Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

worried about iuc


lochnettie80
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4219 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 can anybody give me any advice

 

at the end of november my partner got his job back after being made redundant in may, i was still working part time so we claimed h/b and c/t for that period,

 

however i didn't phone h/b to tell them until january 5th as i was told i would be intitled to a 4 week run on as my partner had been unemployed for more than 26 weeks (just).

 

so my benefit stopped immediatly as from phoning them or so i thought i recived a few revised benefit letters each time phone and told them i was no longer entitled to benefit s could the stop it which they did

 

then here it comes august 1st 3 letters arrive 1 for housing benefit over payment, one for council tax over payment and 1 demanding payment in 14days

 

now yesterday i get home and another letter asking me to ring with in 7days to arrange an appointment for an IUC if i fail a court or jury may decide in my absence and my faliure to say any thing basically wouldn't look good , i really didnt think 5 weeks was such a major deal i was obviously wrong

 

does any one know what steps i should take i really dont know what to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks conniff

 

they say i owe 414 h/b and 125 c/b ive already started to pay c/b back they have added it to this years bill

 

the letter just says

 

my enquires reveal some concerns with your claim, in that your partner commenced employment, as this may relate to an offence i wish to ask you some questions , and the letter staes that it is reguarding benefit form the day after my partner started work

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you have a lot to worry about with amounts that small especially as you are already refunding the overpayments of ct

. It is more procedure and to ensure that you didn't deliberately falsify the form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that makes me feel a lot better, if anything for the whole time i was claiming they had me down as working more hours and earning more than actually did however by faffing around with it i would only have got an extra 5 pound a week housing benefit

 

thanks

 

so u dont think theres any need for a solicitor as the letter states i may wish to bring one to the interview

Link to post
Share on other sites

You wont need a solicitor unless they charge you with something, that sentence is as stupid as the people who work for the department.

I would have my mobile phone in my shirt pocket and record the conversation. You don't have to tell them you are recording.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you are being asked to an IUC. If the Council has questions, those can be put in writing. Further, the Council has, apparently, already made its decision so to ask FURTHER questions means either it doesn't know what it is doing or believes something more untoward has taken place. If the former, there is plainly no need to attend. If the latter, my advice would be to tread very carefully.

 

Based on the info given so far, my advice is to write to the Council asking that any questions it has are put to you in writing. There is no legal basis on which the Council can insist you attend an IUC. If the crux turns out to be that you took too long to notify the Council of a change, it's worth noting that the legislation relating to the duty to notify changes (for HB/CTB) has no time limit. What would then potentially be relevant is the clarity of instructions within any letters the Council sent to you as to what changes you had to notify and when.

 

I don't think you have to worry unduly at this time so long as you are careful and don't inadvertently say something in all innocence that unnecessarily opens the door to the Council.

 

Why so cautious in this case? The wording in the Council's letter about Courts / Juries deciding the outcome if a claimant fails to attend an IUC is abhorrent. It is plainly intended, deliberately, to cause fear and is an unadulterated bullying tactic. As observed above, the outcome relating to benefit entitlement has already been determined - hence the overpayment. So, the only "outcome" that anything else can be about is whether a criminal offence has been committed. The Council should be transparent about that and it appears not to have been. Perhaps the Council in question needs to boost its conviction/penalty stats with a cheap (and wholly unwarranted) attempt to bully a claimant into accepting a caution? I don't know but, based on the info so far, I don't trust the motives of the Council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why so cautious in this case? The wording in the Council's letter about Courts / Juries deciding the outcome if a claimant fails to attend an IUC is abhorrent.

 

Exactly what I was thinking, this is akin to **** debt collectors so I suppose we should also class the council the same.

 

I meant to mention that you don't have to attend if you don't want to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why you are being asked to an IUC. If the Council has questions, those can be put in writing. Further, the Council has, apparently, already made its decision so to ask FURTHER questions means either it doesn't know what it is doing or believes something more untoward has taken place. If the former, there is plainly no need to attend. If the latter, my advice would be to tread very carefully.

