Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • You probably do need to ignore it, but show it to us just in case. Cover up your name, address and anything that could ID you like your car reg. HB
    • Hi all! I've now had a "final notification letter" through from ECP. I assume I should continue to ignore this, but is there likely any action I need to take? Do you need to see a copy of the letter? Thanks
    • Please will you upload the defence in a PDF format document
    • Afternoon All - after 3 weeks of silence, this morning I received an email from HMCTS advising that P2G have rejected my claim. Decide whether to proceed Parcel2Go.com has rejected your claim. You need to decide whether to proceed with the claim. You need to respond before 4pm on 25 June 2024. Your claim won’t continue if you don’t respond by then. This is their ‘defence’ Their defence Why they disagree with the claim When choosing a service on the Defendants website, the Claimant chose to book their order with Evri and selected to take out £20 parcel protection which comes with the service. On the first page of the booking process, the Claimant entered the value of £265 for the contents and was offered parcel protection for loss or damages against their goods for £13.99 + VAT. The Claimant selected no, which then produced a pop up which explained 'We strongly recommend that you protect the full value of your item(s).' however, the Claimant still did not take this protection out and instead continued with the booking process. At the end of the booking process, the Claimant was offered this again which was refused and the Claimant continued with the booking by accepting the terms and conditions which re-iterates the information provided in the booking process. The parcel was sent, however, seems to be delayed in transit. The parcel finally started to track again, however, when delivered the parcel was empty with no contents. As such, the claim was re-opened and attempted to be settled for the £20 protection taken out in the booking process. This was refused by the Claimant as they felt they should be paid the full amount of the value entered when booking. Unfortunately, due to the refusal of the parcel protection in the booking process the Defendant is not liable to settle the claim to the value and only to the parcel protection taken out. The Defendant shall rely on the Terms and Conditions of carriage in particular section 9. The Defendant understands that the contents have not be handled with due care and attention, which is not being disputed, however, they are disputing the amount they are liable to. They have requested mediation, I’m sure not least to drag the case out even longer, but I can see no benefit to me in this and so shall reject it. As ever, I’d welcome your thoughts guys. g59   
    • I doubt HMCTS holds any data on whether arrests by AEAs required police assistance.  They couldn't or wouldn't provide data on how many of warrants issued were successfully executed - just the number issued!  In my experience, arrest warrants whether with or without bail are [surprisingly] carried out with little or no fuss.  I think it's about how you treat people - a little respect and courtesy goes a long way. If you treat people badly they will react the same way. Occasions when police are called to assist are not common and, having undertaken or managed many thousands of these over the years, I can only recall a handful of occasions when police assistance was necessary. On one occasion, many years ago, I arrested and transported a man from Hampshire to Bristol prison on a committal warrant. It was just me and he was no problem. I didn't know the Bristol area (pre Sat Nav) and he was kind enough to provide directions - seems he knew the prison.  One young chap on another committal warrant jumped out of his back window and I had to chase him across several garden fences.  When he gave up (we were both knackered) I agreed to drive by his girlfriend's house to say farewell for a while.  I gave them a few moments and he was fine. The most difficult are breach warrants but mainly in locating the defendant as they don't want to go back to prison - can't blame them.  These were always dealt with by the police until the Access to Justice Act transferred responsibility from them to the magistrates' courts. The fact was the police did not actively pursue them and generally only executed them when they arrested someone for something else and found they had a breach warrant outstanding.  Hence the transfer of responsibility.
  • 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

Ingeus


Raven1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2485 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

How do I get sent to another provider, please? I'm with Tomorrow's People. I'm getting nothing at all from these sessions. I've been told to go on a course - despite being told that I will not have to go on to any more courses. They don't understand my disabilities at all.

 

This is the second provider I've been to, (the other being Remploy) and they've been useless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

You only have a certain number of providers in each area depending on who won the contracts, (Ingenus, A4E, Tomorrows People, SERCO, ESG holdings, Remploy) and I'm sure there were others but can't think of the names now, once you have been allocated to a provider you can be referred to another provider (that wprks either with them or alongside them) you cannot be taken from that provider and placed with a "rival" provider.

 

The providers must be able to provide their complaints procedure and by not doing so they are breaking part of their contracts, you can also inform the JCP ofthe issues and complaints but these cannot be escalated to the regional offices on their own they have to be backed up by customer complaints too or it is deemed just sour grapes on the JCP part iygwim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Flumps

I really cannot believe that

bth parties believe things are going well
Nobody is that naive.

