Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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
      • 160 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2934 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

Hi Dazza1983,

 

Interestingly, I found a video on youtube which seems to show a way of getting out of doing the (CWP).

However, I am unsure if this video is now out of date for its advice?

 

My job centre advisor said I wouldn’t need to sign anything and my (CWP) is mandatory, but the video link below shows a form which must be signed by the client to give consent.

 

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

https://www.docdroid.net/yo1Kb2D/escape-cwp-referral-leaflet-updated.pdf.html

 

That post was made only in December last, so I imagine it may be relevant?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you right Bazooka Boo,

 

To be honest, I did ask my job centre advisor if she expected me to sign anything before commencing (CWP) and she said something like “you don’t sign anything, we just send you on it”

 

I wonder if my job centre advisor was bluffing me.

 

I also asked my advisor twice what the (CWP) would entail and she wouldn’t tell me anything specific.

All I know is that it’s with some company?.....probably some charity shop!

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

The link does not appear to be working, try this one:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-work-placements-dwp-provider-guidance

The link provided by Bazooka Boo is useful and the grounds upon which Mr Baker challenged CWP is still applicable. For more of Mr Baker's experiences check out this link, as you can see the most recent entry on this link is 15 Jan 2016 :

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cwp_participation#comment-65958

Both of those links will tell you what to expect once you are referred to a CWP Provider.

 

Before all that you might want to be prepared for what is involved in the process of referral to the Provider by JCP. This link will help in that endeavour:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/261436/response/640517/attach/3/09%20HtW%20Guidance%20v2%209%202015%2002%2023.pdf

There is also the issues around insurance cover whilst on those courses. Some placement providers that CWP Providers use dump claimants placed with them when they find out that they might have to be responsible for insuring them. This is another whole kettle of fish and it would be advisable to enquire about insurance at CWP Provider interview. Providing evidence of insurance cover is obligatory.

There is quite at lot there to take in but if you do nothing else remember to SIGN NOTHING and, if possible, RECORD INTERVIEWS.

When is your referral interview, by the way, Have you got time to prepare?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers for these useful links Lapsed Workaholic, I'll take a look immediately. :-)

 

By the way Lapsed Workaholi, I don’t know when they’re going to send me on my referral interview, but its gonna be soon

 

Here is a useful video regarding the Community Work Placement (CWP) and how to get out of it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi There,

 

 

I was wondering if someone can advise me about the jobcentre and how far they can legally go when checking a claimant’s job search details.

 

At this moment in time, I’ve exercised my legal right to forbid the jobcentre access to my online details and alternatively fill out a paper job log.

I bring this paper job log with me when signing on each fortnight.

 

When signing on this week, the jobcentre photocopied my paper job log and said they required a copy for themselves.

However, I’m kind of worried the jobcentre will do the same thing again when signing on next time.

 

I’m also a little worried the job centre might phone some of the agencies I’ve applied for work with?

 

Can the jobcentre check up on me by phoning or emailing third party companies and would this be a breach of my privacy / data protection?

 

I hope someone might be able to help advisee me on this matter.

 

 

Yours sincerely 33crazydude

Link to post
Share on other sites

The is according to their handbook (or at least wasn't not long ago) any legal requirement for a jobseeker to keep a written work search log, or use a computer to keep such logs, you record can be verble , and it's the quality of a work search that matters not the quantity (number of jobs applied for,interviews ect)

 

As for checking with 3rd parties, maybe possible in theory, as unless you have attended an interview for a job and weren't successful ,I would wish them luck with doing that, but it would possibly depend on what details you record in your log,

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not been offered any interviews as yet and my job log only shows vacancies which I applied for through agencies.

 

Hypothetically speaking, if the jobcentre phoned these recruitment agencies and checked if they received my CV, surly this is kind of illegal from a data protection point of view?

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

My recollection of this (the guidance has been posted here before, but I can't find it at the moment) is that the JC can't normally check up on vacancies you applied for "on your own". So if you found the job on a website or local shop window or whatever, they shouldn't be contacting the employer without your permission.

 

If you're matched to a job by the JC themselves (say, at your signing interview) then they are allowed to check up and it's safest to assume that they will. This used to be called a "Jobseeker's Direction" and maybe still is.

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

Hi There antone,

 

The vacancies written down on my job log were applied for on my own accord.

 

I had a feeling the jobcentre wouldn’t be able phone my contacts with out my permission.

Surly, if they did check without my permission, I could seek legal advice?

 

However, I think your right about the jobcentre having permission to check up on vacancies they offer their claimants, but they haven’t offered me any jobs lately.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

If a member of the DWP phoned virtually any office in the country and asked "Did XYZ apply for a vacancy with you?" they would be told "Sorry, its against data protection." So that is just an implied threat they use.

 

It would be impossible for a large organisation to quickly provide that information to the DWP and many have enough problems providing payroll information to the DWP, let alone this spurious request.

 

Seeking legal advice is pointless, it would not prove anything nor provide you with any material benefit - if you did somehow get some 'compensation' for this it would directly affect your benefit entitlement as that 'compensation' would be deemed 'earned income'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sillygirl1,

 

Based on what you’re saying, it seems one has little to worry about, but a breach of data protection could be a fine of up to £50,000.

 

If I hypothetically earned something from this income, I’d happily see my benefits stop in order to receive a greater amount of money.

 

This is all supposed of course.

Edited by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the copy is just so they have evidence that they have asked you for evidence of your job search.

 

I don't know about any breach of DP- it may be that social security law allows them to do this (I don't know, I'm just speculating).

 

Bottom line is, I doubt they have the time or inclination to check up!

Please do not ask me for advice via PM as I will not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have said, and regardless of any rights or wrongs, there would be just too many phone calls to make and deal with for it to be worth anyone's while.

That said, wouldn't it be great if they did? It would amount to thousands of extra phone calls a day. So the DWP would need to recruit hundreds more people just for that. Major companies likewise for people to handle and investigate the calls. And, obviously, the DWP would need to recruit even more people to handle the calls they make to themselves regarding their own advertised vacancies and applicants. This could be the way to full employment in the UK! :madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...