 

Based on the info given so far, my advice is to write to the Council asking that any questions it has are put to you in writing. There is no legal basis on which the Council can insist you attend an IUC. If the crux turns out to be that you took too long to notify the Council of a change, it's worth noting that the legislation relating to the duty to notify changes (for HB/CTB) has no time limit. What would then potentially be relevant is the clarity of instructions within any letters the Council sent to you as to what changes you had to notify and when.

 

I don't think you have to worry unduly at this time so long as you are careful and don't inadvertently say something in all innocence that unnecessarily opens the door to the Council.

 

Why so cautious in this case? The wording in the Council's letter about Courts / Juries deciding the outcome if a claimant fails to attend an IUC is abhorrent. It is plainly intended, deliberately, to cause fear and is an unadulterated bullying tactic. As observed above, the outcome relating to benefit entitlement has already been determined - hence the overpayment. So, the only "outcome" that anything else can be about is whether a criminal offence has been committed. The Council should be transparent about that and it appears not to have been. Perhaps the Council in question needs to boost its conviction/penalty stats with a cheap (and wholly unwarranted) attempt to bully a claimant into accepting a caution? I don't know but, based on the info so far, I don't trust the motives of the Council.

 

can u put this abit easier i just keep reading it over and over and its not sinking in , surely there must have some legal basis to ask me to go for IUC

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing in the law, currently, that means you HAVE to attend an IUC. Ask the council for the legislation - it will only have guidance or policy or procedure (none of which are the law).

 

My suggestion, based on the info you gave, was that you should write to the Council asking them to put any questions to you IN WRITING. In other words, if the Council wants info, it doesn't need an IUC - it can be done in a letter to you. Doing it that way means you still have the option of attending the IUC afterwards, but it isn't compulsory.

 

Just for info, it has quickly become apparent in responses to other posts I've made there will be other posters advising you to attend the IUC anyway. The decision will be yours based on which posted info you believe to be most appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unusual for a Local Authority benefit only case.

 

Admittedly I've been out of the look for a while. So it could well be more common now.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all i have been speaking to a family member today about this and she was called in for IUC too because she failed to inform them about minimum wage increase, she and 2 others she knew ,she refused to sign anything and got a solicitor to write to them ,the other 2 signed the papers at the interview and ended up with cautions for fraud. i still haven't rang for appointment

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Just going back to the letter, what was the exact wording about what would happen if you didn't attend the IUC? Could you quote it word by word? It is possible that such a threat could be construed as illegal it seems to me so the exact wording is important. Anyone else agree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Just going back to the letter, what was the exact wording about what would happen if you didn't attend the IUC? Could you quote it word by word? It is possible that such a threat could be construed as illegal it seems to me so the exact wording is important. Anyone else agree?

 

If a letter suggests that someone is legally obliged to attend an IUC then yes, it is not correct and should be changed. I can't speak to whether it's actually illegal. One of the things an IUC subject must be told as part of the caution is that they are not under arrest and are free to leave at any time.

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 agree with Benefits Bod. Please seek legal advice. I was very naive and went an IUC on my own at the moment they are taking me to court. Not to frighten you but they use what you say in these interviews against you. If i knew what I know now I would NOT have attended the interview without legal advice. Dont worry go to CAB office asap

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re the threat in the letter is it not a breach of PACE guidance to make threats in order to induce someone to attend an IUC? Even if they are later told that they don't have to be there?

 

I suppose there's a difference between threatening you and laying out possible consequences. It's probably OK to say that failing to attend will not stop any prosecution, it will merely mean that the decision on whether or not to prosecute will be made without hearing your evidence. If they say something that isn't true, for example, imply that you can be arrested merely for failing to attend, that's probably a violation.

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

Do you know what the likely consequence of a violation of PACE would be? Would it undermine any prosecution, or would it merely mean that the Council were given a ticking off?

 

Good question, and well outside my area of knowledge. I mean, I believe a judge can be asked to rule as inadmissible any evidence gathered improperly, but beyond that, I don't know.

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

if it helps the actual wording on the letter says :please contact me on the above number where an appointment can be arranged for you to attend xxxx xxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx for an interview under caution.

 

should you fail to make contact a court or jury may draw an adverse inference from your failure or refusal to say anything .

 

i have made an appointment now and will go see citizens advice before i go , dont know what good it will do because i really dont know why i am going apart from that i took so many weeks to tell them my partner was working

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...