Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

ATOS subcontracting NHS to do PIP assessments for them


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3061 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

In the Guardian yesterday, ATOS who've been awarded the PIP assessment contracts are subcontacting South Lanarkshire NHS Occ Therapy to carry out the PIP assessments for them.

 

Why is our government outsourcing work to a private contractor who then subcontract it back into the public sector, no doubt for a lot less than they've charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

ATOS are being paid millions to do a job that should realy be done by the NHS (Doctors etc should be beleived), they cream of a few millions and pay the NHS to do it.

 

So ATOS are getting paid by the taxpayer to do nothing, so that they can then make contributions to the Tory party.

 

In the award from the public sector to the private sector and back to the private sector there will be many back handers and jobs for the boys (MPs) win win (or for the ta payer lose lose).

Link to post
Share on other sites

if they are working under the ATOS regime then i fear that nothing will change, except we will have 'see we told you they were scroungers even the NHS are finding the same results'

Link to post
Share on other sites
would you like to clarify speedy? IAPT is a new one on me...

 

Improving Access to Psychological Therapies

 

http://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=iapt+dwp&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

 

Sorry for being cryptic I'm either ****ed or fighting IAPT for treatment atm :lol:

 

Strange coincidences

 

mental health assessment;

 

IAPT 20 minute phone call always results in you MH issue being lessened (I have SAR proving this twice)

ATOS - ESA 20 minutes see above

 

:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
The main worry with this is if the NHS passes you as fit, will they stop your consultations, ops and medication?

 

No it's with the wait currently 6 months for assessment. Yes that assessment if you warrant treatment!

 

It's at least a year wait after that here before treatment might commence. That's if Government policy hasn't changes so that your treatment is not in fashion then it's go back to step one.

 

I live in London So.. Plus been admitted by the IAPT person who took charge of my case .... It was my SAR that's got me access to treatment! FFS

 

Oh yeah all NHS mental health treatment got a 25% cut in 2011

 

Hey Ho :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I gave the wrong impresion or put my answer int he wrong place. I am on DLA, I also need heart opeations every couple of years and quite a lot of drugs to keep me alive.

 

If the NHS do the PIP assessments and pass me as fit, I am worried if they'll then say as there is nothing wrong with me I can't be in need of all these heart ops and drugs, and they'll stop them along with my DLA/PIP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that two different things though? My dad will be on medication for life; (although, he is being talked out of coming off it - this will result in on driving licence for 12 months) but doesn't qualify for DLA as his epilepsy is completely controlled by drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that because whoever does the "medicals" will have to follow descriptors....like for ESA there are some for PIP and therefore that is all they will look at and ask about. They are not asked to diagnose or treat only apply medical knowledge and examination to determine where you fit in the "scores".

 

It is meant to determine if you need help to maintain some independence, alledgedly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is meant to determine if you need help to maintain some independence, alledgedly.

 

It would be nice if that was the reason behind it, but when compared to DLA independance is going to be severely restricted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is just completely silly.

 

This amounts to a backhand payment to ATOS, so they not even going to do the work and getting paid for the NHS's work.

 

Totally agree. How much more of our dwindling public funds is going to be flushed down the pan in useless private contracts which charge the earth and fail to dleiver leaving chaos in their wake. When they rehash the NHS soon, wonder how much of this will happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is only happening in Scotland.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?368508-Some-good-news-for-Scotland

 

By the looks of things, it's down to the daily record newspaper publishing whats been going on with Atos.

 

"THE NHS boss taking over the assessment of claims for a new disability benefit from scandal-hit Atos promises patients will be treated with “dignity and respect”.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/health/nhs-chief-in-dignity-and-respect-vow-1373842

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...