Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I just found a couple abandoned traffic cones locally by some bins.   A bit squished but free!  So have placed them on the land.  Will wait to see if the cones get moved and signs ignored again this week before I consider rocks/ boulders.
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later the your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. So if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place and park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and then unload the children followed by reloading the children getting seat belts on etc before driving to the exit stopping for cars, pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
    • Hi  no nothing yet. Hope it stays that way 😬
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Interview Under Caution


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3865 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 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So they DO have evidence, despite them telling your solicitor (twice?) that they didn't? They need pulling up on that. As far as I know, the DWP have no obligation to reveal the full extent of their evidence to solicitors (it just so happens that solicitors are often successful in extracting the info), but to lie is a different kettle of fish.

 

Did your son give anything away during IUC? Did he admit anything, or agree with any of their allegations? When was the video taken? How many days was he filmed for, and over what period of time? Was he filmed at different times of day, or just coming and going to work? Did the DWP mention any other 'evidence' that provides a timescale for this 'fraud'?

 

Sorry for the barrage of questions, but all are relevant.

 

If your son kept schtum, if the video was shot in the recent past, and if that's all they've got, it will be difficult for the decision maker (who will look at his DLA award in the near future) to revise his award any further back than the first day filming took place, in the absence of any other hard evidence. This is good-ish news, in that any overpayment that arises could be substantially reduced from what the DWP wants. (I must point out, though, that the presence of other evidence - for example, statements from his employers stating that your son is fine and dandy - can push the date they're looking at backwards)

 

If this video is all they have, you need to get in letter-writing mode. Write to them stating that their evidence is weak, and that you demand that they take the matter to the decison maker as quickly as possible. Mention the stress and strain this is having on your son. Point out that being disabled doesn't equate to being a 'sicknote' employee. Get the attention of your MP, GP, charities, etc., and point out to the DWP that you have consulted other such people in support of the case. However, you need to be very careful of what you say in your correspondence - do not make any admissions whatsoever.

 

Address your concerns to the manager of the person(s) who conducted the IUC, and state that you would like your comments to be forwarded to the DM. Request in advance that the DM backs up any decision with a full written statement of reasons (basically, put the wind up the DM, and make it known in advance that you'll fight their decision to the hilt, if it's not made on proper grounds).

Link to post
Share on other sites

He did not admit to anything as there is nothing to admit to, and there was two video clips both taken of him getting out the car at work and walking into the office which as I say they said themselves is 10metres (well within that allowed for DLA) The videos were both taken in march in the same week (sorry don`t know which week). We ahve contacted the MP today and the gp called earlier and is ringing back tomorrow he has advised that my son goes on the sick. My son is contacting the union tomorrow to see if they can be of any help also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

some kind person who works with him has said he walks from his car to the office door without pain and they even provided a short video recording of him walking the 10metres.

 

Who took the video?

His work colleague or the investigator/s?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two video clips isn't much. Just two clips in total? Or a mish-mash of seperate clips put into two files to show to you? If it's two clips in total, i.e. just two incidences of 'walking', then tell them to go forth and multiply. Two clips is nowt! Anything else...photos, statements, etc? As jabba jones says, WHO took them?

 

And do you mean March 2012? If so, they've jumped onto this 'fraud' pretty quickly!! A premature IUC for weak reasons, methinks.

 

ETA: I see you say a work colleague took the vids. Pah. Get this in your correspondence. I could shoot amateur video of someone commiting murder, but it doesn't necessarily mean it'd be admissable in court. The DWP's surveillance, however, is conducted with strictly-controlled equipment that is supposed to be tamper-proof, hence why a video from the DWP would hold more weight than that of a work colleague who (presumably) isn't trained in the art of official surveillance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much of a colleague is he, what an utter b*****d, I'm a really placid person normally, but if someone did that to my son I would at his workplace, ripping someones head off. I am so angry for you. I do hope your son finds out who did it. I have a saying, what goes around, comes around, and the person that did this will get his.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A work colleague took the video.

 

I'm not sure it can be used then.

 

It needs checking but there are huge questions regarding CHIS's http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/surveillance-and-undercover-human-intelligence-sources/covert-human-intelligence-sources-chis.html

Which FIS investigators are not allowed to use.

