Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • 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.
  • 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

NHS Prescription Charge Penalty


gleno
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2383 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

My brother has been off sick with a disablity (both physical and Mental Health) for more than a year. He is not receiving any income from his employer as his sick pay and SSP run out long time ago.

 

He and his wife are in receipt of Universal Credit and my brother is also in receipt of Personal Independence Payment and more importantly due to his mental health not in a state of mind to take rational decisions. Their combined earning for the period was more than £935 however my brother's income was £0. Secondly when I last checked around last year December this net earning requirements used to be individual earnings (thats been changed without me realising). However, at the pharmacy I always show his proof that he is in receipt of Universal Credit as there is no boxes for Universal Credit as yet, nor is there any detailed information about Universal credit earning limits etc and pharmacists asks me to tick the box .

 

He has received this penalty notice from NHS asking him to pay £17.20 for prescriptions and £86 penalty. It says "Your representative (me) incorrectly claim that you (my brother) was included in an award for Income Support or Income Related Employment and Support Allowance.

 

I just checked NHS Business Services Authority website and found following:

 

Prescriptions collected on or after 1 December 2016

 

To be entitled to claim free NHS prescriptions you must be receiving Universal Credit, either as a single person or as a member of a couple, and:

  1. for the last complete assessment period* you and your partner (if you have one) had either no earnings or net earnings** of £435.00 or less. Or;
  2. for the last complete assessment period* you and your partner (if you have one) had either no earnings or net earnings** of £935.00 or less, and had a child element included in your award or had limited capability for work

You would also be entitled if you are a dependent child or qualifying young person of someone who meets the above criteria in paragraph (b).

 

My Question is:

 

1) Is he/is he not entitled to free prescription? Specially when it states in section (b) "OR HAD LIMITED CAPABILITY TO WORK"

 

2) Is he liable to be fined knowing someone (me) has ticked the box on his behalf?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi This link may help its the information that's given to pharmacies http://psnc.org.uk/our-news/universal-credit-update/

looking at it it seems they are saying applicants should have a letter from UC stating entitlement - do you have one of these, it does seem they are supposed to ask if you are still entitled and to warn you that you could face a fine if not, but that wont negate the fine if they didn't, as it seems from other info I have read pharmacists have been subject to violence and abuse if they do ask so would seem they would rather rely on the NHSBSA investigating (and I cant say I blame them)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have since looked into the issue including the link you have provided and found the actual problem.

 

 

There was a change in rules in December 2016 in terms of UC and NHS free prescriptions.

 

 

Prior to the rule change to be eligible, a person needed to be in receipt of UC and should've had an income of less than £935 (my brother's income is £0).

 

However After December 2016 the new rule changed the £935 income from being Individual earnings to Household earnings.

 

 

Taking his wife's income in consideration his household income is slightly over £1000 mark therefore he due to the rule changes got affected.

 

 

The biggest problem I have with all this issue is that there is so much lack of information and ambiguity about Universal Credits. Even pharmacists (even though I don't blame them for not knowing) have no idea about Universal Credit.

There is not even a box behind prescriptions for Universal Credit.

 

 

He was under assumption if circumstances around his UC haven't changed then he assumed related benefits such as UC haven't changed either, specially given lack of knowledge and communication where no one has sent him a letter or anything to inform about these changes in rules.

 

Secondly he has been suffering from his own illnesses and last thing is him just keep on checking about changes in various rules. Any normal person would be under assumption that if none of circumstances around UC changed then why would be associated benefits would change?

 

I have contacted NHSBSA appealing on same grounds and have asked them to help us pay for any other prescriptions since this one as they are likely to be affected due to same reasons and last thing is we receive an individual fine for every single prescription.

 

Any thoughts from other people are welcome

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have since looked into the issue including the link you have provided and found the actual problem.

 

 

There was a change in rules in December 2016 in terms of UC and NHS free prescriptions.

 

 

Prior to the rule change to be eligible, a person needed to be in receipt of UC and should've had an income of less than £935 (my brother's income is £0).

 

However After December 2016 the new rule changed the £935 income from being Individual earnings to Household earnings.

 

 

Taking his wife's income in consideration his household income is slightly over £1000 mark therefore he due to the rule changes got affected.

 

 

The biggest problem I have with all this issue is that there is so much lack of information and ambiguity about Universal Credits. Even pharmacists (even though I don't blame them for not knowing) have no idea about Universal Credit.

There is not even a box behind prescriptions for Universal Credit.

