Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi I have to agree with @unclebulgaria67 post#3 For the funding side of moving to a new area and it being private supported accommodation I would also suggest speaking to private supported accommodation provider about funding but also contact the Local Council for that area and have a chat with them about funding because if you are in receipt of Housing Benefit certain Supported Accommodation that meets a certain criteria is treated as ‘exempt accommodation’ for Housing Benefit purposes but you need to confirm this with that relevant Council in your new area especially since it is Private Supported Accommodation as each Council can have slightly different rules on this. If you have a certain medical condition look up the charities and also have a wee chat with them as they may be able to point you to different Grants to assist with moving costs and your question about funding for private supported accommodation as well.
    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
    • Thank you for your responses. As requested, some more detail. Please forgive, I'm writing this on my phone which always makes for less than perfect grammar. My Dad tries but English not his 1st language, i'm born and bred in England, a qualified accountant and i often help him with his admin. On this occasion I helped my dad put in his renewal driving licence application around 6 weeks before expiry and with it the disclosure of his sleep apnoea. Once the licence expired I told him to get in touch with his GP, because the DVLA were offering only radio silence at that time (excuses of backlogs When I called to chase up). The GP charged £30 for an opinion letter on his ability to drive based on his medical history- at the time I didn't take a copy of the letter, but I am hoping this will be key evidence that we can rely on as to why s88 applies because in the GP opinion they saw no reason he couldn't drive i need to see the letter again as im going only on memory- we forwarded the letter in a chase up / complaint to the DVLA.  In December, everything went quiet RE the sleep apnoea (i presume his GP had given assurance) but the DVLA noticed there had been a 2nd medical issue in the past, when my father suffered a one off mini stroke 3 years prior. That condition had long been resolved via an operation (on his brain of all places, it was a scary time, but he came through unscathed) and he's never had an issue since. We were able to respond to that query very promptly (within the 14 days) and the next communication was the licence being granted 2 months later. DVLA have been very slow in responding every step of the way.  I realise by not disclosing the mini stroke at the time, and again on renewal (had I known I'd have encouraged it) he was potentially committing an offence, however that is not relevant to the current charge being levied, which is that he was unable to rely on s88 because of a current medical issue (not one that had been resolved). I could be wrong, I'm not a legal expert! The letter is a summons I believe because its a speeding offence (59 in a temp roadworks 50 limit on the A1, ironically whist driving up to visit me). We pleaded guilty to the speeding but not guilty to the s87.  DVLA always confirmed to me on the phone that the licence had not been revoked and that he "May" be able to continue to drive. They also confirmed in writing, but the letter explains the DVLA offer no opinion on the matter and that its up to the driver to seek legal advice. I'll take the advice to contact DVLA medical group. I'm going to contact the GP to make sure they received the SAR request for data, and make it clear we need to see a copy of the opinion letter. In terms of whether to continue to fight this, or to continue with the defence, do we have any idea of the potential consequences of either option? Thanks all
    • stopping payments until a DN arrives does not equal automatic sale to a DCA...if you resume payments after the DN.  
  • 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

Cycle to Work Scheme


Guest Old_andrew2018
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5701 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

Guest Old_andrew2018

Want to get fit, then why not cycle to work under the Government Cycle to Work initiative.

 

You need to be employed, be a tax payer PAYE, and your employer must register under the schemes.

You will make a substantial saving on both a new cycle, and equipment, which is paid back monthly by salary sacrifice, and is free of interest. www.hmrc.gov.uk/specialist/salary_sacrifice.pdf

This is a link to more general information

Department for Transport - Cycle to Work Scheme implementation guidance

 

Andy

Edited by old_andrew2007
Link to post
Share on other sites

same here - i've just paid my last payment :)

 

£1000 scott bike has cost me under £600 in total - very happy...i heard they are bringing in the possibility to 'topup' after you have paid it off in order to buy accessories - now this would be useful as the new fox forks i want are £600...would be nearer £350 on the cycle to work...

