Search
Latest topics
» The infamous DP continusby urchinatheart Yesterday at 3:01 pm
» Call to the DVLA
by urchinatheart Yesterday at 2:36 pm
» BEWARE OF TSB BANK
by daveiron Sun Mar 17, 2024 6:53 am
» SAR dispute
by RaspberryBlu Sat Mar 16, 2024 7:18 pm
» Help / Advice needed on ongoing neighbour harassment
by memegirl777 Sat Mar 16, 2024 5:51 pm
» United Kingdom? Really?
by assassin Sat Mar 16, 2024 4:17 pm
» DWP and HMRC alleged debts
by assassin Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:20 pm
» Serial Posty been awarded £10'000 for a fake bite
by memegirl777 Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:05 pm
» HSBC advice please.
by Trishiapp28 Wed Mar 13, 2024 7:36 am
» He is going to save us again
by flyingfish Sun Mar 10, 2024 12:00 pm
» Government fraud
by midnight Sun Mar 10, 2024 7:01 am
» THIS IS THE ONE ?
by daveiron Sun Mar 10, 2024 3:45 am
» how to remove a shareholder?
by scrwm Fri Mar 08, 2024 12:06 pm
» I DO NOT CONSENT [62%] - ReformUK got 5% of the electorate. Labour 17%
by badvoc Thu Mar 07, 2024 12:25 pm
» What can ai do about Santander
by Godfastro Thu Mar 07, 2024 11:47 am
» Useful videos Council Tax
by daveiron Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:05 pm
» broadcaster vs me
by scrwm Tue Mar 05, 2024 4:37 pm
» The new GOODF process works
by urchinatheart Tue Mar 05, 2024 10:45 am
» Worth a watch
by LionsShare Tue Mar 05, 2024 9:11 am
» Farmers IsThis What's Needed?
by LionsShare Mon Mar 04, 2024 8:46 pm
» Debt Bomb 11
by Biggiebest Sun Mar 03, 2024 10:05 pm
» accepted dca alleged debt
by Mrblue2015 Sun Mar 03, 2024 5:09 pm
» DVLA
by daveiron Fri Mar 01, 2024 9:20 pm
» Solicitors contacted me via e-mail asking for money.
by Kaddabriol Thu Feb 29, 2024 2:12 pm
» Claiming again
by LionsShare Thu Feb 29, 2024 11:07 am
» Useful Utility Vids
by LionsShare Wed Feb 28, 2024 1:59 pm
» what the bank of england runs the country?
by LionsShare Mon Feb 26, 2024 3:54 pm
» know who you are volume ??
by LionsShare Mon Feb 26, 2024 12:19 pm
» New Member
by daveiron Mon Feb 26, 2024 11:55 am
» Learning New Skills _Pt 2 Buying Tools
by assassin Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:35 am
» Learning New Skills _Pt 2 Buying Tools
by assassin Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:33 am
» Learning new Skills Part 1
by assassin Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:27 am
» General Equity?
by LionsShare Tue Feb 20, 2024 7:03 pm
» Visit by appointment notice
by Moonbabymum Tue Feb 20, 2024 4:37 pm
» Discussion on Info'd Vids
by LionsShare Tue Feb 13, 2024 11:52 am
» debts loans mortgages etc (tear off slips?)
by LionsShare Mon Feb 12, 2024 3:54 pm
» Quick one
by Lopsum Sun Feb 11, 2024 6:03 pm
» debt settlement payoff
by daveiron Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:58 pm
» Council tax and summons for arrest
by LionsShare Fri Feb 09, 2024 2:17 pm
» Council Tax (getting answers)
by LionsShare Fri Feb 09, 2024 12:57 pm
» council tax 1st of april
by daveiron Sun Feb 04, 2024 9:46 pm
» DSAR
by daveiron Sun Feb 04, 2024 9:28 pm
» Warning about a previous post
by Mrblue2015 Sat Feb 03, 2024 5:10 pm
» Please leave a comment on this site
by daveiron Fri Feb 02, 2024 10:01 pm
» Lithiun Battery Dangers
by badvoc Fri Feb 02, 2024 1:52 pm
» its a trap
by LionsShare Thu Feb 01, 2024 9:49 am
» Car In Trust
by LionsShare Tue Jan 30, 2024 3:05 pm
» Honest Nottingham Po-lice
by assassin Sat Jan 27, 2024 4:11 am
» Why you rebut a complaint
by assassin Sat Jan 27, 2024 4:05 am
» Village Winter
by assassin Sat Jan 27, 2024 4:03 am
» Sand Batteries
by assassin Tue Jan 23, 2024 5:45 pm
» Hoist Portfolio Holding Limited
by Indebttoo Mon Jan 22, 2024 11:03 pm
» Occupier
by assassin Sun Jan 21, 2024 5:27 pm
» Electric Vehicles
by assassin Sun Jan 21, 2024 4:54 pm
» *** URGENT *** PLEASE HELP
by daveiron Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:02 pm
Moon phases
Warning To Site Members On Benefits
Page 1 of 1
Warning To Site Members On Benefits
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:
ONLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE CONTRACT APPLY
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:
RETROSPECTIVELY APPLIED CONTRATUAL CONDITIONS WERE NOT IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING A CONTRACT AND CANNOT COME INTO FORCE AS THEY ARE VOID AB INITIO
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.
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:
ONLY THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE CONTRACT APPLY
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:
RETROSPECTIVELY APPLIED CONTRATUAL CONDITIONS WERE NOT IN FORCE AT THE TIME OF SIGNING A CONTRACT AND CANNOT COME INTO FORCE AS THEY ARE VOID AB INITIO
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.
assassin- Admin
- Posts : 3547
Join date : 2017-01-28
Location : Wherever I Lay My Head
Similar topics
» WARNING ,To all new members
» ...Cannabis does it have medical benefits?
» Help For All Site Members
» On Benefits- Must Read This
» Some of the benefits of becomming a Labour MP.
» ...Cannabis does it have medical benefits?
» Help For All Site Members
» On Benefits- Must Read This
» Some of the benefits of becomming a Labour MP.
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|