Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • 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

Work Programme / Sanctions websites taken down?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4228 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

As I posted on the Ingenus thread the other day they are investigating a lot of things at the moment such as the data protection issue where I stated they are looking to check if a customer infirms that all info held by the providers is removed does it mean the claim for JSA is closed? I don't know if it is the case btw but they are definitely investigating and if there are forums actively encouraging people to do this then they will ask that the posts/sites are removed.

 

Like I say I don't know for deginite but it's a hunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe my twitter account will be silenced, as i post all interesting dwp docs ect :-)

There are sanctions changes to the jsa agreement on 16th may, nothing about the WP though. This forum would be a target over the non consent of the new agreement if that's what it's about. (hope not)

Link to post
Share on other sites

WatchingA4e is still up, I just came from there, very disconcerting about the other four though, I know the powers that be are getting increasingly agitated about sites that promote freedom of speech, and rights advice when the subject matter is w2w, the DWP, or ATOS.

 

I would not be at all surprised if the DWP had a hand in closing those sites down.

 

Worryingly, I think that the government have plans in hand to curtail any resistance to w2w, it's been mentioned on another post that JCP are tightening up the rules and making life rather difficult at the onset of claims now, we can expect things to get a fair bit worse I fear.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is not the DWP requesting the site be taken down but the wp providers as they are finding their jobs becoming increasingly more difficult and if their customers are using these sites and receiving legitimate help in how to jump through the loops that are there and they see their bonuses and payments pushed further away then they are going to react like this.

 

Personally I wish they would actually read and understand the contract they signed when they took on the contract and then they could actually work towards that, maybe then things would run as they are supposed to and shock horror they could even work to benefit their customers as opposed to their own pay packets.

Is it going to happen thoug, I seriously doubt it :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I posted on the Ingenus thread the other day they are investigating a lot of things at the moment such as the data protection issue where I stated they are looking to check if a customer infirms that all info held by the providers is removed does it mean the claim for JSA is closed? I don't know if it is the case btw but they are definitely investigating and if there are forums actively encouraging people to do this then they will ask that the posts/sites are removed.

 

Like I say I don't know for deginite but it's a hunch.

 

It seems unlikely they will find a loophole with regards withdrawing consent to contact employer though. I can see them being able to hold certain data, due to laws on maintaining records, but withdrawing consent to a private organisation to contact an employer - whom, when they become your employer, means you are no longer on JSA, seems unlikely to have a loophole. If they try and sanction people for doing it at the start, people will simply withdraw consent just before leaving.

 

Plus, and most importantly, whatever fudge they try and come up with to stop withdrawal of consent, they cannot, not imho without some hefty new legislation stop a Claimant from simply withdrawing consent from their new employer to deal with the contractor, thus tackling it from a different angle.

 

Or do you think it likely that there will be an arcane bit of legislation that will force a private employer to communicate with another private company that is not related to them? Like I say, a situation like that sounds like it would need new legislation to back up.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, and most importantly, whatever fudge they try and come up with to stop withdrawal of consent, they cannot, not imho without some hefty new legislation stop a Claimant from simply withdrawing consent from their new employer to deal with the contractor, thus tackling it from a different angle.

 

I'm not sure how accurate the information given was, but I was told quite pointedly by my advisor that if I continued to decline DPA consent to contact an employer once I started work and blocked the provider's claim to the outcome payments, that sanctions would be applied to NI contributions

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how accurate the information given was, but I was told quite pointedly by my advisor that if I continued to decline DPA consent to contact an employer once I started work and blocked the provider's claim to the outcome payments, that sanctions would be applied to NI contributions

 

Where on earth do they get these nutters from?

 

Ask them to quote the relevant legislation!

 

What they appear to be claiming is that if you forbid your employer from speaking to the provider, the Provider will stop you and your employer from paying your National Insurance Contributions????????? I can see the tax man being chuffed with that, not to mention an Employer would I should think not be required to comply without a Court Order.

 

It sounds to me like the advisor was talking complete rubbish tbh.

 

The only other NI issue I can think of, is when one is on Contributions Based Job Seekers Allowance, and has gone past 6 months payments, in which case, you are still signing on, but not receiving money, just your NI contributions are being payed. But that does not apply to someone who has started work, because, well, they have started work!

