Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • 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?
  • 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

Prescription Penalty Charge? ** Resolved **


TigXC
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2362 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

new here so treat me gently especially if this has already been discussed before

(yes you experts can point me in the right direction if you so wish)

but I would like to tap your vast knowledge base if you don't mind?

 

Out of the blue the wife receives in the post a short curt letter from the Prescription Exemption Checking Service informing her that she's been a naughty person by obtaining a Free Prescription without being entitled and unless she can prove otherwise she needs to simply send them the original charge plus a nice fine for the pleasure - if she would be so kind ... end off.

 

Well unfortunately the wife has always paid for her prescriptions and has never obtained any for free so in my simple French ...

 

In their letter they do not actually supply full or checkable details,

they simply say between the date of ''A'' and the date of ''B'' (A period 80 days!) you did obtain a Free Prescription by ticking the box for people with a valid HC2 certificate .... and on checking to see what if any prescription she had, there was one for which she paid cash for! [and she most definitely did not tick any boxes?].

 

Now this IS where it get interesting and I have little doubt that some confusion could have come from the following ....

at the same time as she collected her last prescription [the only one this penalty charge could relate too]

she also collected one for a person for whom she is a Carer for.

And that person does have a valid HC2 certificate

- does not pay for their prescriptions

and because my wife is forever picking up from one particular pharmacy where both these prescriptions where sent to electronically ..

. they know her pretty well.

 

So I am of the opinion that given the person serving her - gave her two sets of prescriptions,

took her money for hers and checked the certificate for the other probably with a hand full of Prescription Scripts

- ticked the wrong box on hers

[they always complete the back of the scripts themselves as you the patient do not actually receive them any more

- your just asked to sign it as having received your medicine]

and then eventually sent them off to wherever at the NHS for processing

and now we've been hit with a Penalty Charge for someone else's mistake!

 

[Thanks for reading to this point and sticking with it .... I'm getting to the point. Honest]

 

has anyone else had to go through this particular scenario and if so how did you fare?

 

Yes I know I need to contact the Prescription Exemption Checking Service, which I have done ..

. but in the first instance they are both so slow and not that bright!

 

The way they see it is a box was ticked ... end off.

One thing they did ask was 'can we provide a receipt to prove we paid'? ...

Yer right, who is going to keep a £8.60 cash payment receipt for a prescription they bought over three months ago?

 

Next I've been back to the pharmacy and they are in total agreement with me (at the moment)

- they agree my wife has always paid for her prescriptions,

which on the surface is great.

But if push comes to shove, would they actually put that in writing?

 

we are waiting on the Prescription Exemption Checking Service to get back to us and that's the reason I'm now looking around to see what I might need to do in case they just turn round and say No, pay up as a box has a tick in it?

 

Oh and one other thing

- the whole sorry saga is effecting my wife something rotten!

I had just got her to a place where she no longer needed the medication that they are now claiming she never paid for

- but because of their jumped up demand, she will now probably have to start all over again and here's the rub ..

. she's not going to get another prescription 'ever' if it causes this sort of trouble in her life!!!

 

Well, there you have it in a nutshell, so to speak. Over to you ...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well .... Jesus? I have to admit I'm overwhelmed by the number of views my post has generated but a little (OK a lot) underwhelmed by the lack of replies it's received!

 

Guess I'll go it alone then - boy is this world of the internet a lonely place .... at times. rolleyes.gif

 

Thanks one and all for your feedback ... I think. Hope the NHS Gestapo don't get you one day (?) ... however seeing how things are being run by that Hunt [silent C, miss the h] I've little doubt more of you will be in the firing line sooner rather than later, so watch your backs and your wallets/bank accounts. wink.gifwink.gifwink.gif

 

Be seeing you.

 

The Tig rockon.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this so called service is in need of major reform,

I am in a similar situation due to my doctors and local chemist moving to digital everything

 

i no longer get to see any paperwork,

Because i am on income ESA I get free prescriptions

and since it a joint claim my wife is also entailed to them,

 

now we have over £800 in fines to pay because somebody has marked the wrong box electronically saying i have a tax credit card

and also according to the nhs database i am not claiming any other benefits,

and it all my fault because i didn't make sure it was right, it not the fault of anybody else.

