Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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 2496 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

So where does a provider focus? On the roles that are going to have the most impact for the most people?

I reckon that I’m safe in saying that it’s not a shocking revelation to most folk in this thread that in reality providers provide solutions on a majority-rules cost basis rather than the claimed provision of solutions that fit the individual client. Providers tend to be very coy in admitting their limitations in servicing their assigned client base to anyone, which is unhelpful for all concerned.

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

I have a £50 HMV voucher, I was going to buy a new Xbox game today...

 

My vouchers were declined!...

 

Iv'e read on a webpage that Deloitte have helped HMV out???

 

Does this mean that I now ask Ingeus for my money back? hahahahaha

Sadly not. But it does mean that potentially Deloitte stand to gain more than their administration fee from HMV’s demise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...now I'm back at Ingeus, who send me appointments by text after office hours at 21.00, expecting me to arrive the next morning sharp at 9.00. Not the decency of a phone call to check when I'm available beforehand. I complained when I next attended but they just pass you around to the next advisor.

 

On one of the earlier pages in this forum, someone gave a link to the WP contract with the DWP (sorry can't recall which post it was, you'll have to check). In the contract, it said that in the case of a mandatory appointment (which they all are), the WP must notify the client IN WRITING and either post it to them, or hand it to them in person. This is under the heading of 'High Level 'Must Do' requirements so the DWP obviously mean it do be done this way and no other.

 

In addition, there is also an extra rule stating that if a letter is posted out to a client, 2 working days must pass before the client is deemed to have received the letter. In other words, if Ingeus post a letter to you on Monday, you are not classed as having received it until at least Wednesday - so they can't ask you to come in first thing next morning. All interesting stuff which we should all be reading and be aware of, to assert our rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On one of the earlier pages in this forum, someone gave a link to the WP contract with the DWP (sorry can't recall which post it was, you'll have to check). In the contract, it said that in the case of a mandatory appointment (which they all are), the WP must notify the client IN WRITING and either post it to them, or hand it to them in person. This is under the heading of 'High Level 'Must Do' requirements so the DWP obviously mean it do be done this way and no other.

 

In addition, there is also an extra rule stating that if a letter is posted out to a client, 2 working days must pass before the client is deemed to have received the letter. In other words, if Ingeus post a letter to you on Monday, you are not classed as having received it until at least Wednesday - so they can't ask you to come in first thing next morning. All interesting stuff which we should all be reading and be aware of, to assert our rights.

 

Interesting. I received a text one time at 9am on Monday for an appointment on 9am on Tuesday.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On one of the earlier pages in this forum, someone gave a link to the WP contract with the DWP (sorry can't recall which post it was, you'll have to check). In the contract, it said that in the case of a mandatory appointment (which they all are), the WP must notify the client IN WRITING and either post it to them, or hand it to them in person. This is under the heading of 'High Level 'Must Do' requirements so the DWP obviously mean it do be done this way and no other.

 

In addition, there is also an extra rule stating that if a letter is posted out to a client, 2 working days must pass before the client is deemed to have received the letter. In other words, if Ingeus post a letter to you on Monday, you are not classed as having received it until at least Wednesday - so they can't ask you to come in first thing next morning. All interesting stuff which we should all be reading and be aware of, to assert our rights.

Two useful links to DWP docs:

This one is generic guidance covering anumber of DWP contracts and programmes:

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/framework-generic-guidance.shtml

 

This one is specifically about the Work Programme:

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/work-programme-provider.shtml

 

From time to time the guidance is updated.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/archive.shtml

 

The site contains a useful search functionality which can save wading through a lot of verbiage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received a letter in the post over a week ago…

 

Addressed to myself at my home address. The only people that know my home address are the job centre/Ingeus. Clients at Ingeus don’t know my address!!!...

 

I think I’ve upset someone, lol….Michael was my old Advisor, Mark my new one….

 

 

Dear Miss Brayde,

 

I am writing to complain about the behaviour of one of your advisers at Ingeus in Preston.

