Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However there reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
    • Hi, From everything I've read about how EVRi handle mediation, and given I intend not to budge on my position, I am preparing for court. Having read the the full WS and court bundl @occysrazor kindly supplied, I am wondering what value adding the Jamie Bradbury v UPS Limited has?  Obviously this case was lost by the claimant and the ruling clearly goes against the Farooq case and more recently @occysrazor's.  Is the case to include it simply to showcase my argument as being well rounded? Interested in your opinions. Many thanks, Sam 
  • 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

Motability - a bumpy road ahead ...


RaeUK
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4276 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

Motability have updated their website with their latest understanding of PIP. Whilst most of the info won't come as a surprise - it's been described as 'a chilling read' elsewhere - it is worth having a read through. You can find it here.

As if decimating the Motability scheme and removing the personal independence from thousands and thousands and thousands of mobility impaired people wasn't enough:

 

Customers will be able to appeal to the DWP if they disagree with the decision. However, DWP will not continue to make DLA payments while an appeal is being processed and so Motability will not be able to leave the vehicle with you. If the appeal is successful, you will of course be eligible to re-join the Scheme.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Motability have updated their website with their latest understanding of PIP. Whilst most of the info won't come as a surprise - it's been described as 'a chilling read' elsewhere - it is worth having a read through. You can find it here.

As if decimating the Motability scheme and removing the personal independence from thousands and thousands and thousands of mobility impaired people wasn't enough:

 

Erm DLA is not payable whilst being appealed or until it is awarded so your point is.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's always been the case. Years ago someone I know had their motability car collected as they'd lost their DLA on a renewal which was letter reinstated and they reapplied for another car. They'd lost the deposit the'd recently paid on the original car and had to pay again. So I don't think this is new at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i for one despite my mobility problems, have resigned myself to losing the car, and my dla award....they can take the bloody thing if it helps the 'majority of hard working people' in this country feel so much better knowing another 'scrounger' has been removed from the benefit 'trap' it will decimate the used car market when all these vehicles go back to the dealers, but as usual 'short term thinking' will lead to the inevitable 'long term problem'

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something that should definitely be investigated, with some protection put in place. It is disgraceful that someone enters into a motability agreement - pays a deposit and uses the vehicle for a while then has it removed from them because they are next on the list for an assessment. This should be resolved before the agreement is entered into.

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is something that should definitely be investigated, with some protection put in place. It is disgraceful that someone enters into a motability agreement - pays a deposit and uses the vehicle for a while then has it removed from them because they are next on the list for an assessment. This should be resolved before the agreement is entered into.
well i can only agree but it won't be, they are determined to get at least 20% saving on this, and they will get it one way or another, whatever the cost to peoples lives or independence....the fact is the majority of people in this country are applauding this move..they see it simply as the 'scroungers' being taken out of the system at long last...propoganda is a very hard weapon to fight against..plus of course the 'its the hard working people in this country are paying for this' argument that is given every time anyone questions this odious govt
Link to post
Share on other sites

wouldnt surprise me...nothing IDS and this govt does no longer surprises me...if you appeal and they take away whole award, look at the savings they will make until the hard pressed tribunal services get to looking at it...oh it will be backdated if you win...however, from the threads on here i wouldnt hold my breath waiting for the money..as is happening with ESA....face it guys we are not needed, not wanted, and are a drain on society...the sooner we all go away for them the better

Link to post
Share on other sites

But I need my benefits now; not in a lump sum in a years time...

 

Every time I phone the BDC about back payment I get a different story, minimum waiting times to sort out the claim following an appeal win have ranged from five weeks to twelve, I'm currently on week nine.

Surprisingly, my energy and water suppliers are not impressed when I give them a similar timescale to clear arrears.

 

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 I need my benefits now; not in a lump sum in a years time...
unfortunately that is your position...it is not theirs...i will keep saying it until i run out breath....they dont care!! providing they are saving 'the hard working taxpayer' who blindly go along with this nonsense until it impacts them if they fall sick or ill, then nothings gonna change, we may as well get used to the fact that we are 'surplus to requirements'
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago I was awarded indefinite mobility as my problem will get worse with time. I only turn 64 in September 2013 so fall into the trap.

Our concern is that we saved up the mobility element of my DLA and used it as a deposit on a second hand vehicle with the balance on HP. We will be seriously disadvantaged if the mobility element is removed as we are using that to pay the HP. We made this decision based on the fact that I was granted indefinite mobility.

In essence we will probably end up with the car being repossessed, bad credit history, no refund of any deposit and having to pay road tax if we are lucky enough to afford an old banger. We also have a caravan which we use for short breaks as I cannot travel overseas so it is one way of having a holiday. Obviously no car to tow caravan, we lose out again!

I feel as if I am being heavily discriminated against through no fault of mine because of my disability. Even if I appealed, in the meantime no payments and unable to keep up finance agreement! I am sure that there are thousands of people who like me have bought a car of their own choosing and have been using the mobility element to pay for the car.

At the moment I am too scared to tell the wife as she will have a panic attack. How can we stop this madness?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old mobility allowance and DLA have Never been paid during an appeal,same will apply under PIP

 

There is a lot of confusion go around

 

On existing claimants http://www.dwp.gov.uk/policy/disability/personal-independence-payment/#wpi

 

There is no automatic transfer from Disability Living Allowance (DLA) to Personal Independence Payment. Between October 2013 and March 2016 we will write to claimants already getting DLA to invite them to make a claim for Personal Independence Payment. They will be individually assessed against the new entitlement criteria.
Full details http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/Disabledpeople/DG_201317

 

Don't forget DLA is currently dealt with by

 

 

Disability Living Allowance Unit or Attendance Allowance Unit

Warbreck House

Warbreck Hill

Blackpool

Lancashire

FY2 0YE

 

08457 123 456

 

and Not a BDC

Edited by 45002

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago I was awarded indefinite mobility as my problem will get worse with time. I only turn 64 in September 2013 so fall into the trap.

Our concern is that we saved up the mobility element of my DLA and used it as a deposit on a second hand vehicle with the balance on HP. We will be seriously disadvantaged if the mobility element is removed as we are using that to pay the HP. We made this decision based on the fact that I was granted indefinite mobility.

In essence we will probably end up with the car being repossessed, bad credit history, no refund of any deposit and having to pay road tax if we are lucky enough to afford an old banger. We also have a caravan which we use for short breaks as I cannot travel overseas so it is one way of having a holiday. Obviously no car to tow caravan, we lose out again!

I feel as if I am being heavily discriminated against through no fault of mine because of my disability. Even if I appealed, in the meantime no payments and unable to keep up finance agreement! I am sure that there are thousands of people who like me have bought a car of their own choosing and have been using the mobility element to pay for the car.

At the moment I am too scared to tell the wife as she will have a panic attack. How can we stop this madness?

as i said i dont know how to stop it..have resigned myself to it..and if i manage by some miracle to get pip it will be a bonus and i keep the car....we are paying the price for arrogant b*st??8 in parliament
Link to post
Share on other sites

The estimated losses to the UK car industry are far higher than the money that will be saved by getting people off DLA, to say nothing of all the job losses (both to car workers and disabled unable to get to work), and subsequent loss in tax income and increase in ESA and JSA claimants.

 

Therefor the reasoning behind PIP can't be save money as was first claimed, it must be to stop all us scrounging disabled **** from driving around in free cars. The WPMS is not changing, but in all honesty i can't see the scheme being able to survive on the number of cars leased by pensioners and service personnel. I know for a fact that many cars are subsidised by £1000s by the manufactures (mine was by £6000), with only a fraction of the sales they may not do this in the future. Also for the scheme to work cars need to be leased for 3 years, under PIP this won't be guaranteed to say nothing of the damage done by thousands leaving the scheme part way through their leases between 2013 and 2016.

 

I will though finish this post on a high note, those of us who need bigger cars and put down an Advance Payment will not lose out; our payments will be returned on a pro-rata basis.

Edited by count orlok
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree us disabled scrounging scumbags should be put in our place....many many people are going to be hit badly and it will hit the car market badly, disabled people who rely on their car for work, are going to be hit really hard...this govt are sc*m, and they should hang their heads in shame...but they won't

Link to post
Share on other sites

The old mobility allowance and DLA have Never been paid during an appeal,same will apply under PIP

 

There is a lot of confusion go around

 

 

Yes but for many the problem is that they have been awarded say DLA mobility indefinitely before PIP was even thought of. They made arrangement to use the money from DLA for say 5 or 10 years then this government started with PIP and there is no automatic transfer they have to be reassessed and can lose their entitlement and if appealing still lose the benefit they would have been entitled to before the changes and can be left with very large debts through no fault of their own.

 

I.E.. I purchased a larger car using motability car hire purchase to allow me to put my wife's wheelchair into the car so she can have holidays. I did not have £8000 at the time to pay for a deposit on a wheelchair accessible car on motability so we have £22000 of hire purchase through combining both our DLA mobility payments thank god we are both over 65 so this ***** government cannot at this time touch it.

 

Can you imagine what it must be like to lose £8000 some 2 years into a 5 year lease on that type of vehicle as some people will..

 

dpick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this Government at all:

They want disabled people back to work. Many disabled people in work are helped by DLA. (Motability and being able to reduce their hours and still live a reasonable life) If you take DLA away, you're taking away a lifeline. You're taking away their chance to be able to work and afford to work a small number of hours. It's probably going to cost more in ESA / JSA, housing benefit, etc. than giving someone DLA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A Lot more. Plus the losses in the UK car industry will be more than the gains in not paying DLA. Can't find the link but it was something like £640m (or B) to keep all in cars or £660m (or B) loses to car industry of not.

 

They just want us to all go away. Only to pop up for things like the Paralympics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, my only chance of ever working when I'm well enough, is having access to a reliable car, without that....

 

and though ATOS agreed I can't use a manual wheelchair once - who knows when you roll the dice on another assessment.

 

Also now there'll be the joy of your ESA being stopped due your PIP assessment.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand this Government at all:

They want disabled people back to work. Many disabled people in work are helped by DLA. (Motability and being able to reduce their hours and still live a reasonable life) If you take DLA away, you're taking away a lifeline. You're taking away their chance to be able to work and afford to work a small number of hours. It's probably going to cost more in ESA / JSA, housing benefit, etc. than giving someone DLA.

i have come to the conclusion that they hate us...there can be no other reason for taking everything away from the sick and disabled otherwise....of course they will say they are 'being fair' to whom? certainly not to any of us

Link to post
Share on other sites

Erm DLA is not payable whilst being appealed or until it is awarded so your point is.....

 

Well, put that way Mr freek, I dunno! So I'll grab Nystagmite's lifeline ... :razz:

 

Unless I've misunderstood it, they seem to be saying that if you appeal, your whole award is taken away?
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...