Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • safe to ignore plenty of ECP final notification PDF's here already . dx  
    • I didn't think as much came out of today's hearing but it's possible she admitted to a cover-up. Journos need to go through their notes. I should think a few people were upset about how the mediation scheme seems to have been set up to pay low or no compensation. Tomorrow they've abandoning Vennells to the mercy of the SPMs' lawyers for the whole day. That could be worth watching.
    • Like the poops - sorry its caused herself problems  and sorry the plebs didnt just shut up and rot in a ditch somewhere   Mind you, she'll likely have an eternity free of heating bills eh? - BUT lets get kingdom befores justice in first eh?
    • .. Which the poops dont give a monkeys about as long as they stay in power to enable their real income from their rel employers, and sunak doesn't care about as hell be jogging off back to america   Starmer better get a handle on these second jobs and ban them for all MPs as a matter of prime urgency. Then stop all the oustanding crony payments and get the chargebacks going while he sorts out the country.
    • Okay everything is normal. No surprises. I'm assuming that you are prepared to carry on. It's a pretty amazing defence because they even agree that the box arrived empty but even more astonishingly they agree that your parcel hasn't been handled with due care and attention. Their sole defence is that they limit liability to £20 unless you purchase extra insurance. In other words they contravene section 57 of the consumer rights act unless you purchase a secondary contract of insurance which is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act. These people are more stupid than the people at Hermes. I suggest that you carry on. We suggest that you avoid mediation. I believe that a new compulsory mediation scheme is coming in but I think that this is for cases which were begun after your claim date. We suggest that you go completely to trial and get every penny. Your chances of success are pretty well 100%. I hope you understand where you are on this and what the procedures are now. If you haven't then you have more reading to do. We suggest that you pay the money to continue and that you decline mediation.
  • 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

Son's JSA decision affecting our Benefit


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4400 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

Until recently my 20 year old son was in full time education.

 

That ahs now been reduced to 1 day per week.

 

Additionally he works part time in a local cafe anything from 5 to 15 hours per week.

The hours are very erratic, he's done nothing for the last 16 days but will be working for 3x6 hours from Sunday.

 

He applied for JSA who during the 7 weeks he visited them decided he was earning over 16 hours per week and was not allowed benefit.

 

I've spoken to his employer and she confirms in the time under question his average hours worked were under 2 per week.

 

Now my local council have given me 14 days to prove my son is still at College and also to provide sufficient evidence of his weekly earnings,

as they have been informed by the benefits office that he is earning and his income will affect our benefit.

 

Unfortunately my son feels alienated by the alck of assistance at the jobcentre and refuses to go back,

 

to sort out what I feel are inaccurate decisions.

Any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've spoken to his employer and she confirms in the time under question his average hours worked were under 2 per week.

 

What period in question is it? The usual method is the last five payslips for variable wages so that implies that your son has worked less than 10 hours in 5 weeks. It looks like although he hasn't worked in the last 16 days he may have worked much more before that in the period the processing centre are looking at.

 

Can you fill in a bit more for me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, for asking.

Her figures, his bosses, are :

last week 0 hours

previous week sun 4 hours

previous week mon 5 hours

previous week 0 hours

previous week , sun, 4 hours

Previous week sat, sun, mon, tues, 20 hrs

previous week 10 hours

previous week 0 hours, previous week 0 hours

 

any help ?

Edited by mgzteed
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, well the last five weeks would be 13/5 = 2.4 hours a week - this applies for weekly paid.

 

For a monthly paid, the last three months would be taken into account so we'll use all the figures you've supplied

 

33/8 = 4.22 hours a week

 

Unless before that he was doing a larger amount of hours and they are taking that into consideration and it brings him over 16 hours a week (this isn't even an option as he would have to have been doing 192 hours in 12 weeks - in other words in one month he would have worked 159 hours, 39.75 hours a week)

 

So it's not the average wage they are looking at. It may be that your son is considered to be still employed even on a 0 hours a week contract.

 

I think you need your son to contact the processing centre and ask them on what basis they have decided he is doing over 16 hours a week work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No he rarely gets more than 2 days a week work and usually they6 are on sat and sun, sunday being a short day. It might get better during the summer months but he went to the jobcentre because College had finished, he thought, and he had worked for 5 hours in the previous 3 weeks. Then of course when he went he found that he 10 then 20 hours of work and college decided he had to return for 2 days a week.

I have tried to persuade him to complain but he will not.

Now all I have to do is sort out the council re our benefit

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a difficult position to be in but you should try and persuade your son to contact the processing centre, not to complain but to clarify, and your son needs to know that this could well cause you problems. I hope that the council rate your benefit correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...