cleopatra2

Gone quiet ? As far as I am concerned you are either trolling or unable to understand what you read. I am favouring the former. If people wish to claim the unfrozen pension when not entitled , that is up to the individual and of no concern to me. I have provided the DWP policy showing that the state pension is not immune to compulsory deductions to repay the overpayments and fines that may be imposed. The document also provided the legislation that the DWP relies upon when making such decision. The claim that the State Pension somehow has this magical immunity is so easily disproven. The State pension is lost if a claiment is imprisoned or placed in remand. The majority of frozen pensioners are aware that if they return to the UK the pension benefit is uprated to the level as if not frozen. However once they return to a country that is not uprated the pension reverts back to the original frozen level. The disqualifying and sanctionable clauses are only applicable to the issue of when a benefit is subject to a penalty of a Benefit Sanction as laid in the Social Security legislations. As the State Pension is not a Sanctionable Benefit and thus no such penalty is applied , it becomes moot.

Deleted

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-overpayment-recovery-staff-guide/benefit-overpayment-recovery-guide#appendix-1 See section 5 , particularly section 5.8, 5.9 and appendix 1 Which state that compulsary deductions can be made against the state pension benefit. 5.9 even provides an example where another benefit overpayment can be recovered from the state pension.

Like I pointed out . Your presumption is flawed at a basic level. The guidance you refer to states If you are charged with benefit fraud There is no obligation on behalf of the DWP to commence criminal proceedings, or even make a claim of fraud. There are other possible criminal charges available other than fraud. The DWP can and are recommended in such cases to use the civil powers available. In addition the overpayment calculation and recovery are separate from any criminal proceedings.

You are talking rubbish. The statements/guidance you are quoting states that the Benefit cannot be reduced. This simply means that the DWP have to credit the claimant , in this case a pensioner with the value of the state pension. Take note it's states the Benefit. It does not state the claimant must receive the benefit in full. As an example a person who claims housing benefit may have the benefit paid direct to the council , landlord or to their bank account. Regardless how the housing benefit is paid the claimant is still regarded as receiving the benefit amount. However let's just assume your position is correct in the case of a charge of benefit fraud on the state pension. The CPS guidelines on such a situation is that the DWP does not commence criminal charges but use the civils powers available. Thus the DWP start proceedings to apply a fine for failure to notify a change of circumstances without reasonable excuse. They then calculate the overpayment and request the repayment. Failure to reach an agreement , the overpayment on accounts legislation allow the DWP to deduct amounts from the state pension to clear any outstanding debt. It now should be obvious that the DWP has not charged the pensioner with fraud thus the statement)guidance about sanctionable / non sanctionable benefits is moot.

Ok cheers Missed that

Can you clarify if you have cancelled the booking. Your OP is a bit ambiguous In one paragraph you state that you requested a return of deposit because of wanting to cancel The next following paragraph the manager refuses even though you would not be picking up the vehicle for another 2 weeks. The 2nd paragraph can be read as though the booking is still active.

The issue I see is that you entered into an agreement and then terminated that agreement. Normally in such contracts/agreements contain penalty clauses exist within certain limitations. The deposit usually is only withheld and released after the rental agreement has been concluded. Depending upon the agreement and termination it is possible that the company is waiting to deduct any termination penalties before releasing the deposit. It all depends upon what you agreed to.

This is the part that raises a red flag for me. If this statement is accurate it would invalidate the drivers insurance. An insurance company will not insure a criminal act.

Yes. However Britman last update states the police dropped the case. His wife who is evidently well connected lost interest in going to court after being enthusiastic. The police officer dealing with the case died unexpectedly. Whilst I don't dispute the accident occured , some of the other aspects are suspect

If I recall the original incident as reported by the OP. He was slowing down approaching red lights when hit in the rear by a vehicle. This is a big step to make a claim of attempted murder , as opposed to just a traffic accident. To satisfy the murder claim intent to kill would need to be established.

If you want gpu onboard CPU then you need to avoid the F version of the CPU as these do not have integrated graphics.

Does that include yourself ? Joking aside, most people stop learning the language at the basic to low intermediate level. Unfortunately this is less than the standard of a child in the native language. The majority of adults when conversing in their native language with other adults expect the level of conversation to be of an equal standard. An Adult will find the conversation uninteresting if the other adult speaker can only communicate in a child like manner.

British Nationals are being discriminated against. For examlple , women , young workers , and the disabled are group of workers that are likely to be on the lower end of pay.

I really do not understand the purpose of the question. Whatever checks the Passport Office carry out regarding passing information to other departments is moot. When a passport is due for renewal then it requires to be renewed. The alternative is either return to the UK or let the passport expire with the consequences of becoming illegal. What information is shared across departments cannot be mitigated .

In addition for every migrant sent and accepted by Rwanda. The UK has to pay for the migrants upkeep and support for 5 years. In effect the UK taxpayer is subsidizing the Rwanda government whilst having to accept any vulnerable Rwanda refugees in return. It is also worth noting back in 2011 the Conservative party entered into a partnership with the Rwanda government.

The retrospective term is referring to immigrants current visa. Once that visa is required to be renewed then the new income requirement is in play. I would suspect any current spouse in the UK who could not meet the new financial requirements would have a claim under the right to a family life. This would arise because the immigrant is already in the UK and settled .

I have not seen any reports or comments from any off the main parties involved that dispute/contest the Telegraph report into the existence of the letters or content. The fact the Palace have said that the King is looking for the source of the leak, supports beyond any credible doubt that the letters do exist.

I have a preponderance of evidence going beyond probability that the letters exist and what the Telegraph reported is True. The most obvious that proves the existence of the letters beyond credible doubt is that the King as initiated an investigation into the source of the leak because only an handfull of persons have seen the letters.

That is something I cannot do. Firstly I do not think the actual letters are in the public domain. Secondly I would be surprised if any outlet would publish them. They are obviously private and deal with confidential matters and we're never intended to be in the public domain. However I have no reason to believe that what is published in the Telegraph is incorrect.Neither Meghan, Buckingham Palace Royal Sources or Royal corresponedents have contested the accuracy of the Telegraph article.

The letters were leaked to the Telegraph. In addition we know from Valentine Low they are genuine. Valentine Low initially cited Meghan as the leak. However after correspondence with Buckingham Palace and the Sussexes he acknowledged that this assumption was incorrect.

It is known that comments about Archie's skin colour was made. The leaked letters where the then Prince Charles acknowledges the comments were not made in malice.

Lady Colin Campbell named the royal concerned , some time ago. This incident is referring to a letter sent sent by Meghan to the RF after the Oprah interview .The book named 2 members of the RF who had a conversation regarding the letter.

This arises from the misspelt ลูก

I do not see how Braverman gets back into the cabinet. After being fired by 2 PM , and given her display of public disloyalty . It seems very unlikely any future PM will re-appoint her to a cabinet position.