 

I certainly can find nothing googling - I would call the advisors bluff on this, ask for it in writing ;)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

my son in law has been asked to attend a work program 25 miles from his home ,he already pays top up rent to his flat they have just had a baby yet this work program is unpaid and he has to pay for his own travel ? is this right ,he would nt be able to afford to feed his child and pay top up fees towards his accomadation , what can he do

patrickq1

Link to post
Share on other sites

my son in law has been asked to attend a work program 25 miles from his home ,he already pays top up rent to his flat they have just had a baby yet this work program is unpaid and he has to pay for his own travel ? is this right ,he would nt be able to afford to feed his child and pay top up fees towards his accomadation , what can he do

patrickq1

 

I am sure they have to pay for your travel if you live away.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

my son in law has been asked to attend a work program 25 miles from his home ,he already pays top up rent to his flat they have just had a baby yet this work program is unpaid and he has to pay for his own travel ? is this right ,he would nt be able to afford to feed his child and pay top up fees towards his accomadation , what can he do

patrickq1

 

They should reimburse travel expenses.

 

-----------------

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/framework-generic-guidance.shtml

DWP Provider Guidance

Chapter 2:- Travel Expenses.

138.
Participants attending provision are entitled to a refund of the travel costs they incur. It is your responsibility to pay the participant’s travel costs as travel expenses are included within the funding received from DWP as part of the overall contract package.

139.Participants are expected to travel to your provision by the cheapest method available to them. However, some participants will be unable to travel by the cheapest method for example, due to a disability or the need to be accompanied by a support worker.

140.On commencing provision you should advise participants what evidence they will need to produce to claim refunds of travel costs, for example bus tickets.

 

-------------------------------

 

Although I have seen some reports where some providers have refused to reimburse.

If the provider does refuse, then a need to make formal complaint to Job center.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this is an extremely worrying trend...how long before they start to remove websites offering advice for benefits...how to claim etc....surely these providers would need a court order to remove these sites? this is nothing more than removing peoples right to free speech..

Link to post
Share on other sites

....surely these providers would need a court order to remove these sites?

 

The threat of taking a website to court (by somebody with an almost bottomless pit of money) with accusations of [slander or whatever they can think up] and a website may well take themselves off-line, as the cost to defend themselves can be far too much. If a website does stand up to threats, the[somebody] can threaten the website provider(ISP) with similar action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope this site stands up to any legal threats, it doesnt cost anything to make them get a court order and to get a court order they need to prove slander or whatever it is they claiming.

 

The problem is as said tho if they goto the ISP of the site and then the ISP panic's.

Link to post
Share on other sites

............ it doesnt cost anything to make them get a court order and to get a court order they need to prove slander or whatever it is they claiming.

 

Slander is a civil wrong (tort), and can be the basis for a lawsuit. So that would go to court.. So those defending themselves would need legal representation , which of course could be expensive. (without legal representation they could easily lose).

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an individual is being taken to court over slander or libel, the oppositions legal team would have to look seriously at that individuals financial position, there is absolutely no point litigating against someone with no assets, as any damages awarded would never materialise, it would be a non starter purely because the costs involved in instigating an action would be unrecoverable.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But would someone who is running a website be able to(have knowledge to) defend against a slander/libel lawsuit? If they did not attend court, they may be found guilty in their absence and have to pay thousands(or more) in damages.

 

I am not trying to be argumentative, just putting forward how easily it can be done for those who have lots of money to throw at solicitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an individual is being taken to court over slander or libel, the oppositions legal team would have to look seriously at that individuals financial position, there is absolutely no point litigating against someone with no assets, as any damages awarded would never materialise, it would be a non starter purely because the costs involved in instigating an action would be unrecoverable.

 

But in this case, it would not be about recovering money, but only about closing a website. Just a means to an end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But would someone who is running a website be able to(have knowledge to) defend against a slander/libel lawsuit? If they did not attend court,

 

Which is probably the very reason that the site is taken down, to preempt an action, I would imagine that a cease and desist notice is issued to the site owners pending legal action, this gives the site owner a get out clause, and it's far easier to pull the plug on the whole site than trawl through it removing any references.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

surely slander and libel have to untrue...the tales on this website are too the knowledge of the site true...or are countless number of people just lying for hell of it?....and i totally agree about the money...we are in a fight against this govt..in collusion with private companies...who have benefited to the tunes of millions by the plight of the unemployed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...