should take place earlier.
-
I have. I also know that people repeatedly tried to tell retailers about RLP practices and they were thoroughly ignored. That doesn't put them on the side of the angels from my point of view. Like I said, I doubt we'll ever know for sure.
-
In other words, you're arguing I'm wrong but can't show it and muddy the waters instead. Ok. Please yourself. One might wonder why you would want to try and put people off their rights on a consumer-orientated site, but hey-ho, whatever, I think I'll let the actions do the talking.
-
But would they? Surely before signing on the dotted line, their lawyers looked over the contracts and RLP's modus operandi before deciding to go with them? If simple people like us can tell that their methods are unlawful, can the retailer really plead innocence about this? Or did they just choose to close their eyes, or worse thought "what the hell, the end justifies the means"? I don't know, doubt anyone will ever find out, but I am deeply suspicious of the Nuremberg defence.
-
Ok, will dust off the scanner shortly.
-
Exactly. The good thing is that when it's getting to that high a level, it's harder and harder for them to dismiss as a "ah well,it's just a few scroungers unhappy at being caught out rhetoric". When their own people are telling them how badly they're f*cking up... Eventually, we have to hope there will be a reckoning and they won't be able to say "but we didn't know", but that is scant consolation when people are dying right now, are being made destitute, losing their homes and dignity... This lot are doing this for ideological reasons, we know that... We have to hope that when they get kicked out of power, lessons will be learnt from what the Committee are saying now, and it's all added weight to what us campaigners are saying, when it's being recognised at a level where they can't be accused of being just trouble-makers.
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS