Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Universal credit system-concerns raised by over 70 organisations.


MARTIN3030
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4304 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

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think this is going to tun out to be a disaster on all fonts. I'm dreading it as I think it will push many vulnerable people right over the edge and what with legal aid being withdrawn for benefit issues starting next year and many CAB slowly being shut down, there will be very little support out there for claimants caught in all the resulting mess.

 

I'm dreading it. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trouble is it won't be easier for as the CAB and other organizations have pointed out it's been so poorly thought through that much of it doesn't make any damn sense when you apply it. When you go through many of the regs they turn out to be just as confusing and overly complex as the the system they're replacing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

UC will place more and more people on the breadline, the government's rhetoric about being better off in work is cobblers, the one month benefit run-on for claimants who find work is to be scrapped, no one will get 100% council tax rebates, all on benefits or not (except pensioners) will be required to contribute 18-20% toward CT, out of a budget that's getting smaller by the day.

What the government really mean is you will be far worse off on benefits next year that you are today, even those on minimum wage will have to keep seeking more and more hours to comply with the new benefit conditionality.

 

When have the Tories ever been concerned with enabling those at the bottom of society to get a leg up on the ladder of prosperity?

 

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

There was a link to a calculator for UC a while back on here. I will be worse off. Ok, it may only be £5 a week or something; but over a year, that's over £250.

 

I do not understand how people are going to fund their council tax. I was led to believe that income based benefits are the minimum the law says you need to live on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was led to believe that income based benefits are the minimum the law says you need to live on.

 

Until they change the rules, they have put the onus on local authorities, so the DWP can say 'well it's your local councils fault you are struggling, they should budget better, we are still maintaining your level of benefit'.

 

It's typical Tory underhand back stabbing, get someone else to do the dirty work.

 

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

We would be significantly worse off on universal credit were we not to be protected by transition arrangements. The reasons being:

 

If one partner gets cont based ESA and the other gets working tax credits, they're basically screwed. Cont based ESA will be deducted at 100%, there are no working tax credit elements so instead there will just be the small proportion of 'couple allowance' left after cont based ESA is deducted. Also you can't get a carer element and a LCWRA element for the same person, whereas now you can. Many disabled couples are eachother's carers, so the most vulnerable will be losing out. Also no SDP's in UC. In addition, carers allowance is still deducted 100% from universal credit. Not to mention self employed people will be considered to have a minimum income, even if they aren't earning that much yet, once they're past the start up period.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. Don't think it allows for people in our position; a couple one over pension age one under. Other than singles no mention of ages. also no account is taken of the bedroom tax.

 

That said the amount we would get if both of working age is a lot more than I thought we get, more than Minimum wage and more than our single daughter gets working full time (above NMW).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link. Don't think it allows for people in our position; a couple one over pension age one under. Other than singles no mention of ages. also no account is taken of the bedroom tax.

 

That said the amount we would get if both of working age is a lot more than I thought we get, more than Minimum wage and more than our single daughter gets working full time (above NMW).

 

You'd be protected under transitional arrangements, but someone in your position, not protected, would have to stay on UC until both are of an age to receive pension credit.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be protected under transitional arrangements, but someone in your position, not protected, would have to stay on UC until both are of an age to receive pension credit.

 

If that was the case we would be better off not claiimng UC at all, and using DLA to pay rent. As only benefit we get to be replaced by UC is HB

Link to post
Share on other sites

If that was the case we would be better off not claiimng UC at all, and using DLA to pay rent. As only benefit we get to be replaced by UC is HB

 

I suspect that fewer people will be better off under UC.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...