Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Why does nothing ever get done? (Benefit Fraud)


hudsonhicks
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3487 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Perhaps the claim is correct based on her relationship and income and she is winding you up.

 

Does your "friend" open the alleged benefit mail in order to confirm the facts as you see them?

 

If the claim is correct perhaps thats why nothing is done by the HMRC.

 

DWP don't adminster tax credits or child benefit, but this is why the Single Fraud Investigation Service is currently going live.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DWP do not administer tax credits or child benefit.

 

HMRC administer both so it's them the complaint needs raising with. As far as I know HMRC haven't transferred to SFIS yet and as such would still investigate tax credit/child benefit only fraud.

 

If the person claiming tax credits and child benefit are also in receipt of a passported benefit then the DWP would investigate on HMRC's behalf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can people not just accept what i said at face value. I don't want to go into more details to "prove" it to you guys because i dont need to

 

I wouldn't even bother reporting unless i was 100%

 

I suspect the government doesn't really give a toss except to make a few token convictions that make the local newspaper.

 

 

I'll phone the HMRC tax credit line tomorrow.

 

Yes we can take it at face value.

 

However from a fraud investigators view point we get allegations like this all the time and when we look at the claim it's correct. We even have people ring back with further information or to report them again a few months later.

 

We cannot tell the person that the claim is correct, that we have investigated or if the person being reported is even claiming benefits, so it often looks like nothing is done.

 

So to flip it on it's head, maybe take it a face value that what she has told you is pure lies to annoy you.

 

If it is true keep ringing HMRC and reporting it, sooner or later they may action it, although they do not have many criminal investigators and mainly go down a compliance route. If you feel they aren't listening or taking action make a formal complaint to them or get your MP involved.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am, which is why sometimes my posts can be slightly harsh. However i try to help were I can.

 

We get this type complaint all the time, however out of say 10 allegations that are made only between 5 -6 are worth looking at owing to incorrectness and some are just plain malicious. Various agencies also receive 100's of reports of suspected fraud weekly per region and not all can be looked at. They will get risk scored based on information obtained within the reports and those with the best evidence i.e. partner name, employer name etc will get looked over the reports that just Z is working.

 

Tax credits is our biggest bug bear though, as we can't even get HMRC to do anything when we refer cases to them that are on a plate or offer to take the offences for them. This is covered under SFIS though so the issue will slowly be resolved.

 

So I do feel for the OP, but I also see it from the claimants view were sometimes the allegations is just purely malicious. I had a case that would get reported every few months, the claim was correct, however the same person constantly kept ringing stating nothing had been done and they were still on benefits etc. I wanted to say that it had been looked at and all was ok, but from a DPA view point we can't so just have to say that it would be logged again on the system and looked at if required.

 

Maybe she is on the fiddle and maybe the evidence doesn't prove she is and that is why nothing has been done. Remember investigators have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal case and probability for a compliance case. Without sufficient evidence you can't get either decision.

 

I am by no way sticking up for them, but there are a lot of hoops to jump through in order to resovle a case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...