 

& RIPA's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000. which covers surveillance & CHIS.

 

These are both very important & if the rules have not been followed there would be major trouble.

 

Have a word with the solicitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes two short video clips and from march 2012, and yes it was from a work colleague, so I do hope the case is so weak it will get them nowhere. Now I feel a bit calmer and my son has calmed down when I look at it written here they dont have a lot to go with so they are going to have to try a lot harder.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it can be used then.

 

It needs checking but there are huge questions regarding CHIS's http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/privacy/surveillance-and-undercover-human-intelligence-sources/covert-human-intelligence-sources-chis.html

Which FIS investigators are not allowed to use.

 

& RIPA's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_Investigatory_Powers_Act_2000. which covers surveillance & CHIS.

 

These are both very important & if the rules have not been followed there would be major trouble.

 

Have a word with the solicitor.

 

In your experience, jabba, and just based on what's written my charliesgranny on this thread, do you (like me) suspect that this should have been a case for compliance, rather an a full-on IUC jobby??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much of a colleague is he, what an utter b*****d, I'm a really placid person normally, but if someone did that to my son I would at his workplace, ripping someones head off. I am so angry for you. I do hope your son finds out who did it. I have a saying, what goes around, comes around, and the person that did this will get his.

 

This is exactly how I have been feeling since the interview, I have just calmed down in the last half hour or so and usually nothing can ryall me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but to be honest the time scale doesn't make any sense. To conduct a proper DLA IUC they must have sight of the original claim form where they can see what difficulties have been declared.

 

IF, and its a very big IF, they have relied on taped evidence sent in by a work colleague (and I dont believe that any investigator would/or could do this) there is absolutely no way that they would have received an allegation in March and they would be in a position to IUC in April.

 

That would lead me to believe that it is video evidence taken by the investigators and unless they really do not know how to do their job, they would not have called him in for interview with just 2 days of filming the same journey and with absolutely no other evidence. Unless, the claim form says things such as he cannot walk any distance at all/cannot go out alone. If the evidence they found wasn't obviously at odds with the claim form his DLA claim should have been sent off for a reassessment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well we only know what they told him today which was they received the info in march and as we have no other way of knowing we can only go by this. Having said that they originally said they had no evidence when they had the clips so who knows but, my concern is my son.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In your experience, jabba, and just based on what's written my charliesgranny on this thread, do you (like me) suspect that this should have been a case for compliance, rather an a full-on IUC jobby??

 

Compliance do not deal with DLA only cases so it has to be FIS, but investigations take months.

 

What KK3852 has pointed out is correct. It can take over a month just to get the DLA claim docs & until you get them its very hard to start the investigation as you don't know what the subject has said about their condition. So the time scales mentioned above do not make sense.

 

On this case where you've got someone coming & going to work on a regular basis, as long as there are suitable locations to set up, surveillance should have been fairly routine & using the equipment I had available to me I'd expect to have more than 2 short videos & from more than 1 location.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, assuming that the contents of this thread are correct, we have an FIS investigation using evidence that a) may not be admissible under the law because it is from a third party, b) contains footage that probably doesn't prove anything because of the duration of time the footage lasts for, and c) is being used prematurely as it's probable/possible that the original claim forms haven't been scrutinized (did they not show the original claims form at the start of the interview?) On top of this you have the investigators allegedly lying to the solicitor by saying that they don't have any evidence, when they were sitting on this third-party footage? If your solicitor is any good, they should be having a field day with this. I hope this gets sorted, pronto.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Well just a quick update, my son has recieved a letter today to say his DLA has been suspended until they sort all this out. I suspect now after the bank holiday we will hear from motability and they will take the car away so, he will really struggle now for work. It is a case of guilty until proven innocent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear that. It might be worth speaking to Motability on Tuesday about this.

 

I am going to ring them first thing tuesday and see what they say but, I think it will be sooner rather than later when they take the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi there, they took the car and it went straight to auction so he can`t get it back. He still has not heard from the dwp yet and its 10 weeks now, they did say it would be 3-4 months. We have had to get into debt to get him a car to get to work. I hope you are coping with your situation better than my son is he has lost 2 stone in weight and the gp is extremely worried.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...