A frugal life is an easy life!

It is disturbing enough that a 3rd party company is handling childcare cost aspects of tax credit claims and that HMRC will not discuss them at all, but should this same firm have the power to suspend or stop a claim?
I don't think so.

Recently had a firm called Concentrix, claim that over payment had been made and insisted that if written confirmation wasn't sent to them in a month then the full claim would be stopped.

After running around between the former nursery and concentrix, their advisor stated that there was no record on the HMRC customer file, that HNRC had been notified this had ceased, hence the over payment.
Another hour on the phone to concentrix, before finally went for the "I'll speak with your supervisor now" route, where, on explaining that the former nursery no longer had sprog2 on file as she hadn't attended there in almost a year, as if by magic, the correct HMRC information was suddenly visible to a concentrix advisor!
Within two days a letter was received stating that "I have decided that no further investigation is required and your claim can proceed"

"I"?
Shouldn't 3rd party companies working for HMRC have to produce evidence to HMRC and shouldn't it be them that take a decision to stop a claim?
Lest we forget, any company working as a third party will be being paid on results, a very dangerous game to be playing when people's income is at risk!

Next we have Experian, a company I have had the misfortune to have dealt with in the past.
"You can now renew tax credits online via the website" the 2 minute long answering machine tells me.
I went to the website where a number of companies are available to renew online, but only Experian was available in this case.

All you will need is a driving license or passport number.

Off I went to renew, question after question about personal circumstances, etc. Not a single mention of passport number or driving license reference.
I closed the browser, as it looked distinctly like it was farming for personal and financial information.
At no point in time did experian's website ask for input of a driving license or passport number.
It stated authorisation couldn't be completed, but to come back and try again once I had "details of a credit card, loan, mortgage or current account with overdraft facility"

I registered a complaint via HMRC website.
While this was being investigated, I started to receive junk mail, inviting me to take out credit cards or loans that would "improve my credit rating"
HMRC assured me that this was merely coincidence and confirmed that experian are not allowed to use HMRC data in this way, regarding their 3rd party companies.

Funny though, that since registering a formal complaint for this, the junk mail I had started to receive, has completely stopped. I suppose this is coincidence as well?

Finally we have HMRC advisors themselves.
The renewal was processed and the new information came out.
Only both incomes were wrong, the income that was no longer relevant had not been changed, the overall earnings were incorrect and income for the year ahead was also increased and didn't even add up with the incorrect income they had entered.

When I finally got through on the tax credits helpline, 30 minutes of waiting and discussing the case, the advisor came back on the line with an amazing claim.

"It wasn't the last advisor's fault that figures were not accurate, it was your employer that entered the income earned incorrectly on HMRC's system!"
- But both people do not work for the same employer, so this cannot be true?
"Errrrr but they provide income information"
- One person hasn't got an employer!
"Well anyway, I've corrected all the information but it won't change the value of the claim"
- It clearly states that any change of income should be given to the tax credits office to avoid over or under payment?
- In the past payments have always been adjusted on the new information?
"Oh well it probably will affect your payments then!"

The claim was only updated from today and not from a month ago when it should have been.

If HMRC staff do not know what's going on then how are people who have to claim going to know?
This is not some commodity to be traded or a product, this is essential income that people need to be able to LIVE, many of the more than 21 Million claimants, live week to week and need this safety net needs to be provided with care and attention to detail.

This might even cut down on time needed to help more people? A crazy idea I know...

Diabetes UK (http://www.diabetes.org.uk) list the symptoms of diabetes as;

* passing urine more often than usual, especially at night
* increased thirst
* extreme tiredness
* unexplained weight loss
* genital itching or regular episodes of thrush
* slow healing of cuts or wounds
* blurred vision

Royal Blackburn hospital staff admitted a patient with all but one of these symptoms.
Royal Blackburn hospital staff tested the patient's blood sugar levels, they got a result of 19.6

Did Royal Blackburn hospital staff...

A. Alert the consultant of the clear symptoms and result of diabetes and retest to confirm?

B. Alert the consultant/staff on the ward the person is sent to and make sure patient is retested/treated?

or C. Alert no one, do nothing about the symptoms/treatment, apart from write the result in the notes and leave it?

Royal Blackburn hospital staff chose C.

Royal Blackburn hospital staff CHOSE to ignore all the obvious symptoms, CHOSE not to retest and diagnosed "terminal cachexia" instead, without any tests being carried out!
Regardless of NICE guidelines!

