£8723 tax credits finally written off!!

Indie_Kid

goffo wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:including those sectioned under the Mental Health Act!!!!

Get real - there you are sat up in your hospital bed in an intensive care unit, laptop open, scrolling through your online banking. Then checking your emails, oh forgot, must check the benefit forum to see if there are any replies to the question of other available benefits.


Even the DWP say that being in hospital qualifies you automatically for ESA as they accept that you are not in a position to do any work!

You get real! How many people in ICU are in a position to even sit up and use a laptop?

Oldernotwiser

goffo wrote: »

I cannot accept that you would willingly hand over more than £8000 to HMRC if there was a chance that under current law you need not do so.

And I cannot accept that someone would expect to be applauded for coming on here and boasting about how our money has been written off!

Oldernotwiser

sh1305 wrote: »

You get real! How many people in ICU are in a position to even sit up and use a laptop?

Don't fret, andy doesn't do irony.

Oldernotwiser

goffo wrote: »

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:including those sectioned under the Mental Health Act!!!!

Get real - there you are sat up in your hospital bed in an intensive care unit, laptop open, scrolling through your online banking. Then checking your emails, oh forgot, must check the benefit forum to see if there are any replies to the question of other available benefits.

Well done - I wish I'd thought of that.:rotfl:

seven-day-weekend

TBH, when my husband had his first breakdown in 1990, this could easily have happened to him. For about a year he was not capable of checking his bank accounts and if he had been able to do so it would just have been numbers on a page, it would have meant nothing to him. He would not have noticed any particular amount being paid in. Luckily he had me to look after him so a situation like this would not have arisen.

However, if it had, and he had been paid money that he was not entitled to and then spent it because his head was in such a state that he didn't realise, what do I think would have been a fair way to treat the situation?

TBH, I would expect the Benefits Agency/HMRC/whoever to be understanding and not demand the whole amount at once. BUT I would also have expected a fair repayment plan to be put into place and repay the money in instalments. After all, whatever the reason, the money would not have been his even though he had spent it.

However, the OP has done nothing illegal and it wasn't she who spent the money afaik. I think her husband should be pursued for the money if it is him that has taken and spent it. I don't think it should just be written off.

DX2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

TBH, I would expect the Benefits Agency/HMRC/whoever to be understanding and not demand the whole amount at once. BUT I would also have expected a fair repayment plan to be put into place and repay the money in instalments. After all, whatever the reason, the money would not have been his even though he had spent it.

Which they did.

krisskross

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

TBH, when my husband had his first breakdown in 1990, this could easily have happened to him. For about a year he was not capable of checking his bank accounts and if he had been able to do so it would just have been numbers on a page, it would have meant nothing to him. He would not have noticed any particular amount being paid in. Luckily he had me to look after him so a situation like this would not have arisen.

However, if it had, and he had been paid money that he was not entitled to and then spent it because his head was in such a state that he didn't realise, what do I think would have been a fair way to treat the situation?

TBH, I would expect the Benefits Agency/HMRC/whoever to be understanding and not demand the whole amount at once. BUT I would also have expected a fair repayment plan to be put into place and repay the money in instalments. After all, whatever the reason, the money would not have been his even though he had spent it.

However, the OP has done nothing illegal and it wasn't she who spent the money afaik. I think her husband should be pursued for the money if it is him that has taken and spent it. I don't think it should just be written off.

I believe the OP had back problems. I honestly cannot believe that even allowing for surgery this would have rendered her incapable of checking her bank account, or wondering where the money was coming from. Or indeed prevented her from opening the post.

little_miss_muppet_face

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

TBH, when my husband had his first breakdown in 1990, this could easily have happened to him. For about a year he was not capable of checking his bank accounts and if he had been able to do so it would just have been numbers on a page, it would have meant nothing to him. He would not have noticed any particular amount being paid in. Luckily he had me to look after him so a situation like this would not have arisen.

However, if it had, and he had been paid money that he was not entitled to and then spent it because his head was in such a state that he didn't realise, what do I think would have been a fair way to treat the situation?

TBH, I would expect the Benefits Agency/HMRC/whoever to be understanding and not demand the whole amount at once. BUT I would also have expected a fair repayment plan to be put into place and repay the money in instalments. After all, whatever the reason, the money would not have been his even though he had spent it.

However, the OP has done nothing illegal and it wasn't she who spent the money afaik. I think her husband should be pursued for the money if it is him that has taken and spent it. I don't think it should just be written off.

You looked after your husband so didnt allow the situation to arise. The OP had her husband looking after her therefore he shouldve noticed the money coming in.. therefore they are both to blame IMO...

Orville

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And I cannot accept that someone would expect to be applauded for coming on here and boasting about how our money has been written off!

Where was the boasting..? Please underline it in Black as i can't see any anywhere.

I thought the op posted in order to give people hope who maybe through no fault of their own be in a similar position.

You all seem to be forgetting that this all happened 8 years ago and it wasn't the op who frittered the money away, her ex actually emptied the bank account when they split. i am guessing that when they split she was still in hospital so was unable to think straight.

You know you lot really should read your comments sometimes and you might realise how retarted alot of them are. You jump in and criticise without asking for further information to corrobrate what you are saying and quite frankly make yoursels come across as stupid.

I am in agreememnt with the poster who said if it was a joint claim why did they not go after the ex partner?. simple fact is that they may have no idea of his wareabouts etc and have given up. think along the lines of the csa. How many fathers have never been traced and made to pay because of the inept way that departmenet is run and the rules they have to adbide by. I am guessing it is something similar with the tax credits system.

DX2

Orville wrote: »

You all seem to be forgetting that this all happened 8 years ago and it wasn't the op who frittered the money away, her ex actually emptied the bank account when they split. i am guessing that when they split she was still in hospital so was unable to think straight.
An awful lot of assumption there oh but that's okay because it's from you.
You know you lot really should read your comments sometimes and you might realise how retarted alot of them are. You jump in and criticise without asking for further information to corrobrate what you are saying and quite frankly make yoursels come across as stupid.
Really! perhaps you should take a little of your own advice

............................
Oh and from the OP's history her husband didn't leave her until 2008, but that's okay your allowed your assumptions eh ....