Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'groups'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 3 results

  1. New research on the long-term health of 2 groups of older veterans READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-research-on-the-long-term-health-of-2-groups-of-older-veterans
  2. Hello everyone You may think that I am a bit paranoid but I would like to ask your opinion and advice about a potential collusion case about a district Judge in the UK My story is about a non-fault accident which I was involved in 2014 and eventually took the company who hit me as well as the management company who was acting on behalf of me based on breach of our contract. Everything was all fine until the hearing date; on the day the defendants sent their counsels and the following is the summary of my experience with the judge (all bear in mind one of the defendant already admitted the fault and paid me the repair of my car - however the case was my broken digital device during the accident and my time off from work whilst my car being repaired) It was a small claims court and the case was dismissed by the judge and I was asked to pay both counsels fees (inclusive of vat) I was humiliated and I was questioned like in a police custody..., one of the counsel blatantly blamed me about lying however I had provided all the documents. Here is my notes of concerns taken during the hearing 1 - the Judge admitted that he has not read the case during the pre-reading time which was allocated and paid by the claimant (the claimant was asked to pay an extra hearing fee on top of the claim fee) 2- due to the fact that the claimant is representing himself; the district Judge "Sh....h" asked the second defendant's counsel to represent the "claimant's case" the second defendant's witness statement was prepared by Mr "Iq...l" 3- District Judge told all parties that as the claimant was representing his case, whilst both counsels of the defendants (one of whom was sent by Mr Iq...l) - were allowed to ask questions to the claimant; the claimant was not able to ask any questions to the counsels and has to answer all the queries, which I found it insulting and discriminating. 4- The first defendants counsel blamed the claimant without showing any prime evidence that the claimant was lying and the Judge did not stop the case which I believe that this behaviour is also classified as "defamation of character" 5- the district judge Sh...h who dismissed the case and awarded both defendants costs in a small-claims tracking, whereas the same individual who was the defendant in a different "FastTrack Claim" in A9Q..... Number and despite the other party not turning up to the case on the hearing date he was not awarded any of his costs 6- both defendants counsels represented their cost of £250 + VAT and £350+VAT and an individual was penalised to pay the VAT whilst both companies are already reclaiming this VAT in their books. 7- the claimant also had a prime evidence that showing the second defendant (accident exchange- witness statements by Iq...l) sending a "virus" via email to the claimant which is also a part criminal law; this was ignored by the judge Sh...h again 8- the judge dismissed the case based on there was not enough evidence; so how come he awarded the defendants with their cost based on the claim being "unreasonable" is still hard to understand 9- the claimant requested a copy of the recording or transcript through the court manager -- RESULT??? of course he was not given the copies but so many baloneys I would like to ask whether I am entitled to start an online petition against the judge?? And my legal right to take it to the human rights? Kind regards
  3. What are vulnerable persons/groups? This is indeed a very good question. By the way even the DWP has its own contradictions' on this subject as you will see later on... So sorry for the long read but you can cut it short by reading the section in DMG 35060 -35135. This has been the topic of several heated debates recently, with this in mind a regular poster was going to start a thread about this but yet I have not yet seen this. So with this in mind I will start one to get the ball rolling. As we all are very much aware there are many types of what is classed as a vulnerable person/group, whether or not you can claim this if the EA is enforcing against you. Well an answer to this has been provided by the Department for Works and Pensions (DWP) this October. The link to it is below. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470852/dmgch35.pdf This is correct as of this October 2015. Although this is in fact nothing to do with enforcement it does go a very long way in explaining the many types of what we call "a vulnerable person" if the DWP has made this as part of their decision making then perhaps the MoJ could do the same or similar? What is a vulnerable group for hardship purposes 35055 Vulnerable group is the term used in this guidance to describe people who are more likely to suffer hardship if JSA is not paid without a waiting period, i.e. those people who are defined as "persons in hardship" in JSA legislation1. Claimants in a defined vulnerable group are entitled to hardship payments in circumstances where other claimants are not2. Note 1: The test of hardship is not a test of ‘vulnerability’ but a test of the lack of the basic essential necessities of life, e.g. accommodation, food, water, heating and hygiene (see DMG 35155). Note 2: The term vulnerable group for hardship purposes is not the same as the DWP wider definition of ‘vulnerability’, or ‘vulnerable groups’ for any other purposes and applies exclusively to those defined in JSA regulations as "persons in hardship"1. 1 JSA Regs, regs 140(1) & 146A(1); 2 regs 141 & 146C(1) 35056 The date from which entitlement to hardship payments starts also depends on whether the claimant is in a defined vulnerable group for hardship purposes1. 1 JSA Regs, regs 141, 142, 146C & 146D People who are members of a vulnerable group 35057 The DM must treat claimants or partners who are pregnant women or lone parents responsible for a young person or members of couples or polygamous marriages responsible for children or young people or people who qualify for DP or certain people with long-term medical conditions or certain people who provide care for disabled people or certain people aged 16 or 17 or certain people under the age of 21 as "persons in hardship", (members of a vulnerable group for hardship purposes1 i.e. those who can have access to hardship without a waiting period). Vol 6 Amendment 44 October 2015 Note 1: Further guidance on these categories is given in DMG 35060 -35135. Some of these people may satisfy the conditions of entitlement for IS or ESA(IR). If a claimant or partner satisfies an IS or ESA(IR) condition of entitlement the claimant cannot be a person in hardship (see DMG 35013). Note 2: DMs should not interpret those with language difficulties, long term mental health conditions, or drug/alcohol dependencies as being in a vulnerable group for the purposes of JSA hardship unless the condition causes limitations in functional capacity because of a physical impairment2 (see further guidance on physical and mental health conditions at DMG 35070 et seq and 35095). 1 JSA Regs, reg 140(1); 2 reg 140(1)(g) As you can see clearly this could be the start of being able to define this group of people. Now what could be very interesting is if the MoJ could produce a document similar to this when dealing with the EA may assist many people in the long run.... Sorry for using Google to acquire this information but it may help when discussing this type of group...
×
×
  • Create New...