Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

From 3/12/12, ESA WRAG claimants can be mandated to the Work Programme...


rainbo
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4114 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

...or face sanctions.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-memo-082.pdf

 

This is not good news. Too ill to work means you're too ill to work. Being made to work for your benefits WILL tip people over the edge.

 

 

More news here as well...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9683811/Prepare-for-work-or-lose-your-benefits-long-term-sick-are-told.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 122
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

National Insurance was a CONTRACT between the people and government. It covers living, housing and health needs. Like car insurance they cannot add on later 'amendments' without people's individual CONSENT. Government are breaking this contract. Therefore it is not only illegal it is UNLAWFUL. Refuse. Don't sign ANYTHING. This will be considered as consent. Government are our elected servants not our in house tyrants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

National Insurance was a CONTRACT between the people and government. It covers living, housing and health needs. Like car insurance they cannot add on later 'amendments' without people's individual CONSENT. Government are breaking this contract. Therefore it is not only illegal it is UNLAWFUL. Refuse. Don't sign ANYTHING. This will be considered as consent. Government are our elected servants not our in house tyrants.
If you refuse to sign, what about the benefits that will certainly be stopped?
Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice would be get a copy of the ATOS assessment and your scores. You cannot be made to do anything you have scored points on. Use the report to deflect any inappropriate placements.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

With the Work Programme success rate bing a miserly 3.5%, can't see what they hope to achieve here other than cause a lot of problems and stress for all concerned.

 

Unless it's just to enable them to find a way to stop paying WRAG ESA through thousands of sanctions, as they're now doing with the JSA ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Found this this morning:(

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-memo-082.pdf

 

"It is worth noting that there is a greater emphasis throughout guidance is on ensuring that the activity identified is appropriate for the participants health condition or disability and being aware of their barriers to work, including ill health/disability and any reasonable adjustment requirements when organising an activity with an employer."

 

The activities identified as appropriate and reasonable adjustment requirements who are they kidding:?::?::?:, will they have full knowledge of all the physical, mental and fluctuating health problems that they are are going to deem curable via this new "let's get them all off benefits" idea:mad2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

' This will mean if a Work Programme provider identifies a suitable participant and ensures the work placement is of community benefit '

rough translation anyone who can breathe can be mandated into a work placement that we couldnt care less about. I can see that in the future that because they have forced into slave labour ESA is gonna get denied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a very nasty catch 22 situation.

 

If people take the work programmes they prove they can look for work.

If they refuse because they are sick they lose money.

This is an awful thing to happen and should never have been allowed to happen.

 

In my own case I have MS, I can barely walk far without needing help or some sort of motorized mobility (which I don't have) on top of this I have hypertension and mental health issues and cannot deal with pressure or crowds which can trigger panic attacks and in most cases takes my blood pressure to dangerous levels.

 

I really hope that this gets sorted out, it's bad enough worrying about assessments, now we have this as well. Are they just trying to make people more sick with worry than they already are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

this as usual is about the simple distribution of money...the providers will be paid a large amount of money for taking wrag claimants, and then farming them out to big business for slave labour.....on the off chance that you or they manage to get you into a nice 'unsuitable' job they will then be given more huge handouts of public money...only real problem is the public done realise what is actually going on...they just believe the propaganda that we are all lazy useless layabouts fiddling the system....if only!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I received the official letter outlining the new sanctions from the DWP on Monday, this is all about the government responding to lobbying by the pimps, they went cap in hand to the DWP complaining that they weren't getting enough referrals of ESA claimants, (the £13.000 they would get for a successful sustained placement has nothing to do with this of course) so the government made the WP mandatory, now they have added punitive sanctions for non compliance.

 

This is punishment for claiming ESA, for being long term sick or disabled, it's all well and good stating that work activity will be within a persons capabilities, but who decides? A jumped up ex used car dealer? Someone who's last job was selling double glazing? It won't be long before the ambulance chasing law firms are on to this, and rightly so, the pimps may well take a different view when they are having to pay out compensation claims left right and centre.

 

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

' This will mean if a Work Programme provider identifies a suitable participant and ensures the work placement is of community benefit '

rough translation anyone who can breathe can be mandated into a work placement that we couldnt care less about. I can see that in the future that because they have forced into slave labour ESA is gonna get denied.

 

This is a worry, it's the perfect excuse to deny a claim following a reassessment on the grounds that a claimant managed to sustain 30 hours per week in a charity shop, forgetting of course that due to punitive sanctions the claimant had no real choice in the matter, ESA claimants will be between a rock and a hard place with no way out, it's disgraceful.

 

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

equalities act 2010 section 55 / 56 i think is a worthwhile study. section 56 (2) :

 

(2)The provision of an employment service includes

 

(a)the provision of vocational training;

 

(b)the provision of vocational guidance;

 

©making arrangements for the provision of vocational training or vocational guidance;

 

(d)the provision of a service for finding employment for persons;

 

(e)the provision of a service for supplying employers with persons to do work ;

 

(f)the provision of a service in pursuance of arrangements made under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973 (functions of the Secretary of State relating to employment);

 

(g)the provision of a service in pursuance of arrangements made or a direction given under section 10 of that Act (careers services);

 

(h)the exercise of a function in pursuance of arrangements made under section 2(3) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 (functions of Scottish Enterprise, etc. relating to employment);

 

(i)an assessment related to the conferment of a relevant qualification within the meaning of section 53 above (except in so far as the assessment is by the qualifications body which confers the qualification).

