Jump to content

mapadale

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    91
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mapadale

  1. That doesn't matter, as they will have logged it into the system and will contact them to ask about the interview and how it went. Also your travel expenses will be paid for by the DWP in the form of a bus pass.
  2. If it was setup by your advisor, then you need to go otherwise you will get sanctioned for it.
  3. It would be interesting to see how this pans out, as the biggest cash earner for Work Program providers is for those referred back to the DWP to be sanctioned (which is why I can't see an advisor advising of such) and then referred back to the Work Program provider. Work Program should be scrapped anyway, as the companies who provide it are a bunch of lying thieving **** (I know that they are, as I used to work for them and was shocked at what I was told).
  4. Lloyds are in breech of the Data protection act, though your friend confirmed she had authorisation Lloyds would have required verbal/written confirmation of this before acting. As for banks knowing about the ceased partnership, unless they have it specifically written down as being ceased they wouldn't have known just from the accounts being closed.
  5. It is the correct procedure for the checks to be issued in the name/s of the account holder/s, as the PPI is being claimed back as such. However your friend should have notified the necessary people of the ceased partnership, as they would have required authorisation from both parties to pursue and at this point the cheques would have been divided equally. The banks can decide to split the cheques as required, but they do first have to look at the implications of doing so as the partner could challenge this.
  6. You can challenge the Section 21 on the grounds that a new agreement was offered, however you would have to prove that it was offered. You would need to take it to court, in order to challenge the Section 21 using the N244 form.
  7. A landlord/letting agency don't require you to acknowledge the Section 21, so yes they can advertise the property unless a new agreement is in place or you challenge the Section 21.
  8. That's very bad ethics on the part of the solicitor, which means they are trying to scare you into paying. That itself can go against them as a company, as well as being a legal entity. I would contact the court in question if these details have been added, as with anything that conforms a court order has to be in the correct format and pre dating isn't allowed. It would mean the actual order is false (something I've experienced with councils a lot). Also check to see if it's been signed by the courts clerk and then question this, it has to be physically signed and not printed.
  9. By law, they have to give you 28 days notice and as the post stamp is outside of the 28 days questions need to be raised. Take a photocopy of the envelope with date stamp, write a nice letter to the solicitor and advised of their mistake and remind them of the statutory 28 days notice and that this is outside of that notice, that they would have to file again if they wish to take you to court (I might be slightly wrong on this, though I've done this with the council on several occasions when they have ignored the 28 day rule). your emails are all date and time stamped from the moment you send them, if you look in your outbox at the full email header it shows the full details. Advise the solicitor calmly but in a manor of "I will counter claim", that if they wish to purse the matter further, then you will counter claim against them for the time wasted and proved evidence to that fact. So long as you have everything, including all correspondence sent from yourself they don't legally have a leg to stand on.
  10. Is it not true that the guidelines to Section 4A, are miss-interpreted by Enforcement agencies and effectively getting the DVCV Act wrong in terms of lawful entry? As for what I'm trying to find out. Under the National Standard for Enforcement May 2002 (Yes I'm aware it was amended in 2012), where a Vulnerable person/s are identified at the property that enforcement can not take place. I need to know if this is still the case when it comes to the DVCV Act?
  11. Loans direct have paid back what they took, but it's the other one that hasn't. . The biggest issue with the other one, is actually finding the right company that is behind the loan company. So far I've found a total of 5 different companies, each one related with effectively false contact details. According to the bank, as it wasn't a continues payment it was allowed to go through.
  12. I'm just after some quick advice. I'm aware of what the DVCV Act is and the rushed amendment to allow Bailiff right of access, which is yet to actually have any guidelines set for the particular amendment. What I want to know, does the bailiff regulations out way the DVCV Act in terms of conditions IE: A warrant is not enforceable, whereby it is identified that a vulnerable person/s reside at the property. Cheers
  13. Just to question the legality of the stops, the only multiple agencies who are allowed to attend are government. However the legality over this could be brought into question, especially with the DWP and Bailiffs being present at such stops, as nether have legal duty to be there..
  14. Here we thought it was over and finished, how wrong were we. Checked our account today and guess what, Loans Direct and Elite Loans have stolen monies out the account again. The bank should have stopped this when it was reported to them as fraud, but it looks like the back didn't stop the payments on the account. Looks like banks in trouble for this one now.
  15. Oh how I love this company. Marstons are effectively a bunch of bullies and will try any tactic they can to levy a debt, even trying to take property that's not yours. In order for them to even levy the car to the address, they would have had to do a DVLA check in the first instance. They can't levy the car, as it's not in your name (though your address). If it's the only car in the house hold, then they can't levy it and this is outlined in regulations. Now a couple of things you can do, though it's not down to you to prove otherwise and taking the car would amount to theft. You can either post out evidence to Marstons or email them, I would highly recommend you email them and not post anything out. Emails are time stamped from the moment you send it, to the point they receive it and can be traced at any point. Mail can't, unless it's recorded and I would suggest you don't waste your money on doing that. Email is a legal form of communication. Make copies of the receipt & V5 and email them [email protected] Quote their reference number in the subject. Advise them in a professional manner, that the levy on the vehicle is illegal and that taking it would amount to theft. Provide the evidence in the email. Ask them if they are the original owners of the debt or if they have bought the debt from another company (They do this alot, unless they are working directly with a local authority then they are the original holders). DON'T OFFER THEM ANYTHING AT THIS POINT. A couple of questions I wanted to ask. Are you and your GF working? Are you or your GF claiming any benefits? Both questions are relevant to how you move this forward, after you've sent them the initial email.
