Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to enlarge on Dave's great rundown of your case under Penalty. In the oft quoted case often seen on PCNs,  viz PE v Beavis while to Judges said there was a case for claiming that £100 was a penalty, this was overruled in this case because PE had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park free for other motorists which outweighed the penalty. Here there is no legitimate interest since the premises were closed. Therefore the charge is a penalty and the case should be thrown out for that reason alone.   The Appeals dept need informing about what and what isn't a valid PCN. Dummies. You should also mention that you were unable to pay by Iphone as there was no internet connection and there was a long  queue to pay on a very busy day . There was no facility for us to pay from the time of our arrival only the time from when we paid at the machine so we felt that was a bit of a scam since we were not parked until we paid. On top of that we had two children to load and unload in the car which should be taken into account since Consideration periods and Grace periods are minimum time. If you weren't the driver and PoFA isn't compliant you are off scot free since only the driver is liable and they are saying it was you. 
    • Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x Thank you dx. I consider myself well and truly told :) x
    • Doubt the uneconomic write off would be registered, unless you agreed to accept write off settlement of the claim. It is just cosmetic damage. All that has happened, is that the car has been looked at and they realised the repair costs are going to exceed the value of the car. If the car is perfectly driveable with no upcoming normal work required to pass next MOT, your current Insurers will continue Insurance and you can accept an amount from third party Insurers to go towards you repairing the scratched bodywork.    
    • Peter McCormack says the huge investment by the twins will help Real Bedford build a new ground.View the full article
    • I emailed both. Tarry's came back "Please note that I have now left the business. Please contact Matthew Barnes ([email protected])  going forward" so will send to him.
  • 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 Penalty charge wrong date recent dental check up


gerbil279
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2408 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

I have received a penalty charge notice from NHS Business Services Authority for a recent dental check up.

I am on jobseekers and not realising there were 2 different versions of jobseekers, I checked the exemption box on the back of the dental form.

 

 

The treatment dates on the nhs penalty charge letter are incorrect. The treatment was actually 2 days before the dates listed on the pcn.

 

 

I have contacted NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA), stating that the dates are incorrect, they want me to contact the dentist to clarify my treatment, I have contacted the dentist asking this and am now waiting on them to confirm my treatment date.

 

 

The 28 day clock is ticking, I feel reluctant to pay due to the details on the pcn being incorrect. Do I have a leg to stand on ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you claim exemption for dental costs you are stating you are exempt on the first day of treatment , if you were not exempt on the day you actually went and not exempt on the day they said you went then you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

 

Prescriptions are slightly different as any exemptions must cover the date you had it filled and not the date it was issued by your GP, for instance if you have an exemption that finished on the 12th and you had it filled on the 13th you are not exempt even if the prescription was issued to you on the 11th, but if you have a prescription issued the day before your 60th Birthday and you had it filled on your 60th birthday (which happened to me) then you would be exempt due to age. Therefore any incorrect date on the NHSBSA correspondence would have a bearing and maybe the basis for a complaint

 

 

As for not realising there were two types of JSA cont (no automatic exemption ) income based (full exemption) some people do have difficulty knowing which one they are on however look at the back of the form you would have signed

 

 

https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/2017-04/20160209_PR_Proof_SAMPLE.pdf

 

 

It clearly states that there are two types of JSA income based which is covered and cont based JSA which is not covered, that's the time they would have expected you to think oh there are two types not sure which one I am on, then it would be up to you to either pay the cost and claim a refund if you find out you are exempt, or take a chance tick the wrong box and get fined

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...