 

I think that section covers Work programme providers , the provision of a service for supplying employers with persons to do work and section 55 covers what they cant do. 55(4)(b):

 

An employment service-provider (A) must not victimise a person (B)

as to the terms on which A offers to provide the service to B

 

victimise being section 27. In essence doing a protected act, which in terms of this section is refusing to do a placement because of its unsuitability (reasonable adjustments could be a reason) and the Work programme provider says we will recommend a sanction.

 

Sorry for this lengthy quoting, but i think its all relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...or face sanctions.

 

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/work-programme-memo-082.pdf

 

This is not good news. Too ill to work means you're too ill to work. Being made to work for your benefits WILL tip people over the edge.

I have not seen any change (yet) as to those on ESA WRAG who can be mandated to the Work programme. You can only currently be mandated to work programme if you are on ESA WRAG(ir) with prognosis of 3-6 months. Has anyone seen a change to that policy?

 

 

 

Those are not yet on ESA, they are in wait period for WCA.

They will be expected to maintain regular contact with Jobcentres and to look for employment opportunities while awaiting the assessment of their fitness for work.

 

 

From the info I have seen, I see that they want to push those who have been classed as able to return to work in

I am wondering if there is a way to appeal the WCA prognosis?

 

Those applying for ESA are going to have to attend JC, as it appears the government believes many are applying for ESA simply to avoid JC for possibly 13 weeks or more, then dropping that claim before WCA. We already see those on ESA WRAG have to attend WFI, but it is at the discretion of advisor if the appointments need to continue.

Edited by down'n'out
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/supplying-dwp/what-we-buy/welfare-to-work-services/provider-guidance/work-programme-provider.shtml

 

notice the update 26/11/2012 on the claiment groups, which then goes to show from annex A that esa (ir) 12 months mandatory.

 

Mandatory ESA participants

15.

Mandatory ESA participants will fall into one of the following groups:

WP ESA (IR) WRAG 3/6 Mth Mandatory – Required entry from the point at which the outcome of the claimant’s Work Capability Assessment (WCA) is known: ESA Income Related (IR) WRAG participants who as a result of their WCA have been given a prognosis of either 3 or 6 months. Participants with a 3 month prognosis will be required to enter the WP from their WCA result

WP ESA (IR) WRAG 3 to 6 Mth Mandatory ExIB – Required entry from the point at which the outcome of the claimant’s WCA is known: ESA Income Related (IR) WRAG participants who have previously received incapacity benefits and as a result of their WCA have been given a prognosis of 3/6 months will be required to enter the WP from their WCA result

WP ESA (IR) WRAG 3/6Mth Stock – Mandatory entry entry: Existing WRAG ESA claimants (Where the date of a participant’s initial WCA decision was prior to the end date for referrals to Pathways to Work) who receive Income Related (IR) ESA, have been given a prognosis of either 3 or 6 months.

 

• WP ESA Mandatory (IR) WRAG 12Mth – Required entry from the point at which the outcome of the claimant’s WCA is known: ESA Income Related (IR) WRAG participants who as a result of their WCA have been given a prognosis of 12 months will be required to enter the WP from their WCA result.

 

• WP ESA (IR) WRAG 12 Mth Mandatory ExIB – Required entry from the point at which the outcome of the claimant’s WCA is known: ESA Income Related (IR) WRAG participants who have previously received incapacity benefits and as a result of their WCA have been given a prognosis of 12 months will be required to enter the WP from their WCA result.

 

pages 8/9 from chapter 2

Sorry for weird formatting, i cant seem to sort it :(

 

I think from what i can see, those on ESA (ir) with 12month or less can be mandated

 

chapter 6:

Do not ask the participant for a good reason to determine whether or not to raise a WP08. You have no option but to raise a doubt once the participant has failed to participate in a mandated activity, irrespective of whether or not they have offered an explanation afterwards. The LM DM will consider the reasons given and must make the good reason decision

Reconsideration of mandated activity for ESA participants ESA participants may request a reconsideration of any activity they have been mandated to undertake. Where they do so you must look again at the activity and take into account why the participant does not feel the activity is appropriate, reconsider if the activity remains reasonable and appropriate in the participant’s circumstances.

Requests for a reconsideration should be considered as soon as possible with your decision being notified to the participant in writing. There is no specific form/template for this process.

Edited by Zonker
Link to post
Share on other sites

My advice would be get a copy of the ATOS assessment and your scores. You cannot be made to do anything you have scored points on. Use the report to deflect any inappropriate placements.

 

been waiting for this now for weeks.

 

Looks like I need to do one of those thingys again where they have to send everything on file, thats the only way I have ever managed to get hold of ATOS reports.

 

“Individuals who are too ill to work will not be forced into a job, but for the first time, we will work with them to help them get a job when they are ready.”

 

Yet when they are not assessed yet how do they know what category they fall into ridicolous.

 

And for WRAG it makes a mockery, so now WRAG is officialy the same as JSA just a bit more money.

Edited by worried33
Link to post
Share on other sites

notice the update 26/11/2012 on the claiment groups,

 

Yes I found that update. (I normally only check at the end of each week.)

 

So, due to the WP complaining, and the WCA not finding enough to (possibly)return to work within 6 months, the government change the entry point for ESA WRAG(ir) to

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...