Display results as :

Rechercher Advanced Search

Latest topics
» Australia version of the ebook
by kevinfloyd Today at 5:27 pm

» getoutofdebtfree site clone
by Margo2104 Today at 2:58 pm

» Theresa May’s Plan
by Mrblue2017 Today at 1:05 pm

» Cabot- is there a realistic chance to fight them?
by waylander62 Today at 11:08 am

» Reality chat , every wednesday at 8pm (ish)
by Society of the Spectacle Yesterday at 7:31 pm

» 3 letter process
by projectzoo Yesterday at 5:27 pm

» Lowell - Cohen Solicitors
by waylander62 Yesterday at 12:04 pm

» raconteurs news
by LionsShare Yesterday at 10:25 am

» utility bill accounts
by LionsShare Yesterday at 10:20 am

» What response to Application for county court using N244
by waylander62 Yesterday at 1:29 am

» Arrow transferred to drydensolicitors
by Mrblue2017 Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:44 pm

» Drydensfairfax Soliciitors - Statute Barred?
by janloot Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:26 pm

» cabot/restons/county court
by Johnnyred Tue Mar 19, 2019 4:40 pm

» EU's Mandatory Biometric ID Card - on its way!
by Kestrel Tue Mar 19, 2019 7:06 am

» sol excalibre with cookiemonster
by Society of the Spectacle Mon Mar 18, 2019 7:31 pm

» Latest from CrimeBodge
by assassin Mon Mar 18, 2019 12:57 am

» Help needed please with Robinson Way
by codtree Sun Mar 17, 2019 11:08 pm

» CABOT filed CCJ application despite 3-letter process
by davidg4039 Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:47 am

» Lowell Letter of Claim
by waylander62 Fri Mar 15, 2019 12:30 pm

» Lowell Court order
by waylander62 Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:52 pm

» A previous member from old
by daveiron Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:40 pm

» Hi from South West of England
by assassin Tue Mar 12, 2019 7:01 pm

» Final Notice - Bailiff
by Solosmurf Tue Mar 12, 2019 3:28 pm

» Lowell threatening me Again !!
by barnwebb Tue Mar 12, 2019 1:33 pm

» Investigation as video of West Midlands Police 'restraint' goes viral
by Lopsum Tue Mar 12, 2019 9:28 am

» Intrum Finance letter advice please.
by Ithesoul Mon Mar 11, 2019 10:11 pm

» Overdraft LOAN has been sold to DCA
by Prometheus Mon Mar 11, 2019 7:56 pm

» sip parking notice
by lisa40 Mon Mar 11, 2019 3:30 pm

» Natural Health
by Solosmurf Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:46 pm

» Private messaging
by Solosmurf Mon Mar 11, 2019 12:03 pm

» More Lowell Success
by Mrblue2017 Sun Mar 10, 2019 3:32 pm

» 5G AND it's implications | WOW it is scary and can't be allowed
by Mrblue2017 Sun Mar 10, 2019 11:28 am

» Return to sender
by Ausk Sun Mar 10, 2019 8:39 am

» Should these missed payments have been a default?
by assassin Sun Mar 10, 2019 2:11 am

by assassin Sat Mar 09, 2019 2:01 am

» Collectica - Marston Holdings
by waylander62 Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:32 pm

» Collectica - Marston Holdings
by chopstick Fri Mar 08, 2019 8:58 am

by rotterdamuk Thu Mar 07, 2019 6:49 pm

» Latest Rich Planet vids Richard Hall
by daveiron Thu Mar 07, 2019 11:18 am

» 24 Storey Tower on Fire in Kensington - dies
by Awoken2 Thu Mar 07, 2019 10:35 am

» Rozer's get a PCN
by midnight Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:38 pm

» 5G Freedom of Information requests
by daveiron Wed Mar 06, 2019 2:17 pm

» Hoist Portfolio/Howard Cohen – Letter of Claim ?
by barnwebb Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:57 pm

» Rossendales in respect of Council Tax debt...
by waylander62 Wed Mar 06, 2019 12:50 am

» Private Banking?
by LionsShare Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:47 am

» This Could Be Just Down Your Street
by Lopsum Tue Mar 05, 2019 10:37 am

» intrum advice please
by waylander62 Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:27 pm

Moon phases

Warning To Site Members On Benefits

Go down

Warning To Site Members On Benefits

Post by assassin on Thu Dec 06, 2018 2:13 am

Simple question, how many people on this site are on benefits and have been unlawfully sanctioned and the DWP have followed the same pattern of NOT disclosing any information in writing, as to why their claims have been stopped or suspended, and from this year I mean after the new tax year of April 5th 2018 to date.

It works simply, they have been targetting benefits recipients on older contracts as these give the DWP no power over them for one distinct reason, under English Contract Law only the terms and conditions in force at the time of signing a contract apply and those conditions in older contracts means the DWP have no power over benefits claimants unlike new contracts which have a clause within them which does allow the DWP to change or amend the contractual conditions, anytime they like.
In most of the 61 cases I have dealt with this year it follows almost exactly the same pattern, they claim they (DWP) have introduced a new policy and in many cases it has been the policy of bringing additional identity information and if you bring this information you comply by "action" and have entered a new contract with them, but in many cases people have taken my advice and refused to bring additional information and stuck to the contract in force as:


This put these benefit recipients directly in the firing line and the well trained DWP staff tried threats and intimidation to force them against their own free will to enter a new contract, so why are these new policies an issue? because they were not in force at the time of signing a contract and are retrospectively applied contractual conditions, and what does ECL say about this:


This is directly from the High Court which has set numerous lawful precedents about this very subject and as most people know, Lawful trumps legal every time, but the DWP can only work in the legal.

How are they doing this? in the majority of cases they are claiming they cannot sign people on without additional identification, and they openly admit that this is a new policy, what they really mean is that it is a retrospectively applied policy which is void and cannot come into force, they conveniently ignore inconvenient facts such as the law and by doing this they are now in "breach of contract" and you have them. They refuse to do anything other than make their claims verbally as by doing this they try to create ambiguity and deniability, this basically means they use the old trick of denying this by the time honoured phrase of "I have no recollection of this" which is followed usually by "I deal with lots of clients and cannot remember every single case" which is a crafty way of denying something without incriminationg themselves. In most cases it is something along the lines of "you could have picked up this booklet on the street" and hope people comply, and when they dont they get flustered and this is where they make fraudulent claims and incriminate themselves. Look closely at what they claim, YOU COULD HAVE which means they are operating on an assumption and an unsubstantiated assumption, and they try to turn this assumption into fact and nothing more. Unrebutted claims stand in law so always rebut them.

Your claim will be stopped immediately and if you try to sign on again they will claim you are not on the list for signing on and when you try to establish the reasons for this they will claim anything to prevent themselves from giving you the reasons they stopped your benefits unlawfully and try to cover up other staff's unlawful actions.

They will try to fob you off for over 1 month as this is the time you are allowed for Mandatory Recosideration and then inform you that you are out of time, BULLS*IT as you have up to 13 months with justifiable reasons.


Posts : 1799
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum