Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have had a secondary thought.  I borrowed £s from a completely separate entity 6y ago. It was personal and unsecured. I was going to repay upon sale of the property. But then repo and I couldn't.  Eventually they applied and got a charging order on the property.  Their lawyers wrote that if I didn't repay they may apply for an order for sale.  I'm not in control of the sale.  The lender won't agree to an order for sale.  The judge won't expedite it/ extract from trial.  Someone here on cag may or may not suggest I can apply for an order v the receiver?  But could I alternatively ask this separate entity with a c.o to carry out their threat and actually make an application to court for an order for sale v the receiver instead?
    • You left the PCN number showing, but no worries, I've redacted it. Euro Car parks are very well known to us.  I've just skimmed through the titles of the latest 100 cases we have with them (I gave up after 100) and, despite all their bluster and threats, in not one have they taken the Cagger to court. You stayed there for 2 hours &:45 minutes.  I'm guessing the limit is 2 hours and 30 minutes, right?  
    • If the claimant fails to draft directions the court can order a Case Management Hearing to set them but normally in Fast Track claims the claimant sets the directions...Unlike small claims track which are always set the court.
    • Not Evris offer, the court offers mediation service.   All claims proceed to hearing if mediation fails /not happen.   Why do you not wish to attend in person to stand your claim ?     Absolutely you must comply with the courts directions or your claim risks being struck out. Preparation for a hearing should happen irrespective of mediation.   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/460613-suing-a-parcel-delivery-company-when-you-dont-have-a-direct-contract-with-them-–-third-party-rights-copy-of-judgment-available/#comment-5255007   Andy  
    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  He'd simultaneously asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. In later months Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.    Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  (thus I don't know if the buyer would have ever proceeded). He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since (inc via new agent requested by lender). I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
  • 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 2449 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

  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Yes they are our local provider - we also have a small ingeus office in a side room at an internet cafe - they mainly have people who were in the esa support group long term and have been moved to wrag group so i doubt they will be closing - i was with standguide which changed to A4e then Avanta an since i finished it has changed to people plus

TJR JNR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think I posted her a few weeks ago saying that my payment wasn't in my bank account because the jobcentre "misplaced" my fit note, so I had to go back to my GP, get a replacement, hand it into the jobcentre and wait a few days to be paid.

 

This morning, I checked my account, expecting to see my payment, but it's not there. I get a letter in saying I won't be paid from the 11th of March until the 5/6th of April because I "failed to comply" even though I filled out the JSA28 form and have been handing in fit notes for the past two months. I'm guessing this all leads back to Ingeus and my adviser constantly reporting me for missing appointments that I didn't need to attend. I have written several letters to the DWP, explaining my situation, and also have phoned them a few times to clear up the confusion - they were apologetic on the phone and cleared the red flag/complaint from my file and that was it, supposedly. But, I tried to phone them again just now and I can't because it's a bank holiday weekend :evil:

 

I'm not one for name calling, but I'm getting really fed up with this b**** at Ingeus throwing tantrums and reporting me every week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Report her to the manager, copy in the local job centre manager too and the local MP. That is the only way to get things done with these organisations. The more you phone the less they seem to do anything.

 

Write to the DWP too, copying in the local job centre, Ingenus manager and your local MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like your caught in a quagmire not your fault but DWPs is why I don't understand how they can be that incompetent I dunno how you get your MP involved (maybe email?) but defo do it and the rest of what sillygirl said about writing to DWP and phone them to and tell them the whole scenario and if you could speak to the line manager time to escalate it....... you have to get paid all will happen they will back pay if its been delayed

Link to post
Share on other sites

it looks like your caught in a quagmire not your fault but DWPs is why I don't understand how they can be that incompetent I dunno how you get your MP involved (maybe email?) but defo do it and the rest of what sillygirl said about writing to DWP and phone them to and tell them the whole scenario and if you could speak to the line manager time to escalate it....... you have to get paid all will happen they will back pay if its been delayed

 

I think they employ [removed] over at the DWP. I've been reported several times by my Ingeus adviser (through no fault of my own) and have written back to the DWP and also phoned them. When I explained over the phone that I was currently unwell and handing in fit notes, the woman looked up my file and confirmed this was true. Weird that they didn't bother to check this before sanctioning me.

 

I will try and find an email and get something done about this. Most annoying thing is that I can't phone until Tuesday because of the bank holiday :evil:

Edited by honeybee13
Pejorative term removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
so howd it go Kxo plz keep us posted if possible

 

Hi, sorry, I completely forgot to update!

 

Basically what happened is, I phoned the DWP on the Tuesday and whoever I spoke to couldn't personally lift the sanction, so he put in a request for a reconsideration and someone phoned me back later that day. She lifted the sanction, but said it happened in the first place because I didn't reply to a letter... except, last time they sent me letters (3 in one week) I replied in writing to all 3 and also phoned them and they said I didn't have to keep responding. So, that was confusing.

 

I'm nearing the end of my extended period of sickness, but lucky for me, I got another letter in last week saying that I had completed my time with Ingeus so I no longer need to go back. Thank god!

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol up late as well

 

Edited to add - also once you end with Ingeus that's it right that's how the work programme works after 2 yrs you don't ever do it again

 

Always, haha!