Any shortage of complaints is down to the unending complaints procedure that has to be gone through - usually to arrive at an inconclusive outcome - for the providers this is part of their work and they get paid to deal with it. For customers it is just an added burden. Of course there is always the fear that anyone complaining is branded a troublemaker with consequent retribution in the form of many hours compulsory "jobsearch", "training" or Mandatory Work Activity. With licence being given to the providers to do whatever they want (black box) and the JCP having little or no knowledge of what is actually happening the providers have been given a licence to bully.

It takes brave individuals to complain and carry through a complaint in such an environment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

bakatcha honestly the work programme provider management and the government believe that the programme is progressing well even if they are hoping to be able to renegotiate asking for extra money for their results due to the difficult economy!

They only believe it is going well due to the distinct lack of complaints so if anyone does have a legitimate complaint about the practises and not just becuase they don't like attending then they should make sure the complaints proceduure is followed so that they get a true reflection of the public perception.

 

Also the European Human Rights Centre (EHRC) are looking at outsourcing their telephony service and guess who is thought to be the preferred contender at the moment (according to the union newsletters), yep A4E!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I get sent to another provider, please? I'm with Tomorrow's People. I'm getting nothing at all from these sessions. I've been told to go on a course - despite being told that I will not have to go on to any more courses. They don't understand my disabilities at all.

 

This is the second provider I've been to, (the other being Remploy) and they've been useless.

 

Have you considered telling your Advisor that you are "considering taking legal advice regarding the disability discrimination you feel you are facing from them, and how it applies to the Disability Discrimination Act"?

 

The fear of that being levied against them could well see a major change in how they deal with you. Also, if you genuinely do feel like you are being discriminated against, there is no reason why you cant go all the way and just make a complaint to the appropriate authoriities.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

caledfwlch as I posted earlier that information will not make any difference sorry, once you are contracted to that particular provider unless they have a subsidary they can refer you to amongst their own group in that area you remain with them and in this case the only option is to follow the complaints procedure.

 

Under the old FND process customers could attend their local JCP office to advise that they weren't getting on with the providers and could request to be moved, this would be considered by the Adviser Manager and the personal adviser to establish if the transfer would be appropriate and a decision would be made.

 

Under the work programme this discretion has been removed and it is to stop the providers from cherry picking their customers (to ensure they only receive the most likely customers to return to work that will be long term to allow them to claim the higher reward payments).

Link to post
Share on other sites

basically by the time you reach WP you have beenunemployed for at least 9 months (if 18-24) and 12 months (over 25) so you are required to be applying for all jobs that you capable asnd qualified to undertake. If tere happens to be more work available in the area that requires this qualification then that is why they are putting you on the course to maxmise your chances of gaining sustainable full time employment.

It doesn't actually matter to then what type of work you would like to do anymore.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Flumps and Odset,

 

I think I best make them aware that I should not be working within a Kitchen. I have a genetic blood condition that causes my platelets to not clot. Already had three haemorrages all life threatening. I have to be so careful to not cut myself! Osdset not sure I will find out Wednesday, I think we all have to go on the course as a matter of..course!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My answers to the three questions asked by DMA. Lets see if they sanction me!

 

1) Why did you not provide the provider with ID to prove your right to work?

 

I DO NOT HAVE TO PROVE TO THE PROVIDER THAT I HAVE A RIGHT TO WORK. THIS IS A MATTER BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE RELEVENT GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES. THE MERE FACT THAT I HAVE BEEN MANDATED ONTO THE WORK PROGRAMME WOULD SEEM TO INDICATE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK! IN SPITE OF THIS I SHOWED THE PROVIDER MY SIGNING ON CARD, REFERRAL LETTER AND I EVEN GAVE THEM SIGHT OF MY BANK DETAILS BY SHOWING THEM MY BANKCARD. THIS IS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED TO PROVIDE MY IDENTITY.

 

2) Why did you not sign the Data Protection Consent Form?

 

AS PER MY LEGAL RIGHTS AND THE DWP GUIDLINES TO PROVIDERS I DO NOT NEED TO EXPLAIN MY DECLININING TO WAIVE MY RIGHTS UNDER THE DATA PROTECTION ACT. THE FACT YOU ASK THE QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE IS GROUNDS ENOUGH FOR A COMPLAINT TO THE ICO AND/OR THE DWP.

 

3) Why did you not let the provider keep or copy your CV?

 

I AM ONLY REQUIRED TO SHOW THE PROVIDER THAT I HAVE A CV. I GAVE THE PROVIDER FULL ACCESS TO MY CV DURING THE SESSION. LEGALLY I AM NOT REQUIRED TO LET THEM HOLD OR DUPLICATE MY CV. AS PER MY LEGAL RIGHT I HAVE DECLINED TO ALLOW THE PROVIDER TO DUPLICATE OR KEEP MY CV.

