Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

So we are all SCROUNGERS now


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5049 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

The latest words from Mr Cameron "There is no way of dealing with an 11% budget deficit just by hitting either the rich or the welfare scrounger."

 

That's what is needed yes try and turn the whole country against the sick and vulnerable.

 

This man and his crony pals and puppets from lib dems are going to bring disaster to this country.

 

"villifieing the sick and the disabled and also promoting aggression, verbal and physical, against us"

There must be some laws against this sort of constant abuse. If derogatory, abusive terms are used to describe a particular race it is racism and not tolerated.

We are such an easy target thats why they get away with it. Isn't this incitement or something like?

 

Incitement.

"deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group"

Well the government are "deliberately provoking hatred" of the sick and disabled.

 

As for the "welfare scrougers" insult by DC, I'll choose to perceive it as more useful fodder for EHRC to be going on with.

 

His comment must surely be bordering on Discrimination by association.

 

Also I believe the decision makers for benefits are supposed to be impartial and make choices using only the facts, I don't see it possible for them to ever be able to do this with Mr Smith and Cameron vilifying people on Welfare.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

They like to hit the vunrable first they are the easiest targets and many [not all] of the disabled are unable to speak for themselves.

 

I was outraged by comments made by Government this week.

 

They actually put all Carers on what they call the ''Inactive'' List.

 

INACTIVE!!! :evil::evil:

 

I am on duty 24/7 and very little in way of breaks via respite [its to expensive at £30 a night] all for the poultry sum of £53.90 per week!!!! and they even freeze that on Tuesday from what i've read.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no good trying to blame this government for the mess this country is in, that is purely Broon and his couldn't care less, lets borrow borrow and spend spend government.

 

If you don't like it, tough, you should have done something over the past 13 years, not now when someone is trying to get us out of the legacy mess left to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no good trying to blame this government for the mess this country is in, that is purely Broon and his couldn't care less, lets borrow borrow and spend spend government.

 

If you don't like it, tough, you should have done something over the past 13 years, not now when someone is trying to get us out of the legacy mess left to them.

 

Oh conniff

 

i think if it was upto me i would have shot the lot of them at birth.

Edited by Brown-Clegg-Cameron2010
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes my blood bood boil... my landlord looks after his mum in a residential home and doesn't get ANY benefits paid to him because they are classed as 'wealthy'. However as his mum has severe MS and other problems and is in a wheelchair there is little the government can do to him other than cut the nursing support he now has, somebody comes along three times a week to help him get his mum washed properly and then to give him 2 hours respite once a week... and now he has to fill in forms explaining why he hasn't claimed benefit nor paid tax for the last five years he has been her sole carer.... unfair or what!

Link to post
Share on other sites

coniff while i agree cuts need to be made just like there was for the last conservative government yes they all eventully get it wrong that DOES NOT give him the right to brand people scroungers those remarks are UNJUST and lets remember many of this people have paid for these benefits through a working life

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

coniff while i agree cuts need to be made just like there was for the last conservative government yes they all eventully get it wrong that DOES NOT give him the right to brand people scroungers those remarks are UNJUST and lets remember many of this people have paid for these benefits through a working life

 

 

I think you have read it wrongly. It's not saying that all people on benefits are scroungers, it's saying that they want to cut the benefits of those that are not genuine claimants, ie scroungers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

coniff while i agree cuts need to be made just like there was for the last conservative government yes they all eventully get it wrong that DOES NOT give him the right to brand people scroungers those remarks are UNJUST and lets remember many of this people have paid for these benefits through a working life

 

Every time a Conservative government imposes cuts it is because the precending Labour government embarked on a borrow and spend course of action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the past may or may not be, how does that make it ok for Cameron to put benefit and scrounger in the same sentence so that eventually they become synonymous? At which point do we stop letting them get away with everything and anything under the pretext that the previous govt messed up, even when irrelevant to the conversation? :rolleyes:

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you bookie that is my point exactly and reading in the papers that this gov spent what is the ave persons yearly wages on more wine for a celar that is already well stock does not help matters it may just be propaganda but it still has to be said as any cuts has to start at the heart of governance

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep we are all scroungers now and have to live with the marker. I wonder if he claimed DLA for his son?

 

we have been tarred with that brush for quite some time now and not just by politicians, just look at the likes of the latest one "ESA", its the tar brush that brought this in.

 

:mad:

 

 

 

dk

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are being very naive, Conniff. :-(

 

You may think that that's what he meant, but I am pretty sure that the budget to come will soon show that it isn't that at all, but all people who need the welfare service for whatever reason.

 

Carers on the "inactive" list? That says it all really, the contempt of these people for the likes of us. :mad:

 

In reality, the scroungers are not on benefit at all. The accurate wording should be the banking scroungers. 11% deficit? Solve it in ONE SIMPLE act: get the banks to repay the £1.2 TRILLION used to bail them out. Let's be generous, don't even ask them to pay interest (which is more than they would do for us! :rolleyes:), just the capital. Now THAT is scrounging on a scale that 1000 Karen Matthews couldn't possibly match in a lifetime. :mad: Even better, that was of the previous government doing, so there's a chance to claim one's disapproval of their reckless actions loud and clear by making the beneficiaries repay it. 2 birds with one stone so to speak.

 

Oh, but that wouldn't do, would it, when one's close relatives all belong to that particular set of scroungers... No, instead, let's yet again pin it on the £50 a week Income support claimant, the £53.90 a week carer, the minimum wage worker, and of course, the disabled and unemployed. Scroungers, the lot of them. :rolleyes::mad:

 

You wait. As it goes, you won't have to wait very long. :mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ill write a letter to cameron and invite him to come out in public and explain what exactly he terms as a scrounger

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, look at the oo-ahh about how harsh the regime has become for the poor lambs now they actually have to account for the thousands they spend at our expense.

 

At least a benefit scrounger will spend it on fags and White Lightning, not on moats and duck houses, so much much cheaper. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep we are all scroungers now and have to live with the marker. I wonder if he claimed DLA for his son?

 

I have felt like a second class citizen [scrounger as the government put it] for yrs now because I claim Carers Allowance. When people ask what I do for a living and I say im a full time carer they instantly turn around and say or you dont work then, have even been told by someone that I was lucky because I didnt work but still got paid a weekly wage [HA! they called Carers Allowance a wage- slave labour more like].

 

I hate this new government already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bookie, lets give them a couple of months and lets see what the emergency budget reveals after scrutiny by the media. If what suppose turns out to be the way it is, I will be at your side with support.

 

I'm not standing up for this government, but am willing to see what they come up with. What I am dead set against is anyone making any excuses for Labour and standing up for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

and we dont go out and spent the eqivalent of 1 years wages on wine to stock a cellar that is already full enough i see you are keeping a close eye on the purse mr cameron

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not standing up for Labour per se, I just consider them the least bad alternative for us little people.

 

Money needs to be saved, there is no doubt about that. The difference is where it has to be saved FROM.

 

Get the banks to repay the money they "borrowed", it will solve financial deficit issues a lot faster than putting every IB clamant through a new assessment in the hope they can be found fit for work whether they are or not. :rolleyes:

 

It's actually really simple maths, if you levy large chunks of money from a few very rich, it will bring a lot more than trying to wring small amounts from a lot of poor people. It is SO obvious, and yet this government hasn't mentioned the blindingly obvious ONCE. Amazing, no? :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

now that is wasteful and ill have a bet there many other instances like this

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...