Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

DWP Staff and UC rollout


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2314 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

Considering that a large proportion of JCP staff are part time and the roll out of Universal Credit inevitability means that some will have to go through the same process as most claimants and sign on and encouraged to increase hours.

 

Is it reasonable that they are able to police themselves,it is no stretch of the imagination to presume they will scratch each others back and turn blind eyes amongst themselves.

 

I have read that they can ask to sign on at another office rather than the one they work if they feel uncomfortable being interrogated by their colleagues but what about if there is only one office as in the case in many areas.

 

Whatever it seems they will have special/preferential treatment, in my opinion there should be an independent body setup to deal with these cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting! Is this being debated somewhere else online ?

 

Large % of JCP staff part-time ? Is this a well known stat or based on your local JCP ?

 

Why would DWP or any other Civil Service departments be given any special treatment ? Where has this fact come from ?

 

UC seems to me to be a massive long lasting claim database covering a huge % of the population and whether people are employed in public or private sectors, their claims will just be processed based on their individual data.

 

I have dealt with Insurance claims for staff working for an Insurance company and I can't ever remember giving them special treatment. It is just a case of looking at information, making an assessment and doing what you need to, complying with any rules.

 

I believe in the civil service it can be a sackable offence dealing with anything belonging to member of the family, a friend or a close work colleague. Even if they did everything by the book, they would have to advise of their relationship and not deal with transaction. I can't see a JCP office dealing with UC files of staff working in the same office. And if Government were required to set up an independent company or body to deal with all Civil Servants affairs, it would be pretty big and costly. You would have to include local Government in that as well, as they presumably handle staff council tax, planning applications etc.

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 OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a significant number of part time workers at the DWP, it would be interesting to find out how many DWP workers have been sanctioned since UC roll out.

 

I cannot see any other way than for them to effectively police themselves without some sort of deviation from the procedure from general claimant population,and again some towns only have one office, and relationships within the DWP extend to other offices so as a solution it is not ideal.

 

It does not take a stretch of the imagination to assume that in some areas they will have no other choice other than see to colleagues unless special measures are implemented, and as you said it goes against the civil service code of practice if that were the case.

 

 

 

I have put in a freedom of information in order to see if they have documents relating to how the DWP will manage part time staff and UC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Work Coach on UC (work coach, LOL) is part time 3 days a week.

 

I go to see her and sit down, say what I have been doing

(a few real applications and cover the rest of the time in one click apply applications) but she is not interested anyway

- she is a pussycat

(so far and I hope it stays that way)

- I am in and out in 5 minutes

- fact is,

most cannot be bothered to adminster the 35 hour rule and have no way of checking.

Just tow the line, show you are doing something and job done.

 

From experience to date

(been on UC 7 weeks and to the job centre every week since claiming as you have to go weekly for the first 13 weeks of the claim)

they know very little about UC and my WC even told me once a month to see me would be good enough but the rules are in place to see me week

 

UC in principle should work, in reality it is a farce

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not know you have to sign Weekly for the first 13 Weeks, I hope you claim travel expenses for the weeks that are off-cycle.

 

I am on JSA and hopefully I will be safe from UC until at the earliest 2019 unless I have a change of circumstances.

 

If they are struggling to find independent bodies to police the part time work coaches efforts to increase their hours I am sure there is an an army of unemployed people willing to step up to the plate.

 

Under the old rules normally if you work 16 or more hours per week at least you had the dignity of signing off under UC it seems they are setting people up for a lifetime on benefits.

 

The only good thing about UC is that it has dragged in those that administer it, a taste of their own medicine might make them more empathetic towards those they monitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just catching up on this.

 

Yes, I made sure I claimed 'off cycle' They of course did not offer it but I knew my rights about only paying to comein fortnightly. You want me in weekly? Pay for it!

 

As my WC is part time I am not back now until January 3rd. I have heard how they speak to some claimants there - it is disgusting, luckily they cannot do that with me as I throw the book at them with legislation and rights. Basically (so far so good if good is the right word for being on this awful benefit) I am left alone - hopefully it stays that way.

 

Why should I complain anyway? I have £62 to last me until January 11th. Oh well, more money off the credit card that won't be paid anyway within a few months. Bad credit score? Got one already and will never need a mortgage anyway so no harm done!

 

Yes I know I sound like a baby and really angry - I never used to be, it is the DWP that had made me like this

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like we in the same boat.

With the cost of living rising and benefits frozen it will only get worse.

 

It is no coincidence that a system that causes mental illness,anxiety,depression ensures that their is no hiding place for those it inflicts.

 

We must be a nation of masochists if we support a system through taxes and national insurance that ensures 8 million workers are in poverty, that we force those that are ill,incapable,unable to work if they want to or not.

 

And those who through the lottery of life find themselves without a job are subjected to physiological harassment.

 

This country needs unemployment, it is baked into the system, without unemployment, their could be no new businesses,industry could not expand, wages would rise, the workers would be in control.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have it 100% spot on my friend.

 

From the age of 13 I was working

- I am 43 now

 

in those 30 years I have been out of work (through no fault of my own) 3 years.

In that time whilst employed in what I call proper jobs in the city working full time, pension, bonuses etc

I dread to think what I have paid in to the system.

 

I then get ill and claim ESA and am then chucked off of it for daring to be ill.

I then lose £102pm in benefit income which is MY MONEY from my payments in to the system,

not THEIR money

and now my depression and anxiety is WORSE.

 

Even my GP says I am too unwell to travel to work and do a full day

but that is OK I should do any job to help with my UC

- yeah, great.

 

I have no social life now,

I just about get through the month.

 

Luckily my parents have contributed to food and bills to help me get through this but why should they have to?

 

I have actively seen claimants bullied at the JCP,

luckily I can stand up for myself

but others less fortunate cannot.

 

One claimant on a desk a few meters away from me was threatened with a sanction because he was 10 mins late for an appointment because he dared to help an old lady who fell over in the street and call ambulance for her.

 

Some WCs are OK and just want you in and out,

others get a kick out of manipulation and bullying.

I hope some of them end up on UC and suffer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My City is merging 3 local offices with the local Authority in February and will be one of the largest benefit offices in the UK, I say benefit offices as I think they dropping the name job centre in these cases,regardless there will be over 300 advisers at this office and as it is the only benefit office in the city so I am intrigued how they intend to deal with their own staff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When UC was in it's infancy, it was mentioned that part time DWP staff might well have to claim it. I remember laughing like a drain at the time.

Oh the irony!

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...