Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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
      • 161 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

Won esa appeal help what does this mean??


ESAHeadache
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4968 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

I have won my appeal but am unsure which group I shall be put into this is what the decision notice says.

 

The Appeal Is Allowed.

 

The Decision Of The Secetary Of State Issued On 12/01/2010 Is Set Aside.

 

The Tribunal Considers Descriptor 16 (b) Intiating and Sustaining Personal Action Is Appropriate And So 15 Points Are Awarded.

 

This Will Passport Mr (My Name) To Schedule 3 Descriptor 10 (b).

 

What group will I be put into I read up and schedule 3 descriptors mean limited capabiliy for work related activity. Wanted to confirm with people who have knowledge on hear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Schedule 3 pertains to people who have limited capability for work related activity therefore cannot be placed within the Work Related Activity Group, so are to be placed in the Support Group (though they can partake in work related activity if they volunteer to do so). You only need to meet one of the descriptors in schedule 3 to be placed within the Support Group, and the descriptor 16 (b) in schedule 2 awards the 15 points which brings you straight to descriptor 10 (b) of schedule 3.

 

You will be placed in the Support Group.

 

The tribunal should have explained that to you, it's good practice to place it in terms that the claimant can reasonably be expected to understand.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tribunal should have explained that to you, it's good practice to place it in terms that the claimant can reasonably be expected to understand.

 

Absolutely. This sort of thing makes me ratty (or used to, I should say). And to be honest, most of the processors who would be expected to implement this decision won't know what "This Will Passport Mr (My Name) To Schedule 3 Descriptor 10 (b)" means and what the implications are either, because that's DM language, not AO (processor, for those following along at home, heh) language. If it was AO language it would read "Processor should enter code 02 in dialogue 674 and ensure this is correctly reflected in dia 200/405 before ending to issue arrears" :-D

 

Of course, that makes no sense to customers either. The Tribunal would, ideally, state "put this person in the support group because...." and then use the legal language. That way everyone's happy. The customer is happy because they can understand what's going on, the processor is happy because they know what to do, and the DM is happy because the case won't be referred to them unnecessarily.

 

Interestingly, I was seeing increasing numbers of Tribunal results saying things like "This feeble excuse for a 'medical' wasn't worth the paper the result is written on. At the very least, ATOS and the DWP should be following their own guidelines."

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you will be surprised called DWP and were advised i've been put in the work related group and this is according to the decision. So I called my representative to confirm and he advised no the decision on the tribunal clearly states support group so I called the tribunal and luckily spoke to a judge who advised that the last paragraph does mean I should be in the support group.

 

Im surprised at the fact that these schedules are made by the DWP so how could they be so incompetent not to know exactly which group I should be in. The DWP have asked me to ask the tribunal to forward them a letter signed by the judge saying I should be in the support group and highlight reasons and the decision will be ammended accordingly.

 

Im quite upset and angry at the fact if they are saying they have gone by the decision of the tribunal and numerous body say exactly the same that I should be according to the last paragraph schedule 3 descriptor 10 (b) then why is it that the DWP are not doing the job right and putting people like me through another ordeal as the appeal wasn't enough to stress me out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Antone may confirm and I know this is stressful for you, but it could be part of the general scene of thousands of appeals and then staff who may not be properly trained or don't understand what should happen. No excuse, but as Antone will tell you, the majority of DWP staff aren't malevolent. I won't say it's not disappointing and I guess they could make savings by getting it right the first time round.

 

I hope you get some answers that help you.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Honeybee,

 

Thanks for your comment I spoke to the contact centre about 3 times today and finally spoke to a decision maker or the appeal section and they advised me the same that we are looking at the decision as we speak and you are in the correct group which is work related.

Its hard to understand if they are not disputing the tribunal decision and the tribunal have said that i have met the criteria for support group and therefore the decision they made is to put me in the support group why are DWP so annoying. Why can't they do their job right for once. If we made a simple mistake they would either prosecute or sanction benefit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be tempted to complain to the tribunal that the Secretary of State is ignoring their decision.

Edited by Zamzara

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Zamzara,

 

I have done exactly that and guess what after 4 days of arguing with the DWP today finally they gave in and put me in the support group after a angry call from one of the clerks at the tribunals service. Im so glad finally this nightmare is over thankyou very much for leaving a comment on this post. Wish me luck now to recovery lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi the way i understand the process is that although the Tribunal can make a decision as to what you group you are in they cannot enforce it!!!!!!!!!! there is a memo knocking around which will still allow a DM (decision maker) to ask for a statement of reasons from the Tribunal panel to decide on what group you are in. Glad you have given them a black eye.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The DWP can ask for a statement of reasons, yes. This is basically a statement from the tribunal which gives the reasons for their decision. They cannot just ignore the tribunal's decision and implement their own, though - they must follow the relevant procedure.

 

If, after reading the statement of reasons, the DWP disagree with the Tribunal's decision they can apply to the Tribunal for permission to appeal to the Upper Tier Tribunal - but they can only do so on a point of law.

 

TS do not have to grant permission for this, but if they do, the appeal will go to the Upper Tier tribunal (UtT) who will consider all of the facts of the case and the issues raised in DWP's appeal to decide if the First Tier tribunal (FtT) erred on a point of law in reaching their determination. If the UtT decides the FtT has erred in law, he can either substitute the decision himself or he can direct a new tribunal hearing.

 

A claimant also has the right to appeal to the UtT on a point of law.

 

Unless the DWP are appealing to the UtT, or there are other reasons why the FtT decision cannot be implemented immediately (see below) they must implement the FtT's decision.

 

There may be other reasons why FtT decisions cannot be implemented straight away, because of accidental error or because they are unclear in the context of the case. In these circumstances the DWP should seek clarification from the Tribunals Service. The only other thing that would prevent a FtT decision from being implemented would be where a party to the proceedings (claimant or DWP) applies for a set aside of the decision.

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...