What would you do?

EPCRC guidelines recommend that the enteral route should be used in certain patient groups (eg, to reverse weight loss) in patients with Cachexia

Patient admitted to Royal Blackburn Hospital with a rash to arms and legs. Within 24 hours (and no tests carried out) they are diagnosed with "Terminal Cachexia" - NICE guidelines state that the patient should be enternal fed (tube through nose directly into the stomach).
Would you...

A. Not tell the family, keep the patient in hospital for a further 2 weeks and continue to try and feed orally (with just 6 out of a possible 30 meals)?

B. As A, then send the patient home, with supply of protein shakes and tell family to try and get them to eat more, the family then has to wait months after the patient's death for the hospital notes before finding out any information about this diagnosis and lack of treatment as set out by NICE guidelines?

C. Follow NICE guidelines for enternal feeding by tube into stomach and notify the family at the first instance this diagnosis was made?

Royal Blackburn Hospital chose B

Royal Blackburn hospital now state, "NICE guidelines are just guidelines and do not need to be followed"

What would you do?

The Royal Blackburn Hospital, in conjuntion with East lancashire Health Trust (ELHT) have so far done their upmost (working with the East Lancashire Coroners office) to refuse to answer questions, look at evidence and reveal requested information, into the action (or lack of) that could have cost an actual human being their life, before it was "their time."

I know these posts will touch many people who pass by here, they may spark outrage, they may be viewed with apathy, they may be denied, ignored or simply dismissed as false, if this be the case, the Royal Blackburn Hospital, East Lancashire Health Trust and the East Lancashire Coroners office, can happily contact myself and answer for their own conduct/action/lack of action.
I have attempted several times, over several months, to obtain information or have them look at the physical evidence in this case, but they ignore all requests to do so and try to fob me off at every turn.

I was pondering on how I could get the information I have across, in the public domain, without a long winded post of endless facts and test results. In my limited capacity as a member of the public, I have decided on a quiz!

This way, I can recall small factors of the case and you get to decide (via multiple choice answers) to decide what should have been done.

I make no apologies for the sometimes uncomfortable questions and answers listed here.
Take a look, see what you think, I'd value your opinion. Thanks.

For the best part of two years O2, then Lowell Financial Ltd via various debt collectors, have been chasing me for a debt that I did not owe.

Late 2014, they instructed solicitors to persue me through the small claims court for an amount of around £950.
I received notice from their solicitor (Bryan Carter solicitors) this week, that the case has been "discontinued" for the full amount.
In plain English, they are no longer seeking any payment and the full "debt" and their action in the small claims court has been stopped.

Case won so all's well?

No actually, all is not well!

In the process of this case, I discovered several things:

* In a small claims case put through the Northampton county court business centre, the claimant can attempt to "strike out" the defence, once it receives a copy, in effect winning the case, without any representation for the defendant.
This shows serious bias, in favour of a claimant.
Claimant submits a claim saying you owe them money - you file a defence (thinking it will be sent to an independant local county court, where both sides can be heard) - the claimant then receives  a copy of what you have filed as your defence - claimant can then pick apart your defence and attempt ot have it struck out.
If successful, then the defence will lose the case.
Looks very one-sided to me!

* A national company such as O2 in this case, can keep inaccurate account records of phone conversations on a regular basis and nothing is done about it.
I asked on more than one occasion, for a copy of records, each time I was refused.
It came to light, during my own investigations, that O2 staff promised to transfer across an account to the name of the correct person, once they had reached the age of 18. Over successive upgrades they failed to honour this and failed to record this accurately on the account notes after it had been promised.

* OFCOM (regulator for the mobile phone contracts industry) and the Communications Ombudsman do not know which law applies to mobile phone contracts.
Are people of the UK now only protected if an ombudsman deems a company in breach of "Guidance" and vague regulations, which the ombudsman does not enforce and the regulator (OFCOM in this case) only enforce to ensure the industry works smoothly and doesn't impede the needs of the business?
That both organisations show such little knowledge of common law in England and Wales and fail to display any inclination towards upholding it, which has legal precedent for over 100 years, is deeply disturbing for consumer protection in the UK!

So for all the messing around, the phone calls, etc. I get not a single apology or admission that I was right in the eyes of common law in England and Wales...