People who haven't made mistakes, haven't made anything!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I used to cycle into work daily, and for many years in all weathers until I got knocked off my bicycle by someone in a stationary vehicle who threw open their car door just in time for me to smack into it.

 

Their excuse: ‘I looked in the mirror but couldn’t see you because the sun was dazzling me, but I opened the door anyway…’

 

The same individual came over to me whilst I was lying in the road, looked down at my sprawling form and said ‘It’s alright I’m insured’

 

Okay the compensation paid for a new state of the art (at the time) computer but it took three years to get and I haven’t cycled since.

 

I could have been killed.

 

Sorry to put the dampers on this but a cyclist is very vulnerable to other road users.

 

If there was a system of safe, car free cycle tracks I would get back on my bike today!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a system of safe, car free cycle tracks I would get back on my bike today!

 

And free of suicidal pedestrians, and out of control dogs.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

we have miles of cycle tracks here in stevenage, and please dont make this a session to bedevil pedestrians! The pavements are for pedestrians, I walk my son to school and back every day, the amount of times that we have been run into, run up the back of and generally abused by cyclists is terrible.

 

And when I am in my car, on the road that I pay road tax to use, cyclists should themselves be a bit more careful, there are blind spots and cyclists are all too fond of just swinging out into the road or ignoring the traffic signals or rules of the road and doing as they please.

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an earlier episode on a cycle track whereby a motorist shot out across the track and pushed me out into the main (very busy) road.

 

And where was this person leaving in such a tearing hurry… an opticians!

 

This was the incident which nearly stopped me cycling, the one above did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well here in Stevenage, the cycle tracks are totally separate from the roads so no motorists on them at all

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I totally agree Lula, some cyclists are appalling too.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear this argment constantly. People seem to forget that it is not a case of cyclists / motorists / pedestrians being good or bad. The common denominator is....PEOPLE!!!

 

I do wish that the cyclists v motorists v pedestrians wouldstop as it distracts away from the issue that it is people who use the roads and therefore people who are accountable. That way we may see that the main cause of accidents is lack of respect for other people and an unwillingness / inability to comply with road laws.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hear this argment constantly. People seem to forget that it is not a case of cyclists / motorists / pedestrians being good or bad. The common denominator is....PEOPLE!!!

 

Those who have seen my thread in the Bear Garden will know that this is something of a relevant topic for me at the moment.

 

I have to say that whilst I largely agree with Gyzmo, I think there are other factors beyond simple inability/ignorance to be a courteous road user.

My own accident, for example, occurred on my way to work; a route I obviously take every weekday and have for a long time. I don't actually have any recollection of the accident itself, but I can say with certainty that the route is so well known to me that I do it on automatic pilot, which makes me less alert to what is happening around me.

Car drivers following familiar routes, I assume, experience the same, and that reduced alertness increases the chances of accidents.

 

Personally, as a cyclist, I have to say that I've always found car drivers extremely careful, recent events notwithstanding, and I do what I can to be a safe and courteous road user in response. At the same time, I do confess to issuing the occasional low muttering in the direction of pedestrians who appear to labour under the impression that a cycle lane is an extra wide, free walkway. Such thinking is tribal (a kind of 'us and them' mentality), and distinctly human.

 

Of course there are ignorant and/or arrogant road users out there (it is a sad fact that many car drivers flee the scene of accidents, especially with cyclists and pedestrians), but I think there are equally a great many who might otherwise be careful people who simply make a mistake or have a lapse of concentration.

 

Ultimately, it is up to each of us, regardless of our method of transportation, to make the effort to be as careful and considerate as we can. Accidents will always happen, but hopefully a little more thought and awareness will help to reduce the chances of incidents for everyone.

Edited by Tezcatlipoca
Link to post
Share on other sites

But the point here is this (and I apologise for going off topic) - an issue I have raised before.

