Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • 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.
  • 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...