  16. Capita initially did the managed services for DSGi with PCWorld, Currys & Dixons at the Sheffield site and had nothing initially to do with "PC Service Call or Tech Guys" until 03/04. DSGi in 2002/03 noted an initial failure with the Nottingham site (Which if you was employed by DSGi at the time, you would know this) and that the site was loosing money in call volumes. Capita initially signed a service contract with DSGi in 2002 to run the Nottingham call site, which was the location for "PC Service Call" after it was transferred from the Sheffield site in 1999/2000. They also took over the repair center & engineer resource center. All engineers for DSGi had and still have KPI's, including the field engineers And yes there is a set number of repairs, as it's part and parcel of the contracts with the manufactures. As for Capita handing back the contract, I don't know where you get your information from but this never happened. Capita was in breech of contract with DSGi in 04/05/06 at both the Sheffield site & Nottingham site, one of the clauses in the contract with DSGi was performance and if Capita didn't meet the required targets as per the contract they were in effect finned by DSGi for it. This was one of the many reasons Capita had their contract cancelled by DSGi, so a bit of a difference between handing back and having the contract cancelled. Like i said, I used to work for both DSGi & Capita and remember the bull that came from it all. Capita taking over and screwing us all over, was one of the main reason I quit working for them.
  17. Just to add an update to this, we have now managed to recoup the stolen money and we are still pursuing both companies.
  18. The bonus still exists to this day. I used to work for DSGi, back when Capita screwed us all over and had us all red banded and so 70% of us left DSGi for this and I still have friends working there (Idiots really should have got out when we did) A good % of the engineers that deal with repairs have certain checks to make, they don't even look or think about Accidental damage as they are not allowed to due to KPI's. If a product comes in due to accidental damage, they follow a set procedure this includes looking at the overall damage. If it fits a certain % that they would class as not being accidental damage, then it won't get looked at and returned to the customer with the stock response of it being outside of your policy. Be also aware, that a good majority of the engineers are not qualified to do the job they are doing. Also never, ever tell them directly or indirectly how it happened. That's the first mistake everyone makes, as that gives an automatic 25% mark down on the repair. If you've admitted to them that you dropped this from a balcony, that's an instant fail and in their eyes voids your policy straight away as neglect. I had to deal with a gentlemen who's son had got hold of a knife and had thrown it at the TV, which put a whole in the screen and cracked it. I was all up for repairing the screen for this TV, but my manager took one look at it and said no policy is void. I asked why and his response was it was intentionally damaged. They will use any reason and excuse under the sun not to fix something under your policy. Also all mail that goes to the Head Office, it does get opened and then forwarded on to the Customer Contact Centre in Sheffield for them to deal with if it's a customer complaint or problem. Customer Services, Customer Contact Centre, PO Box 1687, Sheffield, S2 5YA I would advise you take your policy to a solicitor.
  19. I couldn't see where to post this. It's just a quick question really. My car was recently set on fire in an arson attack and my insurance company are writing it off, however my insurance is fully paid through to renewal in April 2014 on fully comprehensive. 1: As the car is being written off, should I get a refund for the remaining four month? 2: Could I transfer the remaining 4 month to another vehicle? Any help is appreciated.
  20. Well looks like I'm posting the very first thing in here about Octagon Insurance. Well here goes. I'm currently in the process of a claim with Octagon Insurance, which is being handled by Carpenters. I have a complaint currently raised to Octagon Insurance over Carpenters and the handling of my claim, for the fact we are 4 weeks into a claim for "FIRE". I had my car set on fire in November and so raised this with Octagon Insurance, who then passed the details across to Carpenters. They have been messing me around all the way through this, as into week 4 they finally got an engineer to assess the damage to the car. The car itself has not been damaged, but more of cosmetic damage inside. I caught the fire early enough, that it didn't take hold fully and burn out my car. Now the issue I'm having is not only with Carpenters, but also a company called TCF who investigate fraudulent claims. As the time frame is so long I've refused to work with TCF until I know the out come of the engineers report, this is from the many arguments with Carpenters over the time frame this is taking and the lame excuses I keep getting. So they have been advised I will not deal with TCF until we have a resolution. Well I found out the other day, that TCF had been in touch with the police over the matter (I was expecting this) to which Carpenters had advised from TCF that the police had linked it to another case we have against a family where I live. Well I spoke with the police officer today, who has been dealing with the arson attack and I'm shocked to say the least. The police haven't said the fire was linked, but they believe it was a targeted attack, but can't do anything with regards as lack of evidence. The officer has also advised me that TCF had said to him they believe it was a fraudulent claim. Luckily the officer involved, was also involved to another incident where we had our windows put through and so advised TCF that they have the wrong assumption. I have raised this with Octagon Insurance, as I also have FOS involved also. This amounts to defamation and as such I could do with some advice on how to pursue this further, as they are now saying the car is a write off (I know it's not). I do have email trails with Carpenters Claim handler for Octagon Insurance, but at present as it's an ongoing complaint I'm not adding details as of yet.
  21. Well so much for Loans Direct closing the account and returning monies, they are still emailing my wife. So another email response to their marketting.
  22. Yes you can, I have done and currently in the process of using them against my insurance company. My complaint has only been with the insurance company for 1 week and I've involved FOS as I felt my insurance company was not taking the complaint seriously. I can also provide proof of this if you wish!
×
×
  • Create New...