Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ACPOA PCN 190424.pdf   1 Date of the infringement 30/3/24   2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 19/4/24   [scan up BOTH SIDES as ONE PDF- follow the upload guide] please LEAVE IN LOCATION AND ALL DATES/TIMES/£'s   3 Date received 23/4/24   4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?] No   5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? No   6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal] N   Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up Give answer here   7 Who is the parking company? APCOA   8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] Ludlow Tesco 2856   For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. No  
    • So not entirely down to the ticket office, then. In fact you have been quite fortunate. The "Section 172" response provides the evidence the police need to prove that you were driving if they wish to prosecute you in court. In England and Wales there is a legal precedent which has determined that an unsigned s172 response does not meet the requirements of that part of the RTA. In effect, an unsigned response is equivalent to no response at all. (This precedent is not recognised in Scotland and there is a strategy to "go unsigned" to avoid conviction). When they receive an unsigned response the police are perfectly entitled to prosecute you for "Failing to provide drivers details" and they more often than not do. This offence carries six points, a hefty fine and insurance grief for up to five years. So you got lucky. The situation now is that the deadline for accepting a course is passed. Four months is the absolute maximum, with some forces cutting it back to as little as three months from the date of the offence. The police will not extend this because if you fail to complete the course before six months has elapsed, they can no longer prosecute you. They can only begin proceedings up to the corresponding date in June (i.e. if the offence was December 10th, they have until June 10th to begin proceedings). You will gain nothing by taking this to court. On the contrary you have a lot to lose. Courses are offered entirely at the discretion of the police, you have no right to one and the court has no powers to order one. Presumably you have been offered a fixed penalty of £100 and 3 points. If you are sentenced in court it will cost you at least three times that, possibly more (depending on your speed and your income). My advice: accept the fixed penalty and do it soon as there is a deadline for that as well and if you allow it to pass your matter will be taken to court anyway. Do not forget to submit your driving licence details as instructed when accepting the offer. If you fail to do so the police will have no time left to remind you (and they don't usually send reminders for this anyway) and, again, your case will end up in court.
    • put them all in one mass pdf please  read upload use the websites listed. dx
    • Hi all, I have an update: I have received the documents from the SAR, including photos. It appears that I was parked in a bay with a sign that requires a permit, however the pole that it is on does appear to be behind the barrier - see photo. Also, they documented that they DID NOT apply the PCN to my car because of safety concerns and I DID NOT receive the initial £60 PCN by post- see attached.CamScanner 05-10-2024 15.06.pdf appreciate nay feedback/ advice, current PCN fee stands at £100. CamScanner 05-10-2024 15.03.pdf CamScanner 05-10-2024 15.08.pdf CamScanner 05-10-2024 15.06.pdf
    • They said hi is this (name) I said no and they asked if he’s there tell him to contact us in regards to Sainsbury’s  I said ok bye
  • 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

DWP admits covering up your right to a Recorded Assesment


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4149 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

From Atos Victims group website

 

Yesterday, the DWP disclosed that it has been sitting on legal advice, for over two years, to the effect that its WCA recording rules​ were illegal

 

Legal advice has been obtained to confirm that recording of assessments for claimants must be allowed without unreasonable obstructions

Taking a poke at the world

 

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

See this post for further information and a link to the original information a few posts further back

 

The problem is. If the ATOS person tumbles you are recording they can then terminate the Assessment. Considering some people are in a hell of a state when attending the assessment they wouldnt want another date and time. Its OK for some of us that might be able to take another daye but some simply cant or dont have the technical know how to make a covert recording

Armed with this new information ATOS no longer have the right to refuse a proper recording.

The document RFP27 should simply be quoted when asking for the Assessment to be recorded or the assessment deferred untill they have the equipment installed.

 

Search on Google for RFP27 and youll find the document as I cant post a link to it here

Edited by Invalidation

Taking a poke at the world

 

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you make a recording it is your own recording to do what you want with it.

 

This thread is about how the DWP have covered up your legal right to demand a recording from ATOS and they cannot refuse.

The Document RFP27 also shows how ATOS are breaking their contract with the DWP

Taking a poke at the world

 

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the only rule that you can't do certain things with it? That is, you can't upload it to a public website, etc.

