Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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 2429 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

Jasta 11 and Hi think about and all that have contributed.... loads in my community are very thank full as information reaching them from this site for the few day we found this sit have made a huge difference in our thinking and the state of confusion we found ourself. Thanks everybody.

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

Meaning contributors who only want to misslead to suit the organisation who they work for or affiliated. Just saying people should resesrch also and find information rather than just take anything thrown at them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meaning contributors who only want to misslead to suit the organisation who they work for or affiliated. Just saying people should resesrch also and find information rather than just take anything thrown at them

 

I'm not aware of people doing that here, but I stand to be corrected. If you have specific examples, please PM me or someone else on the site team.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So after being on post work programme support since last September i signed on today to be told by my advisor that people at my stage of my jsa claim are now expected to attended weekly signings - anybody know if that's correct?

 

In a genuine attempt to answer your question: As part of the post WP regime, you can be required to sign on weekly, or even daily at the whim of an adviser - That said, a weekly signing schedule has been within the remit of JCP from day one of your claim.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So after being on post work programme support since last september i signed on today to be told by my advisor that people at my stage of my jsa claim are now expected to attened weekley signings - anybody know if thats correct?

Hello TJ

If I recall we’ve exchanged views and experiences on Post WP Support in the past. Our situation was not very different.

 

I came off WP about two months before you and so far nobody has told me, or even suggested, that I should ‘sign on’ weekly.

Did they make it clear to you that you would actually be ‘signing on’ every week? Or, do they mean that you need to attend interviews or whatever at the Jobcentre every week?

I believe that the Jobseeker’s Allowance is based on a weekly payment but the actual ‘signing on’ is fortnightly.

The whole sanctioning process, rough as it is, is also, I believe, based on the fortnightly ‘signing on’ arrangements.

If claimants ‘sign on’ every week, I would expect there to be no objection to the JSA being paid every week. I would also suggest that the basis on which the whole sanction and penalty procedures are presently administered would be thrown out of any semblance of consistency.

If increased attendance is expected then that is by agreement between the ‘Work Coach’ or whatever they are called now, and the claimant and is the sort of activity that requires the claimant to be mandated. Have you been properly mandated and given reasons for having to attend weekly? Have you been given the opportunity to appeal against this additional imposition?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also suggest speaking to your JCP coach (or whatever they are called this week) and say that if you were to sign on weekly that is 2 additional fares to JCP you need to find from your benefit money. Remember, your JSA is there because "the DWP has deemed this the amount payable for you to live on" So any additional expense to you means you are out of pocket - also, if your original agreement is to sign on every fortnight and it is now weekly you want a new JSAag or Client Commitment or whatever it is called this week and paying to travel 2 out of the 4 weeks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello TJ

If I recall we’ve exchanged views and experiences on Post WP Support in the past. Our situation was not very different.

 

I came off WP about two months before you and so far nobody has told me, or even suggested, that I should ‘sign on’ weekly.

Did they make it clear to you that you would actually be ‘signing on’ every week? Or, do they mean that you need to attend interviews or whatever at the Jobcentre every week?

I believe that the Jobseeker’s Allowance is based on a weekly payment but the actual ‘signing on’ is fortnightly.

The whole sanctioning process, rough as it is, is also, I believe, based on the fortnightly ‘signing on’ arrangements.

If claimants ‘sign on’ every week, I would expect there to be no objection to the JSA being paid every week. I would also suggest that the basis on which the whole sanction and penalty procedures are presently administered would be thrown out of any semblance of consistency.

If increased attendance is expected then that is by agreement between the ‘Work Coach’ or whatever they are called now, and the claimant and is the sort of activity that requires the claimant to be mandated. Have you been properly mandated and given reasons for having to attend weekly? Have you been given the opportunity to appeal against this additional imposition?

No i mean weekley appointments but they did make me sign the same document that u sign when you go to your usual fortnightly signing to prove that i did turn up - they had booked me an appointment that i had last week on my non signing week which it was told was one of the case load appointments and wouldnt happen again for a while but the advisor i saw when i signed yesterday said that appointment was an "Intervention Meeting" and people who are at the stage where i am at are now required to attend weekley

TJR JNR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello TJ

If I recall we’ve exchanged views and experiences on Post WP Support in the past. Our situation was not very different.

 

I came off WP about two months before you and so far nobody has told me, or even suggested, that I should ‘sign on’ weekly.

Did they make it clear to you that you would actually be ‘signing on’ every week? Or, do they mean that you need to attend interviews or whatever at the Jobcentre every week?

I believe that the Jobseeker’s Allowance is based on a weekly payment but the actual ‘signing on’ is fortnightly.

The whole sanctioning process, rough as it is, is also, I believe, based on the fortnightly ‘signing on’ arrangements.

If claimants ‘sign on’ every week, I would expect there to be no objection to the JSA being paid every week. I would also suggest that the basis on which the whole sanction and penalty procedures are presently administered would be thrown out of any semblance of consistency.

If increased attendance is expected then that is by agreement between the ‘Work Coach’ or whatever they are called now, and the claimant and is the sort of activity that requires the claimant to be mandated. Have you been properly mandated and given reasons for having to attend weekly? Have you been given the opportunity to appeal against this additional imposition?

 

Also while i was there i heard the staff asking each other if for example "joe Bloggs turned up for his intervention" - god knows what these interventions meen?

TJR JNR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also suggest speaking to your JCP coach (or whatever they are called this week) and say that if you were to sign on weekly that is 2 additional fares to JCP you need to find from your benefit money. Remember, your JSA is there because "the DWP has deemed this the amount payable for you to live on" So any additional expense to you means you are out of pocket - also, if your original agreement is to sign on every fortnight and it is now weekly you want a new JSAag or Client Commitment or whatever it is called this week and paying to travel 2 out of the 4 weeks

Yea she told me to bring in my ticket and they pay travel costs for the week i dnt usually sign on - also they no longer give a fixed signing on time now - everytime i go in they book me a time for the next signing on date so its the same day but not the same time every fortnight

TJR JNR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up TJ.

