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 
        • 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

Cashing in a Pension Pot at 55 to buy a house while on benefits


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2368 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

OK, there are a few issues here. I'm not going to say whether or not I think it's wise to do what you propose, because I simply do not know the ins and outs of these things. But from a benefits point of view, here are the main things you need to consider.

 

1) You current entitlement to PIP and CA will not be affected, as you correctly note.

 

2) Your IS might be affected. You would need to declare the £80k sum to the DWP, and if you spent it on a house you would have to tell them that as well. They would then consider whether "Deprivation of capital" should apply in your case. If it did apply, they would treat you as still having the money and, since it's clearly more than £16k, would stop your IS. So the key question is "Is it deprivation of capital to use a lump sum payment to buy a house that will be your primary residence?" I'm not 100% sure.

 

You could ask the IS department. If they tell you that it's OK then it is OK because the rules state:

 

52843 Claimants or partners have not deprived themselves of capital for the purpose of getting benefit or more benefit if they

 

  1. say exactly what they are going to do with their capital and
  2. are told by the DWP it will not affect the amount of benefit they can get and
  3. do what they said they were going to do with their capital.

 

Otherwise each case is considered on its merits. They will look at how you spent the money, and whether you did so with the intention of securing or increasing entitlement to means tested benefits. That's the part of the rule that's often forgotten - it does not sound to me like you are considering buying a house solely so that you can continue to receive IS, but I'm not and never was a Decision Maker, and that's the person who makes the call. Considering worst case scenarios, you should plan for the possibility that your IS will stop and decide whether you could manage without it if necessary.

 

3) Future pension entitlement. Your contributory State Retirement Pension will not be affected. State Pension Credit is not likely to be affected either. They'd have a hard time claiming that you bought a house specifically to increase your SPC entitlement when 10 years have passed since the purchase. If they applied deprivation rules there and you appealed, the Appeals Tribunal would laugh the DWP right out the door and find in your favour.

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, yes - your own home is not counted as capital for IS purposes if you own and live in it prior to the start of the claim.

 

But if you live in a rented home, come into some money and use that money to buy a home, it's not obvious how that would be considered. I mean, the sensible thing to do would be to think of how that would reduce HB payments in future and allow the expenditure, but deprivation of capital rules aren't always that sensibly obvious.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...