Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Funding concerns are expected to see Saudi Arabia reduce its giant building schemes.View the full article
    • Why the former Fujitsu engineer is such a key figure in the Post Office scandal.View the full article
    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • The EU and China still disagree about the import taxes, but have agreed to discuss them further.View the full article
    • 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 their 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?
  • 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

Important Changes To Jobseeker's Allowance Sanctions, From 22/10/2012


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4252 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

First I must say sorry for the length of this but was given it today

 

 

From 22/10/12 the law is changing. The amount of benefit you receive will not change.

However, if at any time in the future you fail to meet the conditions attached to receiving JSA, the way benefit is affected will change.

 

 

To qualify for JSA, you must:

 

: be available for employment

 

: be actively seeking employment

 

: have current Jobseeker's agreement

 

: comply with any reasonable conditions that your adviser asks you to do.

 

 

From 22/10/12 if you do not meet the conditions you are asked to do, without a good reason, your benefit could be affected.

 

: You could lose your benefit for 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 156 weeks ( 3 years ), if you

 

: Leave a job voluntarily or lose a job due to misconduct on your part

 

: Fail to take part in a mandatory work activity programme

 

: Fail to take on a suitable employment opportunity

 

: Refuse or fail to apply for a job which your adviser has notified to you.

 

 

The length of time will depend on whether it is the first, second or third time you have failed to meet any of these responsibilities in the last 52 weeks ( one year ) of the prevoius time.

 

You may loose your benefit for four weeks or 13 weeks if you

 

: Fail to attend an adviser interview

 

: If applicable, fail to take part in a particular employment programme ( such as the work programme )

 

: Do not take the opportunity of a place on an employment programme or training scheme

 

: Refuse or fail to apply for or accept a place on such a programme or scheme notified to you by your adviser

 

: Fail to attend or give up a place through your own misconduct lose a place on such a programme or scheme

 

: Fail to comply with a Jobseeker's Direction

 

 

The length of time will depend on how many times you have failed to meet any of these responsibilities in the last 52 weeks

 

 

Your benefit will stop and you will no longer qualify for JSA if you

 

: Do not actively seek work

 

: Are not available for work

 

 

 

If you reclaim following such a failure your new award may not be paid for up to 4 weeks, if your benefit was stopped on more then one occasion in the last 52 weeks, any new award may not be paid for up to 13 weeks.

 

 

What to do if you lose your benefit

 

You can ask for an explanation of the decision to stop your payments, ask for it to be reconsidered, and /or appeal the decision.

 

 

Even if you lose your benefit because you have not met your responsibilities ( as above ) you must still continue to be available for employment, take steps to actively seek employment, and come to the Jobcentre for your fortnightly appointment to verify this.

 

If you do not, you may lose your entitlement ( and your claim will be closed )

 

 

More Help

 

If you lose your benefit ( and you have no other sources of support ) you may be able to claim hardship payments.

 

You will have to show that you are suffering financial hardship, the hardship officer or your adviser at your Jobcentre can explain how to apply for a hardship payment.

 

 

Your benefit will ONLY be affected if you do not meet your responsibilities.

R.I.P my beautiful grey ghost, gone but never forgotten, taken so suddenly, 04/07/2004 ~ ~ 02/03/2017

Gone but never forgotten,Little Miss Sunshine, Alisha Marie. 15/12/2005 ~ ~ 13/02/2006

Our  beloved Dalmatian Jazz,  gone to join Wal at Rainbow Bridge, hope you are now pain free .  20/9/2005 ~ ~ 24/3/2019

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Yep, I got this on Tuesday. The logic seems completely pickled to me, but there you go. Sanction someone for three years, the only thing that can happen is an increase in crime. Well, that or people dying of starvation/hypothermia. I understand that it's possible to get food parcels from certain charities, but also that it's unlikely that they will support someone for three years.

 

It also seems to me that the people that are going to be thumped hardest by this are people with mental health issues/limited capacity who might struggle to hold down a job for all sorts of reasons.

 

I also imagine it's going to be painful for people employed by a certain ex-employer of mine, who insists on sacking everyone (bar a core team of five people) before they reach one year's service, because then they can't take him to tribunal. :roll:

"Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me". Martin Niemöller

 

"A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done. A person ignorant of the possibility of failure can be a half-brick in the path of the bicycle of history". - Terry Pratchett

 

If I've been helpful, please click my star. :oops:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello guys.

 

I'm very sad to read the new rules, because I can see cases where they may not be applied fairly.

 

And people who will fall through the cracks because they are between two benefit systems. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Thank you for posting the information, Bobcat2.

 

My best, HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem HB, thought it was worth posting in case others did not know about it

R.I.P my beautiful grey ghost, gone but never forgotten, taken so suddenly, 04/07/2004 ~ ~ 02/03/2017

Gone but never forgotten,Little Miss Sunshine, Alisha Marie. 15/12/2005 ~ ~ 13/02/2006

Our  beloved Dalmatian Jazz,  gone to join Wal at Rainbow Bridge, hope you are now pain free .  20/9/2005 ~ ~ 24/3/2019

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 years sanction? im pretty sure that aint gonna fit in with the Human Rights of right to life (in effect its unlawful execution by starvation) or other obligations of providing benefits to those in need.

 

I can just see those people who are prime targets to receive sanctions , such as those forced onto jsa from a failed esa who arnt fit to work and constantly unable to comply with requests are going to be the first to receive this execution. Who needs concentration camps, they cost money, starve em out on the street.....

 

This brings to mind Vlad the Impaler. He wanted to get rid of the poor, so he invited them to a feast. Barred the doors then burnt the place down. No more poor.

