Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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 
        • 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

Compliance officer what happens now (really confused!)


angeleyes182
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4820 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 3 nights rule thing hasn't been true for yonks either. I remember my sis saying about this years ago when she worked in DWP over payments dept, & she has now been in land registry for about 12 years, so I have no idea why people still think there is this 3 night rule.

As I had said before in a thread a married couple could spend 6 months apart if he works away on the rigs or something, but it doesn't mean they're not 'together'

In fact the 'living together as if married' doesn't even cover the hubby that works away does it. I guess common sense should prevail but some of us are not the brightest bulbs in the pack & really do need to have everything spelt out, it's not easy for claimants & benefit staff is it to get the right messages across. It also doesn't help when different benefits have different rules. Confusing.

 

Hi Jadeybags,

 

This is kind of my point too. The issue is not about time spent, it is about the level of commitment to each other. In the absence of a marriage certificate, measuring the commitment is not directly possible, so the DWP have created their own criteria to assess commitment. When their criteria comes up with a different answer, they try to force the commitment onto the couple anyway, just because their measurement says it should be there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jadeybags,

 

This is kind of my point too. The issue is not about time spent, it is about the level of commitment to each other. In the absence of a marriage certificate, measuring the commitment is not directly possible, so the DWP have created their own criteria to assess commitment. When their criteria comes up with a different answer, they try to force the commitment onto the couple anyway, just because their measurement says it should be there.

 

And I think that's horrendous. But there does have to be a line drawn somewhere, & what a nightmare for whoever has to work out where that line is. If that made sense. And if it's a fuzzy line in the DWP's rules, how the heck are jo public supposed to know where the line is either? It's all a big head messer isn't it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree about comitment levels, but remember we are talking seven out of seven here, no one is forcing that choice on op. I think nowadays when getting a benefit for instance as a single parent, its better to be super super vigilant of how your relationship could be interpreted, because wether thats how you want to be seen or not, its a shock to the system when someone calls in and makes an accusation.

 

You have to protect yourself whilst respect we are getting support that some abuse.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have moved some posts off here, including my own because it is generating into a discussion about the definition of couples for benefits purposes in general, which in turn is hijacking the original post.

 

For anyone who wishes to follow that discussion, the thread which has been created can be located by clicking 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

Thanks again for all your interest and help. Unfortunatley i cant view the added documents as i have internet on my phone. I want to clarify that its only recently we have been spending 7 nights and there is sometimes when we have nights apart (not that its going to make any differance now anyway). My boyfriend and i are spending time apart until we get the situation sorted. He says he is assessing finances but i will be honest its scared us both. I am going to have a chat with CAB. I dont want the label of benefit fraud. I want to know what will happen if we bite the bullet and move in together and then 3weeks/months down the line when im well into my studies my son has started school we decide we cant live in each others space what will happen to my son and i, i am jepordising my whole future whatever i choose. We live 20-25 min away from each other so its a different area,different schools.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel reeally terrible for you angeleyes, it's pressure you dont need at the moment. I guess at the end of the day people do need to be really careful when claiming benefits, obviously there is the new benefits shake up going on now & they are clamping down in every way. Case of having to for the economy, as a country we are in dire straights. Look what happened to Ireland.

I hope things go back to some sort of normality for you soon, & it doesn't affect your relationship.

You can have a boyfriend & claim benefits as a lone parent.

Years ago when I was income support, full housing benefit & privately rented my brother came to stop with me when he was homeless after splitting with his g.f. He never paid me a bean, & fed himself though, within a month I got an eviction notice as the landlord was selling the house, I even had a woman from the council round about housing me & my brother was mentioned as staying with me, & that he wouldn't have anywhere to live either, we had both been on the housing list about 5 or 6 years by this point, & I had re rented numerous times when houses were sold by the landlords, we were both housed by the council, him in a flat, me in a house within a couple of months. Nothing was ever mentioned about him being at mine! She didn't even ask if he paid me any rent!

These days it's so much different isn't it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi angeleyes,

 

I have read the guidance document posted by Enrika. Some things that would affect the cohabiting decision by DWP in your favour, is if for example, there has been unfaithfullnes in the relationship recently, or if your future plans as a couple are uncertain, your partner does not help with childcare, you do not assist in each others houses, you do not do each others laundry etc.

 

Those issues are all things that they have to take into account, but are not decisive in their own right.How often you see each other does not make any substantial difference, however, if either you or your partner has a second on going relationship, then they cannot decide that you in a husband and wife relationship.

 

My personal views/ideas about challenging the concept of a marriage without a financial commitment to support each other, has not been easy to persuasively explain to people on this forum, so I'd have to say it would be rather brave to try that route at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...