Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your consumer rights within six months If a product develops a fault within the first six months after purchase, it’s assumed it has been there since the time of purchase. This means it’s up to the retailer to prove it wasn’t there when you bought it. If a repair or replacement has failed, you have the right to reject the goods for a full refund or price reduction. Your consumer rights after six months If a fault develops after six months, it’s up to you to prove it was faulty at the time of purchase or delivery.   .
    • Thank Dx , Im guessing its a waiting game for now .
    • Hey Fkofile , Im one of those that have been affected by it ! i made a post about it . my credit score has already been affected by it .
    • We initially raised a complaint with the finance company who told us that as its over 6 months the consumer rights act won’t apply and we would need to provide evidence of the problem being there at purchase. As we have only just got the report from Mercedes we haven’t been able to submit this within their 14 day timeframe. Is this not the case then? Thanks
    • The previously little-known Chinese-American businessman’s fortune was transformed by the British taxpayer through 11 government contracts worth approximately £4.3bn for lateral flow tests (LFTs) made in China and sold by Innova. Charles Huang says contracts generated $2bn (£1.6Bn) profit   The government fast-tracked the company after its British representatives sent a direct email to Dominic Cummings, the chief adviser to the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, in July 2020. And, a Guardian investigation has found, the fast-tracking of Innova was supported by the then chancellor Rishi Sunak’s team at the Treasury. Innova became for a period of at least four critical months the only company authorised to supply rapid Covid tests in the UK, despite scores of others developing similar kits. At the time, the government spending watchdog raised concerns   Boss of US firm given £4bn in UK Covid contracts accused of squandering millions on jets and properties | Coronavirus | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Rishi Sunak’s team helped fast-track deal with firm founded by Charles Huang, who says contracts generated $2bn profit  
  • 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

JSA sanction question


elfieb
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4780 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

I have recieved notice this morning that I am to be sanctioned for not applying for a job the job centre provided me with. This is all very well and good excpet I did apply, and have a copy of the email to prove this........will this go in my favour if I appeal??

Also how long am I expected to wait for a decision from the decision maker?? Do I carry on signing on in the mean time? Will I still recieve payments??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, I've just had a similar thing I've posted about on behalf of a friend of mine (if you look for a thread started by me 'Jobcentre syaing have not applied for a job - may suspend JSA' you will see they seem to trying this a lot!)

 

Is the letter saying that the decision has been made, or is it the letter that says something like 'a doubt has arisen' and you have to fill in the back and explain your side? I'm sure that having confirmation from the employer would put it beyond doubt that you did apply and they would be unable to prove otherwise which would mean they can't impose sanctions?

 

Is this some kind of new technique to get rid of claimants, does anyone know?

 

Best wishes

 

Pixy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having an email as verification that you applied should most certainly go in your favour. You do need to continue with signing in the meantime, and need to continue satisfying the conditions of JSA - though if the sanction is in place, payments will not be forthcoming until either the sanction period passes or your appeal suceeds (whichever comes first). If you stop signing on, your claim will be terminated entirely.

 

To appeal the decision to sanction, complete form GL24, setting out the reason their decision is wrong, i.e: 'I disagree with the decision to sanction my Jobseeker's Allowance on the grounds that I did not apply for a vacancy, because I did in fact apply for the position in question. Please refer to the attached print from my email account, which I submit as evidence of my having applied' (attach a print of the email).

 

Pinkpixy - this isn't new, unfortunately. It's been something that has been in place for years but I have seen an increase in the application of sanctions (some very much unjustified)_- and there was a recent scandal revealed where management had been setting targets for staff to seek claims out to sanction. After this initially being denied, it was admitted and a public apology was given (bit late!). With these targets in place, sanctions were on the rise. Sanctions are designed to deter those who have little to no intention of seeking or securing employment, but as with much benefit issues, the innocent are often caught in the crossfire.

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

The procedure is as follows.

Customer is "matched" to a job vacancy and is advised that as the vacancy mayches their Job Seeking Agreement they are required to apply for the vacancy. This can either be and advisory appointment, fortnightly signing or by someone in the JCP who will be matching vacancies and JSAGs (mostly if an employer asks the vacancy to pushed as a priority). When the vacancy has been either suspended (time limit reached or quota of submissions reached for that vacancy) or filled.

A JCP officer will then contact the employed to enquire if any of the customers who were actually matched to the vacancy applied, offered interview, job offered etc. Based on this information "refusal of employment" action is taken.

Form ES195RE is issued either in person if the customer is due to sign within 48 hours or it is posted and due to be returned within a specified time (I don't actually issu these letters so don't know if it's 1 or 2 weeks sorry).

The case is sent to the DMA team for a decision whether this form is returned or not and the DMA look at if a sanction is applicable or not.

 

What I suggest that you do is write a letter to request a reconsideration of the decision and attach a copy of the email showing that you did apply for the vacancy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...