Edited by Zonker
Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesnt but since when do the cons listen to the human rights law...they are consistently condemning it, and citing it as 'look it stops us from extraditing terrorists' they would drop it like a hot potato if they could....or it 'gives prisoners rights when they dont deserve any' fact is they hate it....they play to the crowd and peoples emotions with the usual tripe of 'it isnt fair when...' and its a difficult argument to counteract...as in 'it isn't fair when hard working people are toiling away when doley **** are in bed watching their 60inch plasma, or sunning themselves on holiday in spain'....etc etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

it doesnt but since when do the cons listen to the human rights law...they are consistently condemning it, and citing it as 'look it stops us from extraditing terrorists' they would drop it like a hot potato if they could....or it 'gives prisoners rights when they dont deserve any' fact is they hate it....they play to the crowd and peoples emotions with the usual tripe of 'it isnt fair when...' and its a difficult argument to counteract...as in 'it isn't fair when hard working people are toiling away when doley **** are in bed watching their 60inch plasma, or sunning themselves on holiday in spain'....etc etc

 

Ok, I've been on ESA for two years now - when do I get my free TV and holiday?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the arguement is unfair, quote extremes and whinge when they dont like the way the law is. I will go on and state everybody has inalienable rights even the most reviled people should have the same or itll be one life will become more valuable than anothers and that will lead to devaluing of life for classes of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I've been on ESA for two years now - when do I get my free TV and holiday?

i gather we pay for it out of the 'excessive amount' of benefits that we have been given!! how the hell we do it on 71 pound a week?...we should all be in the banking business if we are this good!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the arguement is unfair, quote extremes and whinge when they dont like the way the law is. I will go on and state everybody has inalienable rights even the most reviled people should have the same or itll be one life will become more valuable than anothers and that will lead to devaluing of life for classes of people.
and that is exactly where they are trying to head...divide and rule, divide and rule...remember we are nothing but 'plebs'..actually that is reserved for police officers so i am assuming we are actually a lower form of life than that..
Link to post
Share on other sites

Prison, that costs money, so expect some lenient sentances to become the norm. Cheap tag or suspended i reckon.

 

old link but :

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/28/justice.prisonsandprobation

 

Yes plebs seemed to be an acurate description, the common population. Used by people who are superior than the persons referenced.

Edited by Zonker
Link to post
Share on other sites

i gather we pay for it out of the 'excessive amount' of benefits that we have been given!! how the hell we do it on 71 pound a week?...we should all be in the banking business if we are this good!!

 

So funny! My washing machine started making strange noises the other day and I nearly gave myself a stroke worrying about how we'd afford a repair or new machine. a new TV or holiday are so far out of our range, and I consider us better off than a lot of claimants - particularly those who are single.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prison, that costs money, so expect some lenient sentances to become the norm. Cheap tag or suspended i reckon.

 

old link but :

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/28/justice.prisonsandprobation

not with 'tough love' C Grayling in charge....he will insist of tougher penalites for 'benefit fraud, violence, murder etc' he will want to cram em in up to 10 to a cell if necessary...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prison, that costs money, so expect some lenient sentances to become the norm. Cheap tag or suspended i reckon.

 

old link but :

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/28/justice.prisonsandprobation

 

But it makes it pretty worrying that people will need to take drastic measures to ensure they get a prison spot - or they'll know they can get away with stealing what they need without getting a prison sentence.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it makes it pretty worrying that people will need to take drastic measures to ensure they get a prison spot - or they'll know they can get away with stealing what they need without getting a prison sentence.

 

Remember your very existence is to make money to get taxed for the govt not cost them. Quality of life isnt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember your very existence is to make money to get taxed for the govt not cost them. Quality of life isnt.

 

Noy sure we're talking about the same things. but no matter.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you said, more extreme crimes may become more common. My view is that whilst inside you arnt paying taxes and as such a burden on the taxpayers. I get the impression from the actions of govt , if you arnt making them money from taxes then you might as well die.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you said, more extreme crimes may become more common. My view is that whilst inside you arnt paying taxes and as such a burden on the taxpayers. I get the impression from the actions of govt , if you arnt making them money from taxes then you might as well die.

 

Yes it is a false economy. It will be cheaper to pay a liveable allowance, than the costs of increased crime - not just prison terms, but the costs of prosecuting crimes, even when there is no prison term and there needs to be monitoring for those on probation, plus increased policing costs, insurance costs etc etc.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime rates are going to soar. If someone is sanctioned for 3 years, what do they have to lose? Its also bad news for anyone who lives near someone who has been sanctioned for 3 years, as they will HAVE to turn to crime to survive, so expect burglaries in your area to go way up. Prison will look the best option for those who cannot afford to eat.

 

I do not actually understand how sanctions are legal in the first place, as the amount you get on jsa is the minimum amount the LAW says you need to live on, so surely giving someone less than that is breaking the law...no? :S

Link to post
Share on other sites

Crime rates are going to soar. If someone is sanctioned for 3 years, what do they have to lose? Its also bad news for anyone who lives near someone who has been sanctioned for 3 years, as they will HAVE to turn to crime to survive, so expect burglaries in your area to go way up. Prison will look the best option for those who cannot afford to eat.

 

I do not actually understand how sanctions are legal in the first place, as the amount you get on jsa is the minimum amount the LAW says you need to live on, so surely giving someone less than that is breaking the law...no? :S

i havent read the act on this as yet, but would assume that they have put in something like Nys has said, non compliance, which leads to suspension of money for the stated period

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...