Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

DLA first payment date.


Life-Goes-On
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5163 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

If Its awarded on the monday then you should get a payment on the wednesday of that same week if its paid weekly, no three days waiting,

but if you are being paid four weekly then it will be the fourth wednesday after the award.

are you on any other benefits

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol :D a premium paid in time saves a lot of hastle

 

See I told ya Life-goes-on you are in safe hands now.;)

:-|Impossible is I'M Possible:lol:

If you think the advice given is useful then show your appreciation by clicking on the scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had money paid today bank account today, and also the letter about it has arrived.

The letter states I'm being paid from 05/11/08.

I have checked my paperwork which states 31/10/08,

also the tribunal paperwork states 31/10/2008.

Is it best to ring up and ask why the dates differer?

 

Also been paid 2009 Christmas bonus which was £10

 

Does anyone know what was the "qualifying week" was for 2008?

 

Thanks for any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had money paid today bank account today, and also the letter about it has arrived.

The letter states I'm being paid from 05/11/08.

 

I have checked my paperwork which states 31/10/08,

also the tribunal paperwork states 31/10/2008.

Is it best to ring up and ask why the dates differer?

 

Also been paid 2009 Christmas bonus which was £10

 

Does anyone know what was the "qualifying week" was for 2008?

 

Thanks for any help.

 

Its paid correctly, :)

 

awarded from 31/10/08 thats a friday

and you got paid it on the 5/11/08 thats the first wednesday after the award. If its a full weeks DLA then thats right.

 

As to the Xmas bonus its paid the first week in December,

Edited by MIKEY DABODEE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mikey, still a bit confused.

 

Letter states "This is for the DLA that we owe you from

05/11/2008 to 02/02/10.

 

Worked it out from the 5th and I make it the same as the letter (within 25p).

But if I worked it out from the 31st it's an extra £25.

 

So I know they haven't paid me for the 31st, 1st, 2nd 3rd & 4th.

 

So either they only start paying from the first Wednesday, there is a 5 day waiting, or they have calculated it wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Mikey, still a bit confused.

 

Letter states "This is for the DLA that we owe you from

05/11/2008 to 02/02/10.

 

Worked it out from the 5th and I make it the same as the letter (within 25p).

But if I worked it out from the 31st it's an extra £25.

 

So I know they haven't paid me for the 31st, 1st, 2nd 3rd & 4th.

 

So either they only start paying from the first Wednesday, there is a 5 day waiting, or they have calculated it wrong.

 

 

Did you got a full week on that Wednesday, its paid in arrears remember, also have you realised that you have uprates in the DLA in April 2009.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a typo above rate changed on the 6/04/09

 

I get part weeks when I calculate it.

31/10/08 to 5/04/09 22 weeks and 3 days. @ £35.50

Then 6/04/09 to 02/02/10 43 weeks and 2 days @ £37.30

 

Is there something I'm missing?

 

the rate changed for DLA on the 8/4/09 the wednesday of uprating week

 

 

i get £2383.10

 

you are due it again on the 3/2/10

Edited by MIKEY DABODEE
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got my Christmas bonuses from 2008 yesterday. (£10 + £60)

Getting a breakdown letter sent so will match it up with yours Mikey

 

Just have to sort out DP, but will leave that a week or so.

(Also I should be due the Cold Weather Payments from last year.

 

 

BTW does anyone know where in any of the DLA paperwork leaflets etc,

there is mentioned the "Payday" that stops you actually getting payment

from your award date?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...