 

When I was in Ingeus on Thursday 3rd January 2013 just before closing time and I was sat with four other people at the computers job hunting when an advisor called ‘Michael W######S came over and sat with another advisor called ‘Mark. ‘Michael began to use foul language and use bad names to call a job seeker by the name of Richard Massey whom I know personally. Michael came over and said to Mark have you seen the email Richard Massey sent. ‘Mark said that he had and Michael then said I have sent a great reply back to him, you should read it. Michael also said that he had been on a website forum where Richard Massey has supposed to have been writing things about Ingeus and ‘Michael in particular?

 

‘Mark said that he had seen the email and ‘Michael asked him what he thought of it and ‘Mark said that he found it strange. ‘Michael then said yes he is a wan#er. ‘Michael was discussing ‘Richard Massey at great length and everyone on the computers could hear him. He was also sat with another advisor who was wearing a suit and glasses who must have heard what ‘Michael was saying?

 

I think this is a very bad way for your advisor to behave and I am disgusted at the language. I have head Michael speaking badly to other people in there and I think it should stop.

 

I have sent this letter anonymous as I don’t want to be singled out like that and be called by ‘Michael as I still have to go to Ingeus to get my benefits. I have sent a copy of this letter to Richard Massey as it is only fair that he knows what is being said about him.

 

I was given your name from the contact centre to write to as you are the main boss and hopefully you will sort It out.

 

Thank you for listening to my complaint.

 

Anon

Link to post
Share on other sites

:-o OMG Masso, I hope that your adviser is reading this forum and feels thoroughly ashamed of his actions and also of his fellow colleague.

Dispicable behaviour and something I loathe.

I also hope that the complaints procedure is something that is set in motion over this and also that you followit up with a personal complaint yourself.

Could be worth sending a copy to the JCP for it to be taken up via the customer service management to reprt to district office too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:-o OMG Masso, I hope that your adviser is reading this forum and feels thoroughly ashamed of his actions and also of his fellow colleague.

Dispicable behaviour and something I loathe.

I also hope that the complaints procedure is something that is set in motion over this and also that you followit up with a personal complaint yourself.

Could be worth sending a copy to the JCP for it to be taken up via the customer service management to reprt to district office too.

 

Totally agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@flumps..

 

I actually found it quiet funny when I opened and read it. I'll be taking it into Ingeus when I'm in next...

 

I will ask Michael if he really did call me a W####ER! :lol:

 

To be fair I wouldn't engage with him. Just deal with it though the manager and don't give anyone a chance to get into a confrontation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a £50 HMV voucher, I was going to buy a new Xbox game today...

 

My vouchers were declined!...

 

Iv'e read on a webpage that Deloitte have helped HMV out???

 

Does this mean that I now ask Ingeus for my money back? hahahahaha

 

If I were in your position, I'd have walked into HMV, chosen goods to the value of the voucher, left it on the counter in front of the cashier regardless that they are declining to accept them, and exited with the merchandise.

 

They've already had payment in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My new Advisor seems really nice, he phoned me at 7pm tonight to discuss a job opportunity at Pontins. I have no problems with him, we've put the past behind us....

 

Congratulations, they're not all xxxx'ers, some do 'seem' really nice (time will tell:-) ).

 

