Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2360 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

  • Replies 158
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I will contact Tribunal and request another date, in order for representation can be made, just don't want to be put back of listing and wait another three or four months, that's my concern, but giving the circumstances that may be the only option because I think if I had representation from the start a lot of what has gone before would have been avoided.

 

Been giving this a lot of thought, and I believe a private criminal prosecution against ATOS and the DWP for producing and therafter relying on false medical evidence under the Fraud Act 2006, is an avenue that I am seriously considering taking too.

 

Lets be honest, the lies and on somebodies medical condition are the main reason why peoples disability benefits are being stopped are the main reason and motive that the DWP and their glove-puppets are relying on, is based on blatant lies in some washed up medical report that and giving who are producing them, not worth the paper they are written on, unless the DWP pay you a tidy little profit to fabricate someone elses medical condition. which the DWP obvious finance these third rate medical people who are probably trained and by a monkey in a wishy washy course that somehow makes them relevant, in assessing disabilities that they would not be anywhere near qualified to write a report upon.

 

Its a cop out and it needs stopping, people are killing themselves because of these false medical reports that are being thrown around like confetti, to deprive the most vulnerable in our society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had the energy, I would have done this. Especially as with mine, they accessed my medically trained GP and consultant of lying!

 

Hope all goes well for you. Is there a charity for your condition in your area who could help you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Nystagmite, yes but I don't think a Charity would want to be involved or seen to be involved in a private criminal prosecution against ATOS, but I would assume if there was the need to call a medical expert to undermined the assessors report and rip it to shreds on facts rather than on fiction that would be an avenue that could be considered.

 

Lets be honest, if someone is knowing giving false medical evidence as to profit, its a fraudulent act, period.

 

As with all these false medical reports being provided by unqualified puppets trained in a week, ATOS are adding and abetting if after a complaint is raised they do not act, or turn a blind eye to facts again with the predominate motivation as to profit.

 

And giving the funding that is being used as a means of making profit be it in a criminal manner, the " it would be in the interest of the public " that I will also be relying on, ATOS and their two bob pretend medical assesseors are profiting from the public purse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received a letter from them wannabe but will never be plastic healthcare organization better known as ATOS who and after repeated request are failing to either admit or deny that previous complaints have been made about the two bob assessor who fabricated his report.

 

Now they are saying that they will not give that information and now on the grounds that this information about their employee should come from the DWP and not from them which I find quite odd.

 

I have just informed them that I have also giving the opportunity that and at the same time for the DWP to disclose this quite simple of request's about any previous complaints against the dodgy back street assessor but to no avail.

 

So we now have a position that both ATOS and the DWP are not prepared to state that no previous complaints have been made which I feel and HCPC feel should be disclosed in order for them to investigate, any previous complaints against this assessor.

 

I would have assumed and giving that the assessor and his actions would be in the remit of his employers who he has a contract with, and not a third party, in this case, the DWP.

 

What is glaring, is that if one of my employees had never been complained about before, I most certainly would not hesitate in confirming that fact.

 

Can anyone tell me what a ATOS senior medical advisor is and what they do?

 

And is there any evidence or case history that shows someone's right to a fair and proper medical assessment has been denied, I have two separate illnesses one physical, the other mental, the assessment lasted about 14 minutes and covered both illnesses which would include tests that were alleged to have been carried out, is it possible that someone with the professional medical knowledge could give 7 minutes of their day to conclude a medical assessment?, or more importantly can a health care professional come to the same conclusion on both illnesses in 14 minutes?, that I very much doubt.

 

Surely we all have the right to a fair and proper assessment for each condition medically documented by proper medical people over a number of years., any help on the time frame giving would be appreciated as I think it is an important and relevant piece of evidence that should be considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HCPC are now investigating the assessor and want me to provide any evidence in support of my concerns.

 

They have indicated and want confirmation that ATOS who in email correspondence have stated my complaint would be considered by a Senior Medical Advisor, if that procedure was adopted and completed by ATOS, I have informed them that they did not fulfil this obligation and part reason why I asked on here what role involving Senior Medical Adviser would have if asked to consider complaint..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good! Give em both barrels, remember to keep a record of any expenses you incur providing them with this evidence.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just going to give notification to the Tribunal that and giving the DWP and their partners in crime ATOS, have completely abused the proceedings by only providing evidence that they see as fit to consider, an unsigned medical assessment report, their actions are evidently breaching my rights a a fair hearing, enschrined under the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

Further, as this failing to comply with correct and proper procedures has, is and still continues to delay a fair hearing, in achieving this, the DWP and the Government are using and abusing public funding, as a means of (a) failing to comply with procedures, (b) knowingly knowing a publicly funded hearing should not proceed until full compliance has been adopted by both parties, which would include the DWP who would also be fully liable for the actions of their agents, third party, ATOS.

 

If this government is so keen to save funding, they need to start by showing some example, deliberately using and abusing public funding to deny a fair hearing, most certainly not what I would deem as showing an example, nor more importantly an avenue for them to go to trial and without following the procedures that gives them such right.

 

Thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its as if you think the tory government represents the Uk people. Nope. They represent themselves and their donors. They dont care about anyone else.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its as if you think the tory government represents the Uk people. Nope. They represent themselves and their donors. They dont care about anyone else.

 

Yes the government and HMCTS are cut from the very same cloth, overpaid public servants they are paid to protect and to insure fairness and justice all, but only care about anyone remotely motivated in making and caring for those who profit and on this occasion from the most sick and vulnerable which is quite vile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if I am reading this judgement right, the MR and not applying for this within a month, would and in theory give the DWP the legal entitlement to stop a claimant who has failed to apply for a MR in that month, as to bar the Claimant from even considering an appeal FTT?