 

Now i have to prove that the database the nhs hold is wrong ,

its not for them to prove me in the wrong as their database is infallible,

and if i dont pay by the end of november i will be in court.:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear The Tig,

I hate to be so blunt but people who read your posts may not necessarily be the best people to answer them, and there’s nothing worse than a thread full of mournful platitudes about how terrible it must be, especially in just 14 hours between your op and proclamation of going it alone.

 

Unfortunately NHSBSA are seemingly in the midst of a crackdown and as you’ve undoubtedly seen by browsing the page yourself there are a few people in similar situations at the moment.

 

The truth is that in reality it seems you have two options,

either pay the fine or fight it and risk a court judgment if the magistrate finds that you did breach the terms of your agreement with the NHS.

 

Bookworm seems to have found some relevant information amongst the guidance and it may be worth having a read through their thread.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear The Tig, I hate to be so blunt but people who read your posts may not necessarily be the best people to answer them, and there’s nothing worse than a thread full of mournful platitudes about how terrible it must be, especially in just 14 hours between your op and proclamation of going it alone.

 

The forum has been experiencing some technical difficulties over the last couple of days. As a consequence, the OPs post along with many others, hasn't been as visible as it should have been. Hopefully, the people that have suffered similar issues and resolved them will be along to give some advice shortly.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

IMO I would pay the fine and then Formal Complaint to your Doctors Surgery.

 

Question: I notice you mention this has happened since your doctors surgery went digital where your prescription is digitally sent to your pharmacy. When you collected the prescription and on the back of the prescription where you have to sign has the relevant boxes to tick, did you check these before signing for the prescription?

 

Now the reason I ask is my own doctors surgery went digital just over one year ago and when you do this digitally and it goes over to pharmacy for you to collect, when you then collect the prescription you still have to check the boxes on the back before signing for the prescription

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, thanks for the feedback (yes you too 'think about it') but to be honest the internet is a gigantic place, filled with millions of people hence my surprise at the lack of at least one reply - even if it was (as so often the case) a negative one?

 

Ssome good news to report

- apart from the headache it gave me

I received a phone call late Friday afternoon from the Prescription Exemption Checking Service (boy did I fear the worst) who informed me that after looking into my replies that I sent in via their somewhat limited online contact form that we no longer needed pay the charge or fine. Result.

 

They accepted our explanation that a simple mistake had occurred (they must have had both my wife's scripts to hand as well as those of the person who's she also collected that does have a HC2 certificate) and on checking them used some common sense and deducted - 'hey, perhaps this dude is telling the truth'?

 

it's all sorted and we are now no longer liable for this penalty and now I've had an email confirming it, I'm happy to share.

 

One thing they did say to me was that when collecting ours or anyone else's prescriptions

we need to ensure the correct sections on the back of the script are completed before signing it and handing it back to the pharmacist ..

. that point they kept highlighting and

 

when I questioned them over this point and the one where we had got this last prescription from I got the impression that this case was not over and the Pharmacist was next in line for it!!!

 

What I've learnt from this short and nasty little experience is other then you feel totally alone, it pays to get straight on the case with the Prescription Exemption Checking Service .... in our case we know we always pay for our prescriptions and so we told them so and after putting it in writing - Case Closed.

 

If they now go after the Pharmacist - well they've more money then me and as I've found. It's a dog eat dog world!

 

Have a nice day and enjoy the rest of your weekend. The Tig :|

 

 

------------------------

 

Oh, to those that say Pay & complain .

... my motto is NEVER PAY,

as once you do 9 times out of 10 you'll never see your money back.

 

Plus if you do pay, most bullies, sorry business's/corporations etc ..

. see it as an admission of guilt.

 

Why would you pay unless you had too.

NO - don't pay, fight it Stand Up To Bullies :-(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, Stu - as a PM I would have only referred back to the pharmacy and nhsbsa. Regardless of how the script got to it’s destination the responsibility to ensure it’s correctly processed and dispensed lies with both the pharmacy and the patient who needs to tick the appropriate box. However, the sooner NHS England catches up with the devolved nations and makes prescriptions free, the better. Here in sunny wales we don’t have the same issues and the NHSBSA only tend to chase dental patients when they’re not making our lives difficult in practice.

