Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi everyone, Thanks for the responses. Just a few follow up questions in light of what's been said:   If I dont appeal to PPM, who can I appeal to?   Why should the PCN been attached to the windscreen? Is this written in law?   I assumed the document I had received was the NTK, if this is not the case, what does a NTK look like?   Regarding the compliance with the Protection of Freedoms Act, could the "period" of parking not be argued either way? The legislation doesnt state it must have a start/end time of parking, which I assumed an ANPR camera would pick up if it had one. Is 4 minutes not technically enough to show the vehicle was parked?    Thanks !
    • I see jenrick has stuck his head up with them, and I'm sure this wont faze their nasty rhetoric one wit-less UK growth since 2010 has been lacklustre and largely driven by immigration, says report UK growth since 2010 has been lacklustre and largely driven by immigration, says report | Economic growth (GDP) | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Resolution Foundation report suggests parties are dodging the economic challenges facing the country   Net migration is more than two and a half times the 2010 figure despite a string of Tory pledges to reduce it Immigration: how 14 years of Tory rule have changed Britain – in charts | General election 2024 | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Net migration is more than two and a half times the 2010 figure despite a string of Tory pledges to reduce it    
    • Will get them done asap My job changes week to week so at the time I didn’t know. 
    • You will probably get a couple more reminders followed by further demands fro unregulated debt collectors with even increasing amounts to pay. They are all designed to scare you into paying.  Don't. It's a scam site and they do not know who was driving and they know the keeper is not liable to pay the PCN. Also the shop was closed so they have no legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear. So to charge £100 is a penalty as there is no legitimate interest which means that the case would be thrown out if it went to Court.  Keep your money in your wallet and be prepared to ignore all their letters and threats. Doubtful they would go to Court since a lot more people would not pay when they heard  MET lost in Court. However they may just send you a Letter of Claim to test your resolve.  If yoy get one of those, come back to us and we will advise a snotty letter to send them.  You probably already have, but take a look through some of our past Met PCNs to see how they are doing.
    • Hello, been a while since I posted on here, really hoping for the same support an advice I received last time :-) Long, long story for us, but basically through bad choices, bad luck and bad advice ended up in an IVA in 2016. The accounts involved all defaulted, to be expected. In 2018, I got contacted by an 'independent advisor' advising me that I shouldn't be in an IVA, that it wasn't the solution for our circumstances and that they would guide us through the process of leaving the IVA and finding a better solution. I feel very stupid for taking this persons advice, and feel they prey on vulnerable people for their own financial gain (it ended with us paying our IVA monthly contribution to them)-long and short of it our IVA failed in 2018. At the same time the IVA failed we also had our shared ownership property voluntarily repossessed (to say this was an incredibly stressful time would be an understatement!) When we moved to our new (rented) property in August 2018, I was aware that creditors would start contacting us from the IVA failure. I got advice from another help website and started sending off SARs and CCAs request letters. I was advised not to bury my head and update our address etc and tackle each company as they came along. Initially there was quite a lot of correspondence, and I still get a daily missed call from PRA group (and the occasional letter from them), but not much else. However, yesterday i had a letter through from Lowell (and one from Capital One) advising that they had bought my debt and would like to speak with me regarding the account. There will be several.of these through our door i suspect, as we did have several accounts with Capital One. Capital One have written to us with regular statements over the last 5 years, and my last communication with them was to advise of of our new address (June 2019), I also note that all of these accounts received a small payment in Jan2019 (i'm assuming the funds from the failed IVA pot). Really sorry for the long long post, but just thought id give (some of) the background for context.... I guess my question at the moment is.....how do I respond to Lowell...do I wait for the inevitable other letters to arrive then deal with them all together or individually...? Do I send them a CCA?  Many thanks
  • 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

Help needed for another ESA tribunal question


lala1984
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4611 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

Hi all,

 

Sorry for so many questions I feel incredibly stupid right now.

 

As per my previous post I won my tribunal case and ready the letter they gave me I just don't understand one thing.

 

At the top they say I have limited capability for work, it then goes on to state that I do not have limited capability for work-related activity, this is because none of the descriptors in Schedule 3 applies and nor does regulation 35.

 

What does that mean exactly?

 

Hope someone can help

Link to post
Share on other sites

It means, basically, that you've been placed in the work-related activity group (the WRAF) [On edit, I meant WRAG, not WRAF. You have not been placed in the Womens' Royal Air Force.]. It's infuriatingly complex, but the gist of it is that it's considered that your ability to work right now is limited, but your condition isn't so bad that you couldn't possibly consider working at all. So you would be expected to attend some work focused interviews, though you can't be forced to apply for jobs or do anything else except actually show up and participate in these interviews.

 

The "Schedule 3 descriptors" are a specific set of conditions that, if you meet one of them, would place you in the Support Group - giving you a little more money and removing requirements to participate in the work focused interview. The letter is saying you don't satisfy any of these conditions. If I remember correctly, regulation 35 covers exceptional circumstances - situations where it's blatantly obvious you're too ill to work. Say, if you're terminally ill and not expected to live more than 6 months; or if you're missing both legs, an arm and one eye, or some such thing.

 

So:

 

  • the tribunal has ruled (and the DWP has accepted) that you do have limited capability for work
  • but that you don't have no capability to work at all
  • so you're placed in the WRAG and your payments will reflect this
  • and you'll be expected to attend up to 6 work focused interviews
  • but your benefit can't be stopped or sanctioned as long as you attend and participate in these interviews
  • in other words, they can't force you to take a job or apply for jobs

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats brilliant Antone, thank you very much.

 

Well this group thing sounds stupid if I only have to go to the appointments and nothing else.

 

This is all just so much hassle, I'd love to get back into the work place but at the moment I can't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats brilliant Antone, thank you very much.

 

Well this group thing sounds stupid if I only have to go to the appointments and nothing else.

 

This is all just so much hassle, I'd love to get back into the work place but at the moment I can't.

 

No problem (and on rereading, sorry if that post sounded flippant). The official, party line, I guess (I used to be an ESA processor) would be that the government believes that work can help folks in some situations. And personally, I believe there are some cases where that is true - I've suffered from some types of depression myself, and did find that it helped to work if I could.

 

But there's the real problem - "if I could". I was never so badly depressed that I couldn't possibly work, and for that I am grateful. But some people are badly affected. And the same applies to people with heart problems, dodgy legs, pickled livers, or any of the myriad conditions that might affect any one of us at some point in our lives.

 

For reasons of political expediency, the last two governments have decided that sick people are a target.

 

Anyhow, rant over. The idea behind the WRAG is that, while you may have limited capability for work, it's worth keeping the idea in your mind,, making sure you never lapse to a point where you lose the ability to ever consider yourself as part of the workforce. And I understand the idea. I don't want to see groups of people written off by society as economically useless simply because they are sick. The implementation, however, stinks. OK, maybe my rant wasn't over.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:). I think they gave me limited capability as I have to go to my doctor at least once a week and I have hospital appointments coming up and I feel no potential employer would ever consider giving me a job at the moment due to the absenses I'd need.

 

Once all the is out of the way and fingers crossed I'm getting better I'd either go to college or find a part time job to ease myself back into things

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...