Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi. I am reading through the full thread and will continue to research. I have come across a reference to a form called N180 DQ in the thread, but I cannot see any reference to this form in my case nor can I see it on the MoneyClaim website. Should I have been sent this form? Thanks 
    • 12mph (beyond any UK limit) will certainly qualify for a Fixed Penalty. So you should received an offer of a FP for each of the remaining two offences. Be sure to submit your licence details as instructed when you accept the offer. If you don't your £100 will be returned to you and the police will prosecute you in court.
    • and it will be also now written off under age related criteria anyway.
    • @dx100ukThanks for this! I'm still not clear if I'm facing more than 6 points on my license though. Can you explain any further please? When I accept the 2nd speeding ticket, will they just charge me £100 and 3 points, or will they be more severe consequences since that offense took place the following day of the 1st offense? Similarly, when I accept the 3rd offense, will they look at my record or just charge me with the £100 fine and 3 points? @Man in the middleI've been searching the forum and you seem very knowledgeable. Would you mind giving a look at my query please? Thanks in advance!!
    • Yes of course. That's why it says cc:: BIg Motoring World at the bottom. Don't imagine that this solves the issue. It doesn't. He not have to force the finance company and big motoring world to accept the rejection to give your money back. I suggest that you get the letter off tomorrow. And let us know what you hear but on Friday you should then send a threat to the finance company.   Have a look what I have said here about your options and read the whole thread as well.  
  • 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

Gawd the DWP are the scurge of the planet lol


Goucho
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2551 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

Well guys here i am again ... just search my posts.

 

OK here we go ......

 

My son was on Universal credits and was hit with 4 sanctions 1 after the other for 28 days each with the final one being for 92 days due to the previous 3! He was under a "sick note" for 3 of them and the fourth was for not doing enough entries on hit work diary thing.

 

I went to a routine meeting with my son and was met with what i would class as hostility. I am mobility impaired and on good days i can walk with a stick but i am in constant pain. So the first thing my son asked was if there was a chair for me me and his work coach said "your father can stand" Anyway after a lot of messing to get a chair and then to move from in front of her I got to work on why she sanctioned him for being unfit. A long conversation entailed with her constantly repeating that all was correct i left telling her that she was ignorant of the law and needed further training.

 

If you had been there to see the way i was treated and also my son i am sure you would have not kept control. I helped my son get the sanctions lifted and then luckily he got a job as this one at the DWP was after him for sure!!!

 

The problem now is that he was fired due to not being able to keep up with his duties. I am now very concerned that the DWP will do what they can to make his life unbearable.

 

Is it possible to get permission to accompany my son and to speak on his behalf as he finds things difficult to understand at times and a lot of things just go over his head. Also is it possible to video record all appointments as they either lie or AS THEY SAY "IGNORANCE IS NOT AND EXCUSE" so they are lying to him or are ignorant to the law as i have proven on numerous occasions so i know they are after us!!!

 

What can i do to protect my son and also myself from being targeted??

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK

 

 

No worries.

 

So, genuine question. Why would they pick on him? The last work coach sounds a nightmare but they might not all be like that.

Please do not ask me for advice via PM as I will not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all occupations you have the good ones and the bad ones. A member of the public getting the better or showing up a colleague can sometimes drive a colleague to exact revenge on their behalf. This is rare but it does happen and I don't want this to happen to my son.

My experience of staff at this office and also staff on the telephone is that they are at least ignorant of their own rules and regulation and at worst lying to the public. I am only one person, how many others are there out there, that are told factually inaccurate information and believe it to be true.

I worry that if my son moves out of the home and no matter how much effort he puts into finding a job gets sanctioned incorrectly and left with no money at all for 6 months until he can fight to overturn their mistakes? I only want to protect him as at least one member of staff is ignorant of the law and also discriminates against disabled persons. Of course i have no proof of the latter as only me and my son witnessed it. I wonder if she was sanctioned pay for her mistake??

Link to post
Share on other sites

trouble is you are removing any imperative your son would otherwise have to find a job and knuckle down and get on with it. That is the rationale behind the sanctions and although they are sometimes misused if they didnt exist some people would just wander aimlessly through life doing nothing to help themselves. Does your son have autism or some other reason that you have to attend his meetings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry but you are on the wrong track here.

 

My point is about the misuse of both sanctions and power nothing else.

 

By seeking to protect my son following the experiences stated above does not mean what you say

trouble is you are removing any imperative your son would otherwise have to find a job and knuckle down and get on with it.
Why do you think a person needs to be disabled to need protection?
Does your son have autism or some other reason that you have to attend his meetings?

You seem to be missing the point - My post is about the misuse of both sanctions and power nothing else. I am fully aware of the rationale of sanctions and sadly far too experienced when these are abused.

 

To avoid this going off in a tangent just google how many "appealed" sanctions are overturned. Sadly a great deal of people take the "Mandatory" reconsideration as a final say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...