 

The DWP's position is that by uploading it to a public website you have in effect published it, and potentially made yourself into a Data Controller under the terms of the DPA. Whether that position is defensible at law I don't know, but it is the argument they use.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On no legal grounds the DWP has ever established,Pollik

 

It's a position the DWP takes which relies on bullying and intimidation, because the incident will be reported as a failure by the claimant to submit to a medical - and your benefits will be immediately refused, unless and until you can muster the health and finances to take them to court months (or in the case of further appeal, quite possibly, years) later. A disgraceful situation.

 

On a more cheerful note I would like to acknowledge that point of antone's in post #7 above. That is exactly what the DWP has been arguing, for a long time now, but I am glad to say the 'FoI community' at WDTK is well on the case!

 

So here’s a happier Xmas story:-

 

Mr Mustard doesn't like Barnet council; as in, he really, really doesn't like Barnet Council.

 

The feeling is entirely mutual, not least because Mr Mustard is inclined to do careful research about e.g. spending habits and proposals,and link them to the personal details of councillors and officers, and then - blow me down (!) –publish his findings and opinions online in a blog enthusiastically followed by whatever the collective noun is for people who live in Barnet.

 

Back in 2010, a rather tearful 'corporate governance department' of the London Borough of Barnet complained to the InformationCommissioner's Office, that this all (sob!) just wasn't fair, and Mr Mustard really, really ought to stop it.

 

In correspondence which still brings tears of joy to my eyes to read, right to the end, the London Borough of Barnet went down in flames,at the hands of the ICO.

 

If you have the patience, I promise you the link is worth careful consideration. Don't peek now (!), but the last memo is an accidental disclosure by the ICO itself:-

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/94886/response/237295/attach/2/R%20IRQ0426076%20ICO%20Barnet%20correspondence%20re%20ENQ0391446.pdf

 

The principal relevance to the thread lies in s 36 DPA, of course: the DWP's erroneous arguments under the Data Protection Act are undergoing a similar DPA\FoI process of being ridiculed to death. With serious intent.

 

Could we all regroup at the main thread, now? :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?336827-Announcement-ESA-claimants-now-have-the-option-of-having-their-WCA-recorded/page48

Edited by nolegion
Link to post
Share on other sites

On what legal grounds?

Polly

 

Whilst a claimant has a right to record what they wish, the Assessor also has every right not to agree to it and leave. You cant force anyone to be recorded.

 

Theres an old saying that goes, Your rights end where my rights begin, and that swings for both parties.

Taking a poke at the world

 

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Could we all regroup at the main thread, now? :-

 

Why? the other thread contains nothing about this new revelation by the DWP

Taking a poke at the world

 

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? the other thread contains nothing about this new revelation by the DWP

 

What, apart from the original post?

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?336827-Announcement-ESA-claimants-now-have-the-option-of-having-their-WCA-recorded&p=4074446&viewfull=1#post4074446 dated 11/12.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As we have said numerous times, make your own recording, you do not have to tell them you are recording and it would be a safeguard for the future.

 

Problem with that is the court can say it's inadmissible because you could have altered it. And it's all very well saying an expert could verify that you hadn't but who's going to pay for that? DWP certainly won't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with that is the court can say it's inadmissible because you could have altered it. And it's all very well saying an expert could verify that you hadn't but who's going to pay for that? DWP certainly won't.

 

So you transcribe the recording and provide that. along with your annotaions of what their report claimed. If there was any serious discrepancy between what was on the assessment report and what you claimed I doubt any respectable judge and Doctor would dismiss it out of hand unless it was obvious there was some serious tampering

Taking a poke at the world

 

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience

Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem with that is the court can say it's inadmissible because you could have altered it. And it's all very well saying an expert could verify that you hadn't but who's going to pay for that? DWP certainly won't.

 

That's not how it works; if you submit evidence, it's up to the other party, not the judge, to raise objections. For them to do so would be to suggest that you have deliberately falsified evidence, and they can't just say that just like that without opening a new can of worms for themselves.

 

Remember, he who accuse must prove. If they accuse you of tampering with the recording, they'd have to prove it to the judge's satisfaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After the 20 meters stitch-up, nothing surprises me any more. I thought they'd already hit rock bottom with quite a few of these so-called reforms, but have since found out that they'd barely started digging, it's getting to be the Mariana Trenches of deceit and exploitation out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...