Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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 4322 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...