Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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
      • 160 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

ESA85 ---ESA85A what is the diffrance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4041 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

just about to my tribunal paperwork and I was wondering what is the diff. between ESA85 and ESA85A

 

Also on medical report form

ADVICE

I advice that the person meets the criteria for having limited capability for work.

PROGNOSIS

I advice that a return to work could be considered within 18 months.

if advice to return to work 18 month why I am in wrag for one year

this person who have produce esa85a has lied so much are doctors allowed to lie? where is ethics?

Link to post
Share on other sites

:udaymorjaria:

 

An ESA85 is the report from a face to face assessment with a Atos assessor for employment n support allowance, cos of limited capability for work/work related activity.

 

An ESA 85A is a report from an Atos assessor on a claimant's limited capability for work/work related activity without a face to face assessment.

 

The Atos assessor's prognosis is only a recommendation which can be, and frequently is, over-ridden by a Jobcentreplus decision maker.

 

Atos and acceptable ethics? Tis my opinion that they're mutually exclusive. Their assessors are given targets (evidenced by the fact they get audited if they make too many recommendations of limited capability for work related activity) which, if followed and claimants don't appeal, will reduce Government spending on income replacement benefits.

 

Best wishes for your appeal, Margaret.

Edited by **Margaret**
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also tho the reports been overriden can be not in the claimants favour as well as in their favour, some people may assume wrongly if they dont get SG that it is down to ATOS.

 

I wonder how common it is for atos to reccomend SG but then the claimant gets WRAG.

 

Sadly tho I still dont have my ESA85 dispite requesting it multiple times and since my SG appeal didnt proceed due to successful reconsideration I will probably have to do a SAR to get it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well I guess that's an interesting point, as they say it is always the DM's decision in the end. Hence the job title. However there were so many lies on my atos report that the DM couldn't realistically done anything but found me fit, the tribunal on the other hand thought differently, thankfully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous. Obviously, I know very little about your situation; but a lot has probably changed in the last 18 years. Don't understand how they can use an 18 year old sick note.

 

I was going through paperwork which I received from DWP. D.M has not received copy of esa50 from ATOS my esa50 was received by atos but they lost it and dwp has tried there best to find but cannot find ( funny never ask me if i have copy of esa50) also d.m said in tribunal paper that i did not send any further evidence with my gl24 ( well I did send letter from my cons. from hospital clearly saying I can not walk more then 10 meters)

so much waste of tax payer monies tribunal time and above all it is stressful like hell until I get decision from tribunal

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous. Obviously, I know very little about your situation; but a lot has probably changed in the last 18 years. Don't understand how they can use an 18 year old sick note.

 

Yes Nystagmite lot of changes all for the worst 39 tab. a day with nine injection a day but that is life

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...