 

 

He was under assumption if circumstances around his UC haven't changed then he assumed related benefits such as UC haven't changed either, specially given lack of knowledge and communication where no one has sent him a letter or anything to inform about these changes in rules.

 

Secondly he has been suffering from his own illnesses and last thing is him just keep on checking about changes in various rules. Any normal person would be under assumption that if none of circumstances around UC changed then why would be associated benefits would change?

 

I have contacted NHSBSA appealing on same grounds and have asked them to help us pay for any other prescriptions since this one as they are likely to be affected due to same reasons and last thing is we receive an individual fine for every single prescription.

 

Any thoughts from other people are welcome

 

 

They won't do that on an individual basis there was to be a valid reason for exemption that everyone has to follow, if the household income is £1000 per month then your brother and his wife may get free prescriptions under the low income scheme http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/Healthcosts/Pages/nhs-low-income-scheme.aspx but that's a means tested scheme based on household income it has to be applied for and all income savings etc have to be taken into account failing that there are other ways of getting costs down like a prepayment certificate this link shows all the ways a person can claim exemption https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/nhs-help-health-costs

Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant I've appealed telling them how this happened due to being unaware of rule changes and I've offered them to pay for any other prescriptions since as we were not aware. I've done that because I would rather pay than to attract more penalties which may happen due to same reason

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have little update on situation and I need assistance.

 

 

I had various replies from the NHS during the appeal most of them were simply template type replies where person responding had no idea or intention to reply to my question. This process carried on for nearly a month after which I told them I need to raise this to a manager as I am fed up of receiving standard answers.

 

 

I was told my appeal is been transferred to costumer relations department where a manager would review this appeal and reply back in 10 working days time. I waited but nothing happened during these 10 working days (discounting any weekends or any bank holiday). At the end of 10 working days I assumed since no replies were received this matter was over. However, on the 11th working day I received reply that my appeal is being turned down and in case I need to challenge it I need to send further evidence.

 

 

Million dollar question is, Can this appeal not be struck down based on I was told I will receive reply in 10 working days but reply arrived outside 10 working days? Is there any rules/laws or case studies that can support my case based on 10 working days breach?

 

 

Thanksfully

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have sent you a template letter because that's their procedure not because no-one had any idea or intention to reply, they deal with 1000s of cases every day and I doubt they have the time and manpower to write a personal letter, also all correspondence would have to be written in a certain way for legal means, you didn't want the standard reply so they escalated to a decision maker who upheld the decision, they did their job, you then made an assumption that because they didn't reply within the 10 days stated that the matter was closed, but that's all it was an assumption on your part, unless their correspondence actually stated that if you didn't hear from them within that time your complaint has been upheld, you don't have any recourse, of course you can complain that they didn't respond to you within the 10 days but I suspect the answer would be an apology for the delay, as you rightly say there was a BH within the time frame, that could possibly mean that they were running a day late which is not ideal but not grounds for them to agree to waive the fine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would have sent you a template letter because that's their procedure not because no-one had any idea or intention to reply, they deal with 1000s of cases every day and I doubt they have the time and manpower to write a personal letter, also all correspondence would have to be written in a certain way for legal means, you didn't want the standard reply so they escalated to a decision maker who upheld the decision, they did their job, you then made an assumption that because they didn't reply within the 10 days stated that the matter was closed, but that's all it was an assumption on your part, unless their correspondence actually stated that if you didn't hear from them within that time your complaint has been upheld, you don't have any recourse, of course you can complain that they didn't respond to you within the 10 days but I suspect the answer would be an apology for the delay, as you rightly say there was a BH within the time frame, that could possibly mean that they were running a day late which is not ideal but not grounds for them to agree to waive the fine.

 

When I counted 10 working days I accounted for Bank Holidays. I asked just in case if them not replying back in 10 working days, after they said they would gives me a chance to appeal due to breaching of timeframe.

Hence, I asked if anyone is aware of any case studies/previous cases where such claims be won by fine issuing authority not replying back in agreed timeframes?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi there.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/2794/regulation/2/made#f00004

 

(g)that a person is not liable by virtue of a penalty notice—

(...)

(ii)to a penalty charge, or a surcharge, if he shows that he did not act wrongfully, or with any lack of care, in respect of the amount recoverable as mentioned in section 122B(1)(a) or (b) of the Act(3).

 

As far as I am concerned, that's your defence, right there. I'm in the same boat and as far as I am concerned, they're going to have to take me to court if they want the penalty.

 

As for the time frames, I wouldn't rely on that, they're indicative, not mandatory.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...