 

When we use terms such as "car driver", "cyclist" we are attaching labels to people. When one says "I find car driver generally considerable", are we suggesting that as non-car drivers they are not considerable?

 

the elements that I see in the arguments of one group of road users against anotehr is simply that it is people not doing as they should. By using the labels I mentioned, it is as though we are creating a sub-species of humanity that is absolved from the normal requirements we come to expect (or hope to) from each other.

 

By saying "motorists do this" and "cyclists do that" etc etc we are simply removing the main cause - people. As a cyclist, I can attest to my fear of using the roads of manchester. I can do the same as a driver (L) and as a pedestrian.

 

In fact, if we look at the proposed congestion charge for Manchester (which will happen regardless of any ballot) the same can be applied.

 

Go through Cheetham Hill, Rochdale Road, Oxford Road, the Curry Mile - four main roads in Manchester, and you will see congestion. You will also see that the majority of this congestion is caused by poor road discipline. Vehicles halfway across junctions locking off lanes, other vehicles doing u-turns when they should not be. People on main roads blocking off side roads in queuesof traffic.

 

It only takes one "parked" (go down cheetham hill and observe how many cars "parked" outside are displaying their "broke down" lights to see what I mean) car on a busy dual carriage way to practically block off two whole lanes.

 

There endeth my sermon, but I only preach the truth!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When we use terms such as "car driver", "cyclist" we are attaching labels to people. When one says "I find car driver generally considerable", are we suggesting that as non-car drivers they are not considerable?

 

Hmmm..I suspect you're reading rather more into such classifications than are either meant or intended.

 

When I say that I find car drivers generally considerate (just as – I suspect – when you make frequent reference to the behaviour of ‘vehicles’ in your own post), it is not so much through a desire to compartmentalise drivers and further suggest they all follow a set behavioural pattern, so much as stating the simple fact that as a cyclist I chiefly share the road with those who drive cars, and, regardless of any classification or judgement of those drivers, I simply find the vast majority of them as people considerate. Of course there are exceptions, but then there are exceptions regardless of your chosen means of locomotion. This observation has nothing to do with said means, but with road users as individuals.

 

To return to the topic as started by the OP, and setting aside my recent medical history, I’m a huge advocate of cycling, and would be gratified to see more people taking it up as a means of transport. It’s certainly a healthier option, and whilst I can’t speak for other urban centres, where I live (Brighton), the council have made the road systems so unfriendly to drivers that I can generally make it across the city in less time on a bicycle than in a car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree - if there were more downhills than uphills:D

 

In the case of Brighton & Hove, the council road planning department seem to have been inspired by the Widow Winchester house. They have insane one way systems that loop round on themselves, diversions that go nowhere, and so on. And thats before you factor in the traffic conjestion as well.

 

At the same time, they've laid cycle lanes pretty much everywhere, so I get a direct, almost invariably clear, route to my destination.

I must admit, rare as it is to see B&H Council getting anything right, they have catered very well for cyclists in the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

observe how many cars "parked" outside are displaying their "broke down" lights to see what I mean
Taking the thread even more OT (sorry!), but you just hit a rant spot of mine here.

 

Waiting to park the other day and therefore, as taught many moons ago, sitting patiently with my indicator on whilst waiting for the car in the parking place to leave, then putting my reverse gear (indicator still on, of course), I was then overtaken by 1/2 a dozen cars all swerving wildly into the lane coming across (whatever happened to "wait until other car has completed maneuvre?" :shock:), which was bad enough, but then one of them yelled at me: "Put your bloody hazards on!!!" :shock:

 

I obviously must have missed the section of the Highway Code relating to acceptable use of hazards lights . :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will tell u one thing i will start cycling again just when the cars stop using the cycle paths/lanes as there propert to get round the ever increasing amount of congestion due to more F*&^%$£ road works in Great Yarmouth. Oh and when the bus drivers learn to look b4 they attempt to kill ppl.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...