 

So, it’s weekly attendance and not weekly signing on.

 

Four points may now be worth addressing, to do with administrative procedure;

 

 

  1. Was a full explanation of what this ‘Intervention’ means given and what is the ultimate expected objective?
  2. Has this been discussed with you and was your agreement sought before it started?
  3. Is this activity mandatory, will failure to comply result in automatic penalty or sanction?
  4. If it mandatory then the proper procedure should have been to inform you in writing and the letter informing you should have explained the reasons for, and the expected beneficial result, of the activity. Was it done that way in this case?

Whatever the answer to the above I believe that this additional activity has changed your Jobseeker’s Agreement or Claimant Commitment. As such the rules covering changes should apply, the most important one of which, in this case, would be that there should be agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding changing the signing time every week, they're told to do this in their guidance - supposedly it's to keep claimants alert and used to being in the 'real' word (ie stopping us lying in bed all day). Being the cynical type, I have a feeling that it's also to make things difficult for those who are working on the fiddle and claiming.

 

The DWP go on about 'building a rapport between the customer and their adviser' so surely a regular day and regular time would be far better? I gave up trying to understand the DWP mentality a long, long time ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told during my time signing on that they regularly change dates and times as it is 'blatantly obvious' people are working cash in hand so if their signing days and times are the same they can regulalry work - if they are changed it can make it difficult for them. Not that I am condoning working and claiming JSA of course, after all, £71.40pw is more than enough to live off these days with gas and electric, food, water rates, council tax however minimal, fares on buses and trains and so on - can't see how anyone cannot live off that lovely amount especially when Joe Bloggs aged 25 has done not a days work in his life and gets £71.40 and Joe Bloggs brother has worked 20 years and paid a fortune in NI and tax and gets, erm, £71.40 - it is a fair system

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how anyone can condone people working while on JSA. It does everyone a disservice because they can use it for more control and as an excuse for even tougher measures. Who has noticed that we have moved back to a notion of the deserving and undeserving poor . The next step will be the workhouse for the "undeserving" poor . A totally regressive step that takes us back to the mid 1800's

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not feign righteous indignation at anyone who engages in a bit of work to supplement a paltry income of £71.40 per week. On the other hand I would condemn most vehemently employers who pay such low wages that their employees have to still rely on benefits and food banks to survive.

 

As far as needing an excuse to exert more control and tougher measures is concerned. It is estimated that the current measures have contributed directly to around 1,500 deaths this past year, how much tougher can they make it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was 'blatantly obvious' that somebody was receiving substantial amounts of cash in hand from work done whilst on JSA surely it is within the JCA employee's remit to launch an investigation into the person they suspect of working whilst claiming benefit... if not then they are spouting the rhetoric the Conservative party like to peddle about the 'unworthy benefit scroungers'.

 

If Universal Credit does work and become the new 'passport to benefits of any and every kind' then they will have created again another class of people to 'target'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up TJ.

 

So, it’s weekly attendance and not weekly signing on.

 

Four points may now be worth addressing, to do with administrative procedure;

 

 

  1. Was a full explanation of what this ‘Intervention’ means given and what is the ultimate expected objective?
  2. Has this been discussed with you and was your agreement sought before it started?
  3. Is this activity mandatory, will failure to comply result in automatic penalty or sanction?
  4. If it mandatory then the proper procedure should have been to inform you in writing and the letter informing you should have explained the reasons for, and the expected beneficial result, of the activity. Was it done that way in this case?

Whatever the answer to the above I believe that this additional activity has changed your Jobseeker’s Agreement or Claimant Commitment. As such the rules covering changes should apply, the most important one of which, in this case, would be that there should be agreement.

 

No i was told by my advisor a fortnight ago that he had messae on the computer flag up that he had to make an appointment for me to see him then he wrote it on a little green jcp appointment card an stapled it to my white Book then i had my appointment last week an he just said it was to spend more time with me to see how im getting on than just the usual 5 mins on signing day - hes a nice advisor hes on first name terms with me an he seems more friendly-i think its to do with him having a hearing disability and that i used to always make him feel relaxed when he first started there i was one of the first people he saw an let him take his time signin me on -anyway then i had my appointment last week which still lasted 5 mins with him anyway then when i signed on this week he wasnt in so i saw a woman an she said i was too early to see her an i said i sign on at 9.30 then she said the time changes each time now an she had a look and said yes your advisor ian has booked you in at 9.30 the first time i came back from post work programme at the large jcp in town coz then they let people go to the small local jcp offices go bk to our local offices for pwps - an she shown me he had wrote my signing times at the back of my book which were like 9.30 ,, 9.40 . 9.15 so i had been goin in for like 9.20 thinkin they were all the same an he hadnt said anything coz i was always there around the right time but this week he had booked me to sign at 10.20 for some reason so she kicked off when i came in nearly an hour early - so maybe she was just sayin i had to come every week to be awkward and booked me an extra appointment for next week maybe it is just a one off thing like my advisor made out it to be but then she got her knicks in a twist coz she was havin to see all his people aswel as her own with him being off work and then i roll in an hour early an push her over the edge

TJR JNR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not feign righteous indignation at anyone who engages in a bit of work to supplement a paltry income of £71.40 per week. On the other hand I would condemn most vehemently employers who pay such low wages that their employees have to still rely on benefits and food banks to survive.

 

Didn't we have a thread on this subject earlier in the year ?

If I recall correctly, it turned nasty and eventually got closed down....

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...