 

If that is true and the judgement in theory now removes any obligation or should I say ANOTHER OBSTICLE to discourage anyone appealing because they have not followed the MR process, is now null and void and not an obligation or should I say a paper exercise for the DWP and on a second occasion claim they are right, but the Claimant is wrong.

 

Lets be honest the MR process and its objective was designed to trip Claimants up who and understandably would not be legally aware of the rights to appeal, as everyone should have, or assume to have, that this nasty and wasteful process gives the DWP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No read it again, just because someone fails to claim within the month timescale DOES NOT mean the appeal can't be heard, as the total time limit is 13 months, under certain circumstances.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK, if you were refused an appeal simply because you were over the month time limit, then you have grounds to appeal not simply because they fabricated the evidence to boot you off social security, but because they have failed to take into account the 13 month time limit therefore not adhering to their own rules, as skewed and bent as they are!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for explaining that, bending their own rules, no suprises there BB, corrupt and to the core, this type of human would rob their own granny of their last penny, perverse.

 

anyone who has been a victim of yet another carefully engineered misrepresentation before that judgement, have they now grounds to appeal and place reliance on this ruling BB?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Receives a call from the Clerk to the Tribunal two and a half hours before my appeal is to be finally decided today, informing me that they have adjourned the case, the tribunal and after 9 months of giving directions want to see medical evidence.

 

I would have assumed that all the medical evidence and on which the DWP made there decision would have been in their bundle of evidence, or have the DWP made their corrupt and fabricated decision without considering nor requesting my medical records as part of their process to deny me PIP.

 

Which makes the very fact that I got the last suspect judgement set-aside even more relevant now, giving the last suspect judgement was based and without considering medical evidence, how very odd.

 

I honestly believe that I am being victimised because of my race and religion, I am a white Christian, if I were not white nor Christian, I and a lot of others would not be treated by the Government and it's agencies in the same manner.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have assumed that all the medical evidence and on which the DWP made there decision would have been in their bundle of evidence

 

Not at all, never assume anything, unless you gave them permission to access your doctors notes prior to an appeal, then they won't have seen the evidence, at each appeal, you will be expected to have provided them with medical evidence that you're relying on to expose their flawed decision.

 

YOU have to provide ALL evidence YOU are relying on to win.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if the Tribunal are now stating that they want to see the medical evidence why have they not giving such instruction before BB?

 

Whilst I accept the burden of proof is relevant, the DWP are ones who are doubting my abilities so it is for them to show or produce the medical evidence that supports their web of lies, and it is not for me to prove to the Tribunal my medical records and be ordered to do this, on the day of my appeal hearing.

 

It's merely another tactic to delay imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hence the need to submit a SAR and find out exactly what info they have used in reaching their decision, AND to then question why they failed to take xyz into account.

 

I personally have argued this very case with them, ''How can they come to a decision when they don't have all of the facts''.

 

All they will say is that it is up to the claimant to provide any relevant information at the time the claim is made.

 

Every time they ignore or 'cherry pick' which information they choose to rely on, then you inform them to look at xyz which you sent them on dd/mm/yyyy.

 

We know they lie, we know they have targets, we know they ignore facts, which is why they need to be exposed and embarrassed for not looking at the facts that they already have in front of them.

 

Do you have the evidence they have, and what they used in making your assessment?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its like the accused in a criminal case, having to prove his innocence, but neither the police nor the CPS have actually got a case against him, its all hearsay and lies, nothing concrete, back to front.

 

They are all saying that my disabilities do not entile me to PIP, but they want me to prove otherwise, I am not the one accusing, so in theory I am not liable as to prove, they are pointing the finger at me, and in the eyes of everyone that has and beyond any reasonable doubt been proved by a two bob assessor drafting in from another country, it is bollxxx and beyond belief, period.

 

The only evidence the DWP have provided me prior to the hearing listed for today was the MR decision and an unsigned medical report from the dodgy assessor.

 

I have sent a SAR on your advice and I pre-warned the Tribunal that in the event that if I was to lose today, I would be relying on the rights of a fair hearing being denied, because the DWP and their partners in crime ATOS were not providing the evidence which would comply with the procedures add to that the Tribunal were more than aware of this significant breach but continually turn a blind eye to the most obvious.

 

The Tribunal have an obligation and a duty to be impartial, in my experience, they are no different from those who are carrying out the most blatant crime of the century, inflicting continued mass misery on anyone who remotely has a condition that makes him or her disabled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Received notification from Tribunal this morning and they decided and again in my absence because there is no independent medical evidence in the papers and the tribunal is unable to adjudicate the case in its absence.

 

How ironic, the Tribunal can hold a full appeal hearing in my absence and without giving the correct notification which was set-aside and after they gave judgement to the DWP, and they are now giving directions for independent medical evidence again on the day my appeal and again in my absence. KANGAROO COURT is an understatement.

 

This is now twice that I have been denied a fair hearing and judgements and directions have been made without me the Appellant being giving the legal entitlement that I have to actually say and have some sort of bearing on what is my appeal against the DWP fraudulent decision not to award PIP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you now have information you need in which to escalate it to the ICE?

 

Think people are honestly wasting their time trying to rely on anything the UK has to offer as far as seeking justice or such like BB.

 

They are all feeding of the same outdated notion that if they stick together, the problem will go away, te system, HMCTS are just a mere clog that works with the other dinasours in what is a perverse system.

 

Time to attack from another angle me thinks, time to rely on European law to out them bud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...