Financial debts being settled in court ...

[zcacogp]

Chaps,

A tale of woe, followed by a number of questions.

14 months ago, I was hit my an uninsured driver. Second time it's happened, don't tempt me to comment. Other guy gave false details, but was eventually traced. (By me, not the BiB, again, don't tempt me to comment.)

I (or my insurance legal expenses people) sued him for the cost of my excess, and time and expenses. He owes me just shy of £400. (Below the barrier for MIB involvement.) He has agreed to pay it back at the princely rate of £5 a month. He claims to be on Job Seekers Allowance, of £55/week. His expenses breakdown include the following (this is per week);

£6 Rent
£24 Living expenses
£10 Travel expenses
£10 Fine being paid off to Dept of Work and Pensions.
£5 Fine for driving without insurance, payable to Stratford Magistrates Court.

(I happen to know that the £5 fine/week relates to the accident he had with me - he was prosecuted for driving without insurance.)

So, that's the story, now the questions.

Does this sound like a reasonable expenses breakdown? Are there any grounds on which I can challenge these?

Given that these two expenses (totalling £15/week, or £60/month) are payable to non-private individuals, and he is claiming that these are preventing him from paying more to me (as a private individual), do I have any right to claim that he should be paying me before having to pay off these fines?

I strongly suspect that the character in question has more money than he makes out - he was driving a 4-year-old car at the time of the accident, and I believe I saw him 3 days ago in a Land Rover Discovery. If he has access to a car like this, I doubt he is living on JSA. Is there any way I can ask the court to probe his financial details in more depth? (To the point, I think he makes a living out of recreational pharmaceuticals. After the crash, I asked the BiB to attend the scene and as soon as the other driver learned this, his mate emptied an amount of stuff from the boot of the car and walked off down the road.)

I am informed that the legal expenses solicitors are employing a barrister to attend the court means hearing (next week) but given the shoddy service they have offered so far, I doubt that the barrister will be any more use than an underwater no smoking sign.

All help/advice welcome.


Oli.

P.S. Mods - if you think this belongs better in SP&TL then please do move it.

[Big Al.]

Probably would be better in SP&L it may well get lost in GG

Lets give it a try anyway, if you don't get many replies I'll move it back.

BTW £6 week rent, what's he living in a rabbit hutch!

[zcacogp]

Big Al,

I guess you are the one who moved it, in which case thanks.

£6/wk rent - no rabbit hutch, just living on council benefits, in a council house. As well as claiming JSA (benefit). And not insuring his car, so everyone else pays for his damage.

Talk about getting a free living off those who pay their way. Fines he pays are simply being paid back to the big central coffer the money came from in the first place.

What a country we live in <cue usual, very accurate, rant.>


Oli.

[wolf1]

If he's on job seekers allowance then he won't be paying rent as that will be covered by housing benefit. The same with council tax.

[munta]

As far as I recall, HB is only payable upto a certain amount (set by the govt). Anything over this amount has to be paid be by the tenant. This was brought in to prevent landlords from charging huge rents knowing that the local authority would pay them.

Then again, it is nearly 20 years since I last claimed.

[funkihamsta]

Correct. The £6 covers the excess over an amount set for the area. Prevents people taking the piss by living in palaces and claiming housing benefit to pay for it. (After all their are plenty of other ways to take the piss already).

You have his name, find out where he lives via phonebook, DVLA records or voting register. Spy on him going to work and grass him up to the DSS. Job done.

[zcacogp]

Chaps,

This is all well and good and very interesting, but does anyone know the answer to my earlier question - namely, can I claim priority over the other (state) debts owed on account of the fact that I am a private individual?


Oli.