 

I didn't know that. What happens if you temporarily move to a different benefit or sign off and sign back on again at a later date?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it said in your letter its completed that's it id think ...the work programme as I understand lasts certain amount of time so if you sign off and back on then you may have to go back (other then that the time elapsed maybe significant like if it has been more then 13 weeks since you signed off then back on) but don't quote me as im not an expert someone else may know more... im off now hopefully to sleep soon waves

Link to post
Share on other sites

Once you have completed your two year term you are referred back to the jobcentre. Although this is over your adviser can send you on other courses, routes to work or make you jump through whatever hoops they deem necessary for you to get your jsa and this could include igneous if they offer the courses your adviser wants you to go on.

Edited by ripples
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all , since my last post I have gone on to college and ( touches wood ) i'll pass this course and assuming another college doesn't balls up the application I'll progress to a higher level. on another note whilst i still haven't got a job at the moment I've had 20 interviews in the year since I started college compared to the 5 i had with Ingeus ( two of these were at the same place ) although due to comparative lack of experience compared to other applicants and the fact i'm 24 means the chances of getting a job are near nil , and if that's not bad enough when I turn 25 next month I'll get the "national living wage" ( No Laughing Now ) which means the there will be a £1.90 per hour difference between me and someone who is 18-20. If it were up to me there a minimum wage which would be the living wage.

 

Anyway enough of the update/rant.

 

I have a few questions

 

Is it possible for a student who is between courses to claim JSA/UC?

 

How long is the gap between putting in a claim and receiving money ?

 

I am currently still "with the work programme" so would that mean that once I started claiming till say the last week before I start college?

 

I'm asking as i'm considering not claiming as its not worth the hassle of the buffons at Ingeus and reports sayings there's a five week delay means that i'm seriously considering staying away from the Job Centre ,I'm looking for work but in my opinion Ingeus have been more of a hindrance than a "help

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should be able to claim JSA/UC whilst between courses, although how long it would take before receiving any benefits payments would depend on which one you get. UC is (I believe) around seven weeks, whilst JSA shouldn't be more than a couple.

 

If your referral to Ingeus was within the last two years, if you signed on again, they may well invite you back for one of their pointless sessions. How long it takes would depend on when they notice you are back on benefits.

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

Received a 'Good Reason Letter' from the Jobcentre regarding an Ingeus appointment which according to them I was notified about by post. I never received the appointment letter in question.

 

Anyone recommend a good way to approach this. Obviously there is nothing I can produce in terms of evidence which would prove that I didn't receive the appointment letter.

As far as I can see, all I can do is state in writing that I did't receive the letter, and maybe draw attention to my previous good attendance record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone recommend a good way to approach this. Obviously there is nothing I can produce in terms of evidence which would prove that I didn't receive the appointment letter.

As far as I can see, all I can do is state in writing that I did't receive the letter, and maybe draw attention to my previous good attendance record.

 

If you have had history of good attendance in response to all previous appointment letters from both Ingeus and the DWP, then emphasising that point is probably the best response. You could also put Ingeus to task and insist that they provide documentary evidence of posting (with the correct address) and not simply a record of the appointment being logged on a computer.

 

If your Mandatory Reconsideration fails, please don't be afraid to ask for further help. We can find some references to previous appeals in the Decision Maker's Manual that went in the appellants favour in similar cases should you need them.

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

If you have £5 -10 spare you could also pop to a solicitors and make a Statutory Declaration that you did not receive the mandate letter from Ingeus. Send a certified copy of the Statutory Declaration to the DWP when you reply to the good reason letter.

Start every day off with a smile and get it over with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have had history of good attendance in response to all previous appointment letters from both Ingeus and the DWP, then emphasising that point is probably the best response. You could also put Ingeus to task and insist that they provide documentary evidence of posting (with the correct address) and not simply a record of the appointment being logged on a computer.

 

If your Mandatory Reconsideration fails, please don't be afraid to ask for further help. We can find some references to previous appeals in the Decision Maker's Manual that went in the appellants favour in similar cases should you need them.

 

Thanks Mr.P. Am I right in thinking that they will make a decision one way or the other, on the basis of my "Good Reason". If the decision is not in my favour, then I would be at the Mandatory Reconsideration stage?

 

The letter states the following:

"...You should note that unless you can provide a good reason for not undertaking this activity, your benefit may be affected.

 

We will decide if your benefit will be affected, and will let you know what effect the decision has on your Jobseekers allowance.."

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have £5 -10 spare you could also pop to a solicitors and make a Statutory Declaration that you did not receive the mandate letter from Ingeus. Send a certified copy of the Statutory Declaration to the DWP when you reply to the good reason letter.

 

I'm loathed to have to fork out any cash on this to be honest, but thanks for your reply and the idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, appointment letters have always arrived in the past. And mail in general is fine.

 

Royal Mail delivered some 14 billion items in the 2014/15 year (1). In the same period, they received around 260,000 compensation claims and a further 230,000 complaints about lost mail. However, if one looks at the tabloids (the most recent one I can find is dated 2012), mail losses were running at around 0.07% (2). In other words, the likelihood of a letter failing to reach its destination is fairly low.

 

Asking Ingeus to provide proof of posting (i.e. Post Office receipt) should be enough to kill any claim that they sent the letter.

 

1) http://www.royalmailgroup.com/sites/default/files/annual%20complaints%20report%20for%202014%2015.pdf

2) http://www.standard.co.uk/news/fewer-letters-lost-more-parcels-pinched-6958454.html

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...