I think I'd have a slight problem with them ringing at 7pm though. That's outside working hours for the unemployed - wtf!! lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dreading going here on tomorrow -.- Especially with the predicted snowfall! No one can quite relay their disgust with this place, and many (not all) who work there. Last time I was waiting to be seen, there was an advisor chatting on the phone with someone who was clearly taking details off of them about where they just secured employment. After the conversation, she hangs up the phone, punches the air with her first and declares 'YES!!'...Now call me suspicious but I hardly doubt that outburst of joy was for the wonderful news that the individual in question secured employment (good luck to them...they'll need it if ingeus are badgering them for the next 24 months even after they land a job) and it was more for the fat bonus she secured for herself. whether she did help the individual (doubtful) in getting the job or not, that was pretty Disgusting. Further highlights that we are mere prized cattle to these people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dreading going here on tomorrow -.- Especially with the predicted snowfall! No one can quite relay their disgust with this place, and many (not all) who work there. Last time I was waiting to be seen, there was an advisor chatting on the phone with someone who was clearly taking details off of them about where they just secured employment. After the conversation, she hangs up the phone, punches the air with her first and declares 'YES!!'...Now call me suspicious but I hardly doubt that outburst of joy was for the wonderful news that the individual in question secured employment (good luck to them...they'll need it if ingeus are badgering them for the next 24 months even after they land a job) and it was more for the fat bonus she secured for herself. whether she did help the individual (doubtful) in getting the job or not, that was pretty Disgusting. Further highlights that we are mere prized cattle to these people.

 

I though advisors were just payed a set salary, ars they paid bonuses when 1 gets a job? And say a client leaves ther new job on as month or so, are they triggered back to their old advisor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I though advisors were just payed a set salary, ars they paid bonuses when 1 gets a job? And say a client leaves ther new job on as month or so, are they triggered back to their old advisor?

 

Advisors are paid a set wage. Advisors who hit targets gain brownie points and can get a pay rise.

 

Bonuses aren't given to individual Advisors...

 

Normally if you leave a job, you will be referred back to your previous Advisor.

Edited by Masso
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those links, Bakatcha. In the 'Mandation' PDF guide, Chapter 3a, it confirms my earlier comments - I've underlined the relevant bits.

 

Method of sending the MAN

The MAN must be either handed directly or posted to the participant. If it is posted it is deemed to have been received on the second working day after posting (see above).

 

It is not acceptable to use electronic methods, such as text or email, to send the MANs to participants. However, it is acceptable to communicate electronically with participants to remind them of mandatory (or non mandatory) activities.

 

Next time they try to text you your next appointment, tell them they're in violation of DWP rules and that you'll report them to their manager AND the DWP. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advisors are paid a set wage. Advisors who hit targets gain brownie points and can get a pay rise.

 

Bonuses aren't given to individual Advisors...

 

Normally if you leave a job, you will be referred back to your previous Advisor.

 

And does you old advisor check up in your file every now and then to see if your still working? Or is that someone else's job? Ad do your old advisors have to stay in contact with you?

Edited by G4C389
Link to post
Share on other sites

And does you old advisor check up in your file every now and then to see if your still working? Or is that someone else's job? Ad do your old advisor's have to stay in contact with you?

 

Well, when I got a got last March I was contacted by the head office...Basically to check how i was £££££ doing, and if i was still working lol...

 

Your Advisor will probably keep a check on you. Especially when you've been in a job for nearly 6 months. They will want you to hit 6 months, so they can claim the golden ticket (£££££££££££££££££££)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those links, Bakatcha. In the 'Mandation' PDF guide, Chapter 3a, it confirms my earlier comments - I've underlined the relevant bits.

 

Method of sending the MAN

The MAN must be either handed directly or posted to the participant. If it is posted it is deemed to have been received on the second working day after posting (see above).

 

It is not acceptable to use electronic methods, such as text or email, to send the MANs to participants. However, it is acceptable to communicate electronically with participants to remind them of mandatory (or non mandatory) activities.

 

Next time they try to text you your next appointment, tell them they're in violation of DWP rules and that you'll report them to their manager AND the DWP. :)

 

That's quite right, a MAN must be sent in the manner specified. A non mandatory appointment can be arranged in a way that doesn't meet the MAN criteria. I would often send reminder messages to people, especially if they were regular non attenders but only if it'd been preceded by a MAN letter.

 

It may be that the appointment is non mandatory in which case there's no harm in asking if someone can come in the following day.

 

Check the address on file for you to make sure the MAN is being to the correct address. The JCP would often not inform us of any changes for a few weeks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...