Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Aesmith - Thank you for your recent interest in my issues.  Input on people's topics can be most useful from specialised experts or those that have similar experiences.  Some people really struggle with knowing what to do (I certainly do) - so it is most useful and helpful and reassuring when solid sensible advice is offered.  I have found there to be some very kind, helpful, supportive and legally knowledgeable people here on cag over the years - who give sound legal advice for people to roll up their sleeves and follow up on.   Of course, sometimes it can be quite challenging sifting the wheat from the chaff.  I don't have lawyer or barrister.  I sometimes attend pro-bono legal clinics for help.  And sometimes have access to barristers via a pro-bono service called Advocate.  Both ad-hoc. Pro-bono means 'free'
    • The Judge was wrong. The keeper is only INVITED to say who was driving, there is no obligation for them to say.
    • Member of the Question Time audience asks Richard Tice about Donald Trump.    
    • I hope Lord Frost is OK. Islamists and the woke Left are uniting to topple the West ARCHIVE.PH archived 18 Apr 2024 19:12:37 UTC  
    • Ok you are in the clear. The PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 for two reasons. The first is that in Section 9 [2][e]  says the PCN must "state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges ". It does not say that even though it continues correctly with blurb about the driver. The other fault is that there is no parking period mentioned. Their ANPR cameras do show your arrival and departure times but as that at the very least includes driving from the entrance to the parking space then later leaving the parking space and driving to the exit. It also doesn't allow for finding a parking spot: manoeuvering into it avoiding parking on the lines: possibly having to stop to allow pedestrians/other cars to pass in front of you; returning the trolley after finishing shopping; loading children disabled people in and out of the car, etc etc.  All of that could easily add five, ten or even 15 minutes to your time which the ANPR cameras cannot take into account. So even if it was only two hours free time you could  still have been within the  time since there is a MINIMUM of 15 minutes Grace period when you leave the car park. However as they cannot even manage to get their PCN to comply with the Act you as keeper cannot be pursued. Only the driver is now liable and they do not know who was driving as you have not appealed and perhaps unwittingly given away who was driving. So you do not owe them a penny. No need to appeal. Let them waste their money pursuing you . 
  • 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

Work programme is unreal!


jsdk
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4316 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

Hi everyone,

 

any advice on this problem would be greatly appreciated.

My son is currently in receipt of Jobseekers allowance,he lives with his partner and their 2 children.Last week he had a work programme appointment,he received a phone call in the morning from somewhere he had sent an application for a job to asking him to come for an interview,the time of the interview left him ample time to still go to the work programme,however the job interviews ran late and he had no credit on his phone to notify the people at the work programme,he arrived 9 minutes late and was told his jobseekers allowance would be sanctioned for 1 month,he explained the reason why he was late and was told to put it in writing,he did this and gave the name and phone number of the person who had carried out the job interview,he has received a letter saying going for an interview was not a good enough reason for him being late,they have never contacted the employer.This just seems crazy to me,he's on Jobseekers,he has to apply for a certain number of jobs or they sanction his money yet when he goes for an interview they still sanction it,he has applied for hardship money and has been given £80,ironic thing is that at his last work programme meeting they left him waiting for 50 minutes because they had no-one available to see him so it's ok for them to see him late but not the other way round.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should contact your MP with details and also your local paper. Nonsense like this is not what people pay their taxes for. The DWP have no business whatsoever behaving like this and they'll only stop when there's enough public anger about it.Tell everyone you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ronic thing is that at his last work programme meeting they left him waiting for 50 minutes because they had no-one available to see him so it's ok for them to see him late but not the other way round.

 

It seems this way. I was told they'll call me at a certain time. I waited 2 and a half hours for this phone call. If I was 2 and a half hours later, my benefits would be sanctioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is evidence for what you are saying which you should get in writing from the company where you had the interview. if going for a proved job interview is not a good reason for missing an appointment to discuss jobseeking then I don't know what is. Ask for a reconsideration of this decision. Failing that an appeal would be your next option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If your son got the job, then the work programme provider would be happy to

get their Brucey bonuses from the job outcome...

 

And are also happy to Sanction your son for attending the interview?...

 

Ludicrous!!!

 

The Work programme provider deserve to have all their “pimp money” sanctioned for all of this, so make

sure your son never lets them have anything from a job outcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your son got the job, then the work programme provider would be happy to

get their Brucey bonuses from the job outcome...

 

That's disgusting. Especially if it's a job that you've found yourself, applied for and went to interview with no help at all from the provider.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should contact your MP with details and also your local paper. Nonsense like this is not what people pay their taxes for. The DWP have no business whatsoever behaving like this and they'll only stop when there's enough public anger about it.Tell everyone you can.

 

There is so much evidence even just on this forum that the attitude being applied throughout Welfare rules is one of judgement and punishment. Surely this is not going to help those in need to meet those needs themselves in future, more likely to make them ill if they are not and worse if they are?

 

I am wracking my brain for how it could be the case that all these examples can come together and apply poliitical pressure....I am also sure that if anyone with Common Sense stopped to think about things, without the financial pressures to continue to alledgedly feed the fat cats, measures could be applied to achieve more at less actual cost...but maybe I am deluded about that?

 

Common sense has gone out of the window and sanctions do not fit what has happened in cases like this.....what the f--k was he supposed to do? He was damned either way as if he had not attended the interview he would undoubtedly been sanctioned and it is nto his fault he could not ring...what, realistically, did they expect him to do? Clone himself to be two places at once probably..... (oops I said realistically didn't I? lol).

 

I just know that my own mental state is deteriorating the more I learn of how punishments no longer fit the crime (if indeed there is truly a crime in the first place)...and by that I mean, as well as the case in point, the suspension and stoppage of benefits before the full facts are established and also where there is nothing concrete to prove one way or the other. We do not seem to be allowed any "benefit of doubt" either:mad2: if you excuse the pun!

Edited by Slatted
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all part of the benefits denial system we have in place now across the board from JSA to ESA.

 

In Camerons latest bout of verbal diarrhea about cutting housing benefit for the under 25's he slipped in some comments about CV's, not enough people were 'armed' with them, I believe this was a veiled reference to the current loophole being used against the WP pimps i.e. not giving them a copy that they can actually do anything with.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...