Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
  • 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 4069 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...