Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Case Stay Lifted on 21/05/2024 General sanctions order was made on 21/05/2024   they didnt file their questionarre on time. So they have another 7 days
    • Thank you BankFodder and jk2054. Dear Mr ***** *****, Re: Letter of Claim, Lost parcel delivery P2G123206851 Case Number 3348098 I write in response to your offer of £75 for the loss of the above parcel which I reject. Your offer comes nowhere near the value of the parcel that you were contracted to arrange the safe delivery of. You state that as I did not take out insurance to cover the full cost you will not be making any other offer. Attempting to limit or exclude your liability under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and your insistence on paying something in addition to the agreed contract price for the service is unfair and contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. If I do not have a satisfactory outcome by the 10th July I will be issuing court proceedings. Kind regards,      
    • Thank you, I suggested a particular approach in my first post. Will you now follow the advice so that we can then understand exactly what has happened and advise you as to what to do.  
    • I'm not sure whether you will succeed in having the case transferred – but why not try? Whatever, if you don't hear anything – don't take anything for granted and attend at the designated court. If you can show that his licence was in force – back to back despite the various investigations – then there should be no problem. In any event, he should plead not guilty and then explained carefully to the court – maybe with a large diagram which he contender in evidence – and make it clear that if there is any offence is because of some misunderstanding but actually, the charge has been caused by a bureaucratic misunderstanding by the charging authorities. If he gets a "not guilty" then he should certainly ask for the costs of attending court. Don't go for a money grab but keep petrol receipts et cetera. He should point out to the court that he is very straight dealing. He abide by all regulations. He makes all disclosures. He is very concerned about road safety and understands exactly why these requirements are put in place for a man of his age. He should not be challenging in court
    • This happened approx 18 months - 2 years ago. I have not been out of pocket. eBay instantly paid the money to me and then investigated once the buyer claimed the item did not arrive. They favoured towards the buyer and therefore made my ebay account minus £9000. Subsequently the ebay account got suspended and I since cut ties with it and no longer have access to it.  
  • 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

JSA backdating and "good cause"


abonae
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4995 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

Hi

 

Can anyone give me any pointers to what is considered "good cause" to support an application to backdate a JSA claim?

 

Is there a decision makers' guide that covers this? Is there anything in legislation?

 

Many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's in the 1997 amendment to the Claims and Payments Regulations, where regulation 19 is substituted. I've quoted below:

 

Substitution of regulation 19 of the Claims and Payments Regulations

 

6. For regulation 19 of the Claims and Payments Regulations(1) (time for claiming benefit) there shall be substituted the following regulation—

 

Time for claiming benefit

 

19.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this regulation, the prescribed time for claiming any benefit specified in column (1) of Schedule 4 is the appropriate time specified opposite that benefit in column (2) of that Schedule.

 

[...]

 

(4) Subject to paragraph ( 8 ), in the case of a claim for income support, jobseeker’s allowance, family credit or disability working allowance, where the claim is not made within the time specified for that benefit in Schedule 4, the prescribed time for claiming the benefit shall be extended, subject to a maximum extension of three months, to the date on which the claim is made, where—

 

(a)any of the circumstances specified in paragraph (5) applies or has applied to the claimant; and

 

(b)as a result of that circumstance or those circumstances the claimant could not reasonably have been expected to make the claim earlier.

 

(5) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (4) are—

 

(a)the claimant has difficulty communicating because—

 

(i)he has learning, language or literacy difficulties; or

 

(ii)he is deaf or blind,

 

and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to obtain assistance from another person to make his claim;

 

(b)except in the case of a claim for jobseeker’s allowance, the claimant was ill or disabled, and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to obtain assistance from another person to make his claim;

 

©the claimant was caring for a person who is ill or disabled, and it was not reasonably practicable for the claimant to obtain assistance from another person to make his claim;

 

(d)the claimant was given information by an officer of the Department of Social Security or of the Department for Education and Employment which led the claimant to believe that a claim for benefit would not succeed;

 

(e)the claimant was given written advice by a solicitor or other professional adviser, a medical practitioner, a local authority, or a person working in a Citizens Advice Bureau or a similar advice agency, which led the claimant to believe that a claim for benefit would not succeed;

 

(f)the claimant or his partner was given written information about his income or capital by his employer or former employer, or by a bank or building society, which led the claimant to believe that a claim for benefit would not succeed;

 

(g)the claimant was required to deal with a domestic emergency affecting him and it was not reasonably practicable for him to obtain assistance from another person to make his claim; or

 

(h)the claimant was prevented by adverse weather conditions from attending the appropriate office.

 

(6) In the case of a claim for income support, jobseeker’s allowance, family credit or disability working allowance, where—

 

(a)the claim is not made within the time specified for that benefit in Schedule 4, but is made within one month of the expiry of that time; and

 

(b)the Secretary of State considers that to do so would be consistent with the proper administration of benefit,

 

the Secretary of State may direct that the prescribed time for claiming shall be extended by such period as he considers appropriate, subject to a maximum of one month, where any of the circumstances specified in paragraph (7) applies.

 

(7) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (6) are—

 

(a)the appropriate office where the claimant would be expected to make a claim was closed and alternative arrangements were not available;

 

(b)the claimant was unable to attend the appropriate office due to difficulties with his normal mode of transport and there was no reasonable alternative available;

 

©there were adverse postal conditions;

 

(d)the claimant was previously in receipt of another benefit, and notification of expiry of entitlement to that benefit was not sent to the claimant before the date that his entitlement expired;

 

(e)in the case of a claim for family credit, the claimant had previously been entitled to income support or jobseeker’s allowance (“the previous benefit”), and the claim for family credit was made within one month of expiry of entitlement to the previous benefit;

 

(f)except in the case of a claim for family credit or disability working allowance, the claimant had ceased to be a member of a married or unmarried couple within the period of one month before the claim was made; or

 

(g)during the period of one month before the claim was made a close relative of the claimant had died, and for this purpose “close relative” means partner, parent, son, daughter, brother or sister.

 

The full amendment can be found here

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anytime :-D

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...