Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for your help. I do understand and I can see how it looks to tax credits however they aren’t telling me exactly what evidence they have. When I called them last week (haven’t spoke to the compliance team since) he said there is strong evidence but didn’t say what and then asked me what doctors he uses? I said I have no idea as I don’t.   do you think I should contact them again and explain everything again and also about the universal credit claim and what they advised? Just feel I’m gonna be in the wrong no matter what I do now as it’s either do a joint claim but he ain’t here in that capacity or do a single claim but risk it being investigated again due to him using this address.
    • How much (practical, not just academic) criminal law did your two law degrees cover?   In this context, TIC : “taken into consideration”.   If they ask about the others and you admit them and ask for them to be taken into consideration, then they can’t come after you for them later, they will be disposed of at the time the specimen charge is heard.   If they don’t ask about them and you offer them, they might offer to have them TIC, or it might persuade them not to offer an administrative settlement. There is a theoretical downside to not coughing to them, though.   If TfL prosecute you for one offence and don’t ask about any TIC, then you only get prosecuted for that one. There is then the theoretical risk they could come after you (within 6 months of the offence) for any other offences committed, if they discover them. If they are TIC you are protected from this.
    • They are charging me for one use essentially i.e. being in a compulsory ticket area without a ticket. What do you mean by TIC?
    • for one use but the others are TIC?
    • Excellent. Good for you! Interesting to read that the apparent minimum for a breach is £750..... This from one of my other threads;   Take a look at Halliday v Creation Consumer Finance Limited. The claimant was awarded £750 for distress for what the court held to be a minor breach.    https://www.hempsons.co.uk/news-articles/damages-distress-awarded-breach-data-protection-act/
  • Our picks

    • Future Comms is a Big Con. How to get out of it. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/417058-future-comms-is-a-big-con-how-to-get-out-of-it/
        • Like
      • 4 replies
    • Future Comms issues. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/416504-future-comms-issues/
      • 5 replies
    • This is a bit of a lengthy one but I’ll summerise best as possible.
      I was contacted by future comms by phone, they stated that they could beat any phone contract I have , (I am a limited company but just myself that needs a business phone and I am the only worker) 
      I told future comms my deal, £110 per month with a phone and a virtual landline, they confirmed that they could beat that, £90 per month with a phone , virtual landline  they also confirmed they would pay Vodafone (previous provider) the termination fee. As I am in business, naturally I was open to making a deal. So we proceeded. 
      Future comms then revealed that the contract would be with PLAN.COM and the airtime would be provided by 02, I instantly told them that this would break the deal as I have poor 02 signal in the house where I live as my partner is on 02 and constantly complaining about bad signal
      the salesman assured me he would send a signal booster box out with the phone so I would have perfect signal.
      so far so good.....
      i then explained this is the only mobile phone I use for business and pleasure, so therefore I didn’t want any disconnection time in the slightest between the switchover from Vodafone to 02
      the salesman then confirmed that the existing phone would only be disconnected once the new phone was switched on.
      so far so good....
      • 14 replies
    • A shocking story of domestic and economic abuse compounded by @BarclaysUKHelp ‏ bank complicity – coming soon @A_Gentle_Woman. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/415737-a-shocking-story-of-domestic-and-economic-abuse-compounded-by-barclaysukhelp-%E2%80%8F-bank-complicity-%E2%80%93-coming-soon-a_gentle_woman/
      • 0 replies
Sign in to follow this  
seen this before

jobcentre plus breach the equality act over the work programme and those refered to it.

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2890 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

following the the guardian newspapers reporting over jobcentre plus and its practices' towards the unemployed,much concern has focused on the treatment of individuals notably those with disabilities.




there appears to be a culture of now forcing these groups onto the work programme and being denied access to the jobcentre disability adviser,being referred directly to subcontractors.previously on the earlier new deal a disability adviser would not refer someone on to this as it is a reasonable adjustment however the attitudes have now changed,people are being sent to advisers with preconceived ideas and attitudes that cause alarm and distress to the disabled.this clearly breaches the equality act as it causes.


26 Harassment


(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic,


(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i) violating B's dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive

environment for B.



there appears that there also other breaches this cannot show that this is an a legitimate aim under any circumstances.


there are others too under "duty to make adjustments" also indirect discrimination,despite jobcentre plus's admittances to previous breaches of this act following denials it continues to practice unlawful acts'/violations.



19 Indirect discrimination


(b) it puts, or would put, persons with whom B shares the characteristic at a

particular disadvantage when compared with persons with whom B does not

share it,

© it puts, or would put, B at that disadvantage, and

(d) A cannot show it to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.



(3) The relevant protected characteristics are—


(3) The relevant protected characteristics are—



gender reassignment;

marriage and civil partnership;


religion or belief;


sexual orientation.



20 Duty to make adjustments



(3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's

puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in

comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to

have to take to avoid the disadvantage.



21 Failure to comply with duty

(1) A failure to comply with the first, second or third requirement is a failure to comply

with a duty to make reasonable adjustments.



26 Harassment


(a) A engages in unwanted conduct related to a relevant protected characteristic,


(b) the conduct has the purpose or effect of—

(i) violating B's dignity, or

(ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive

environment for B.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...