My views are my own and are not representative of any organisation. if you've found my post helpful please click on the star below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ssome good news to report

[...]

it's all sorted and we are now no longer liable for this penalty and now I've had an email confirming it, I'm happy to share.

 

Good news indeed. Thanks for the update and I've edited the thread title to reflect the outcome.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes ... good news indeed and most definitely 'wow' given how some of the reported saga's on here have dragged on and on ... (now I've had time to read a few of them)!

 

The one thing I took from my particular encounter with this bunch of (to me) very amateurish individuals at the Prescription Exemption Checking Service is that they treat you as Guilty until proven otherwise .... whilst English Law is still based on the premise of ''innocent until proven guilty''?

 

The penalty charge letter we received simply stated 'you have committed said crime and are fined such & such accordingly' with no actual mechanics to answer their charge other than to pay their fine ... however in our case their 'charge and fine' proved incorrect hence their cancelling it.

 

Moral of my encounter with them ... don't give up, don't let the bar'stewards grind you down and if you've not committed a crime or what you did was just a simply mistake - human error then stand up for your rights and fight them. Initially you would hope common sense would kick in and you would not need to go through all this palava but then if they acted with common sense I'm guessing half the staff at the PECS would be out of a job?

 

Well this has been one experience I could have done without as too the wife. Next time we need anything from the chemist's I think I'll have to go - in case the PECS did turn their attention onto the pharmacist (guess they want their pound of flesh from somewhere eh?). And if there is any comeback ... I'll let you all know?

 

Keep your chins up and yes ... you can win against the establishment.

 

The Tig :rockon:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I took from my particular encounter with this bunch of (to me) very amateurish individuals at the Prescription Exemption Checking Service is that they treat you as Guilty until proven otherwise .... whilst English Law is still based on the premise of ''innocent until proven guilty''?

 

This frequently gets “trotted out” for all sorts of situations, and your use of it shows you, too, have misunderstood or misapplied this legal maxim.

 

“Innocent until proven guilty” applies to criminal matters. This wasn’t a criminal matter in

If you had decided you didn’t want to appeal / challenge their decision, and paid the penalty : there was no finding of guilt, you wouldn’t have a criminal record.

 

They had assessed you had wrongly claimed and MIGHT be guilty of a criminal offence, not that you were guilty. That is a decision for a criminal court.

 

Innocent until proven guilty:

a) applies to criminal proceedings only (civil proceeding having a different ‘standard of proof’ to criminal proceedings, too

b) Also means that it is for the prosecution to prove their case, not for a defendant to disprove it. This means the prosecution must prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, both the actions and intent set out in law (statute or common / case law), or, for those offences set out as “strict liability” the actions only.

 

There was no prosecution here, so there was never ‘guilty’

Even if you’d paid a penalty : there was never a finding of “guilty”

They could only have been a finding of guilty if:

a) you said “take me to court, then,

b) it had gone to Court and

c) the defendant had been found guilty (by plea, or finding of the court after a not guilty plea).

Up until that point : someone is “innocent until proven guilty”

The maxim still holds, unaffected by what has happened to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the figure of speech that everyone know and understands - for one reason or another still applies here for the most basic of reason that this organisation is using the simple tactic of bullying you in to paying a fine/penalty charge or whatever you wish to call it, for whatever reason they seem fit without any open or clear recourse on your part.

 

In essence their letter to you, looking all official and formal implies you have broken some rule/law and as such are being penalised without any chance of defending yourself by way of their penalty.

 

As to your statement - you wouldn't have a criminal record ... we all know too well that organisations such as this simply turn to debt collection agency at the drop of a hat as soon as these charges are not paid to their time scale (and sometimes even when they are) and when you then chose to ignore or contest their accusations only to find extra fees are added for the privilege of the DCA involvement which if you don't pay or you fail to prove your case you'll probably end up being taken to court and end up with a CCJ against your name.

 

 

 

As for me ... I'm done - been a blast - end off ... have a nice day and good bye.

 

The Tig.

Edited by Andyorch
Edited
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thread now closed.

 

Andy

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2362 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...