Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
    • The Barclay Card conditions is complete. There was only 3 pages. This had old address on. Full CCA. 15 pages. The only personal info is my name and address. Current Address The rest just like a generic document.  Barclays CCA 260424.pdf
  • 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

Sending repeat sick note


riget
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4077 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, I'm appealing ESA and have had a letter saying the sick note is about to run out and need to send a new one before the 20th, but my doctor says they can't issue another till the old one runs out on the 20th, so it will be impossible to get it there on time, do they stop payment on the day they say, or will they give it a few days?

 

Also the DWP have arranged to see me saying they need to check my benefit claims, but they never mentioned ESA, and when I asked what it was about they just said it's to check the information they have and maybe something else, if it was about my ESA appeal would they have to say, or could it be they are just checking the information they have.

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:riget:

 

Government guidance to doctors about Med 3 (unfit) notes isn't as clear as it could be and doctors don't always read such guidance as there is. Credit where it's due; your doctor's realised s/he can issue sick notes pending your appeal hearing. Gaps between sick notes can be problematic but overlapping notes are fine. Also, if necessary, a Med 3 can be backdated. Worst case senario for you is the possibility that your next payment may be a couple of days late if Jobcentreplus are waiting for a note before they can issue payment.

 

Unlikely that Work n Pensions want to discuss your appeal. Far more likely to be a routine check, from a Benefits Integrity Centre or a compliance team, that everything's as it should be with your claim.

 

Regards, Margaret.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply, the overlapping sounds about right, like when I did mot's, you can't predate them but nothing to stop you doing another before that one runs out, I'll ring the doctors again!

 

Yes looking at the letter it does say, "customer compliance".

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for reply, the overlapping sounds about right, like when I did mot's, you can't predate them but nothing to stop you doing another before that one runs out, I'll ring the doctors again!

 

Yes looking at the letter it does say, "customer compliance".

 

Thanks.

 

Yes, I'm sure Margaret is correct here - Compliance would not call to discuss your appeal. Indeed, it would not be at all common for anyone to call regarding your appeal.

 

Re your med cert, again yes, there's no issue from a DWP point of view if certs overlap, and there's nothing to stop a doctor from issuing a cert prior to the expiry of the old one. As you say, they can't date it in the future, but that's not really the same thing.

 

If your cert expires on the 20th, the computer will withhold payments as of the 21st. Processors can't override this, but if you subsequently supply a new cert your payments will restart and any money not paid will be issued once said new cert is processed. To keep things simple, you'd want the new cert to be dated from the 21st at the latest, since under normal circumstances every day of your ESA claim must be covered by medical evidence until you are found to have LCW by the DWP or the Tribunal.

 

One exception to this: a gap in evidence of up to 10 days can be accepted provided that this is not your first cert.

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

you may have already done this, but an email or quick phone call to the practise manager, all surgeries have one I understand, often sorts it out. Just a suggestion as thinking of anything that could help. As a sufferer of anxiety this situation would have me fretting and pacing all weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to update this, had a phone call 30 minutes ago from reception, another doctor has decided he will do it, then 5 minutes ago, another call, he's changed his mind and now will not do it, so I have to wait till Monday for original doctor to do it.

 

How does the world keep spinning?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hope you get it sorted, riget. I have been sending the DWP (un)fit notes every three months for over four years now. As you have discovered, there is no problem with sending them in a little early, in fact that is recommended practice. The computer system will not allow payment to be generated for any period not covered by your note.

So, I always diary when mine is due to run out and get a new one at least a week to ten days before that happens. This allows time for it to be posted, received and processed. Do not rely on the DWP to remind you. When they do, it's usually too close to the date it runs out and sometimes they don't remind you at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to be an area GP's have discretion in. I have personally never managed to get a GP to provide a new sick note before the old one expired, but the DWP's practice to me is unusual, the best bet is as I said before ring and ask for a grace period explaining why.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it seems to be an area GP's have discretion in. I have personally never managed to get a GP to provide a new sick note before the old one expired, but the DWP's practice to me is unusual, the best bet is as I said before ring and ask for a grace period explaining why.

 

That is highly unlikely to work - ESA cannot be paid without a sick note where one is required. There is no way a processor can offer a grace period.

 

Now, admittedly, it's been a couple of years since I would spend several days a week running sick notes into the system, and the rules may have changed. The current, and unfortunate, political climate leads me to believe that if the rules have changed they won't have become more lenient.

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

it worked for me, I was given grace periods multiple times.

 

There was even that occasion where I got a letter informing me I had been paid 6-8 weeks worth of IB without a sicknote and asking me for a hugely backdated sicknote, I panicked, posted on here, estellyn informed me I shouldnt even be sending sick notes and I then managed to get it corrected. But that showed the system can have payments going with out of date sick notes.

 

Of course that was IB and is possible ESA has some kind of blocker where noone can overide it. If it does then thats just stupid. There has to be room for dscretion and common sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...