 

 

Lets see how long they take to reply. I'll let you all know how I get on. Thanks to everyone who has commented and provided details (and template) for my reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

caledfwlch as I posted earlier that information will not make any difference sorry, once you are contracted to that particular provider unless they have a subsidary they can refer you to amongst their own group in that area you remain with them and in this case the only option is to follow the complaints procedure.

 

Under the old FND process customers could attend their local JCP office to advise that they weren't getting on with the providers and could request to be moved, this would be considered by the Adviser Manager and the personal adviser to establish if the transfer would be appropriate and a decision would be made.

 

Under the work programme this discretion has been removed and it is to stop the providers from cherry picking their customers (to ensure they only receive the most likely customers to return to work that will be long term to allow them to claim the higher reward payments).

 

I don't mean to get the advisor or provider changed. I am merely thinking that the threat of being sued for disability discrimination, might make the Provider treat Nystagmite better than they have been.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry misunderstood you, have been under the weather with a rather nasty virus so not been able to concentrate fully and have read and re-read posts.

I'm all for getting the providers to do what they are supposed to do, however I somehow doubt it will ever be as it should.

Again with something like this I honestly recommend following the offical complaints procedure and if that doesn't have any result then yes make further enquiries about the nextaction to take.

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regard to any complaints procedure the pimps have in place.

 

I was lucky enough to only experience w2w once, three years ago and for only 13 weeks, but during that time they 'lost' some significant forms of identification belonging to me, enough ID to facilitate identity theft in the hands of someone unscrupulous, every complaint was ignored, the management were totally indifferent because the advisor that was dealing with my paperwork had left, so they regarded the problem as leaving with her.

 

I received an apology and partial redress six months after I had completed my time with them, and only after my MP had written three increasingly stronger worded letters to the CEO.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the issue that the government think that the Work Program is going well and they aren't aware of any complaints is due to the ridiculous complaints procedure in place. Surely the process of reporting to the work program provider makes them a self-regulating entity? This is how it seems to me.

 

I've complained about the unqualified medical advice I received (despite probably been true its not my advise'rs place to inform me of my need to visit doctors of the brain). This has been ignored.

 

I've complained about the misrepresentation of authority and bullying. This has been ignored.

 

I've complained about false data been provided to the DWP about me and no attempt to rectify it after it been pointed out. This has been ignored.

 

Any complaint of any substance will be brushed under the carpet. This is the Ingeus way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely there must be an authority that regulates these people that they must answer to? Making a complaint to Ingeus, about Ingeus obviously isn't going to get anywhere, that's a given.

 

Does the DWP not regulate it, in a very remote way? The government more than likely views it as teething problems, its very easy for them to say they are learning from mistakes, the programme does work, and it will be improved. The whole WP is an odd system, the customer of the providers is actually the DWP, and somehow we are just caught in the system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the programme does work, and it will be improved.

 

It works very well in getting level entry positions filled, if the claimant's over fifty, or highly skilled, or is management material forget it, w2w have a huge road to tread before they have the nous to place those types of candidates. it may well improve when the job market does, presently employers can cherry pick the cream of any candidates, those that find themselves on w2w generally do not fall into that category unfortunately.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the DWP not regulate it, in a very remote way? The government more than likely views it as teething problems, its very easy for them to say they are learning from mistakes, the programme does work, and it will be improved. The whole WP is an odd system, the customer of the providers is actually the DWP, and somehow we are just caught in the system.

Quite right! To call those consigned to the WP "customers" is Orwellian doublespeak.

We didn't ask to be put on the WP.

We have no choice of provider.

We have little choice what they choose to do with us.

We didn't hire the provider.

We can't sack the provider.

We are in fact the goods or raw material out of which profit is to be made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any complaint of any substance will be brushed under the carpet. This is the Ingeus way.

 

This is the impression I get. No-one can reassure me that what happened 3 times won't happen again. (given stuff that's inaccessible and then got the blame for not telling anyone. My adviser knew beforehand. It wasn't as if I hadn't said anything to her and then moaned about it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No the DWP have no way of regulating the work programme, the companies tendered for the contracts from the government.

All I can suggest is that any complaint is made in writing with a request (put politely of course :) ) for confirmation in writing that the complaint has been received and will be investogated as set out in their complaints procedure.

The complaints are only measured by written submission, verbal complaints do not and are subsequently not recorded any where.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...