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.
      • 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

ESA Contributed based


Vixen7
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2031 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

Hi, has anyone else experienced the following ?. I have been on Contribution based ESA (support group) since being transferred over in 2013 from long-term Cont-based Incapacity benefit. I also receive both standard rates of PIP and have an Occupational pension from previous employer (which is disregarded by DWP). I will receive my state pension in 6 mths and my ESA will cease.

 

A few days ago I received a letter from DWP stating that they want to look at my ESA as I may be better off on INCOME-RELATED ESA (I won't be - I was already aware of that fact) and asked me to tick any of the 3 following boxes if i DON'T want them to check my eligibility to Income related to say WHY I would NOT be eligible :

 

1.You have had a partner and they were or are working over 24 hrs a week.

2.You had or have savings of over £16,000.

3.You had or have a partner who had or has savings of over £16,000 or together you had or have savings over £16,000.

 

What nonsense is this !. I do NOT wish for them to check my eligibility as I ALREADY KNOW I would not be better off on Income-related ESA, I checked that a long time ago. If I was, I would already have asked to be transferred onto it.

(Letter said I could also ring them to say why I don't want them to check my eligibility).

 

But my point is, they are only allowing the above 3 reasons for me to tick and none of them apply to me. Then the day after I receive the letter, hadn't had chance to ring them OR reply, someone rang me from DWP, left a message on my answering machine stating that they would ring again later that day, which they did, leaving another message (I wasn't in to hear either) stating that if I haven't got in touch, they will ring me back on October 1st.

 

Why are they so concerned about whether I would be better off and why not give me chance to actually respond ?. I would of course, be saying that no, I do not wish to move from my current ESA as it would not benefit me financially at all. Why mend it if it isn't broken. They really should have some extra tick boxes as the 3 they are allowing obviously will not cover every eventuality for every claimant.

 

I smell a rat. Has anyone else experienced the above and does anyone know the significance of October 1st as I certainly don't ?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

cant hurt you why not try?

 

having a general conspiracy theory that they are upto something all the time might not apply in this case.

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

DWP didn't follow their own rules when converting people to ESA - ESA is 1 single benefit made up of both Contribution and Income elements.

 

1 massive Court case the DWP lost later they are trawling conversion cases looking for people who should/could of also been entitled to income top ups/premiums at point of conversion.

 

They also lost trying to limit that trawl to cases after April 2014.

 

 

Read this https://www.rightsnet.org.uk/forums/viewthread/5928/P390

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Speedfreek, if you're in the support group for contribution-based (which I am) you are not migrated over onto Income-based after the first year, you can stay on contribution -based indefinitely. I did look into this a while back and discovered that I wouldn't be any better off changing to Income-based ESA.

 

For dx100uk-I wasn't seeing a conspiracy, but if you read any of my previous posts (might take a while !) re them completely messing up my ESA last year because they don't know or understand their own guidelines and rules, and then admitting in the end that they got things wrong and I was right, you would see why I am cautious about ANY dealings with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Speedfreek, if you're in the support group for contribution-based (which I am) you are not migrated over onto Income-based after the first year, you can stay on contribution -based indefinitely. I did look into this a while back and discovered that I wouldn't be any better off changing to Income-based ESA.

 

You haven't read the Rightsnet link I posted as it's about the IB to ESA conversion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Speedfreek, I did read your Rightsnet link. It doesn't apply to me as I get a company Occupational pension which would be taken into account for income purposes and which excludes me from getting any Income-related ESA, or any disability premiums.

I looked into it a few years ago and that's the reason why I've not applied for Income-related ESA previously as I would not benefit from it.

 

Whilst in the contribution -based ESA, support group, my Occupational pension is disregarded due to the fact that (1) I was on Incapacity benefit prior to April 2001 and (2) I was in receipt of DLA at the high rate for both Care and Mobility.

 

My Occupational pension would NOT be disregarded if I was on Income-related ESA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's at least one previous thread on here about this exact issue. Few DWP staff are aware of the rules which applied prior to 2001 and it has caused problems for many claimants in your position. A search should turn up the other threads.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...