Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • 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

JCP Sanction


evule1
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4032 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

Hello,

 

I would like to ask for your help, again.

 

My partner and I have a joined JSA claim. My partner is also on a Work Programme with A4e.

I currently work more then 24 hours per week. My partner is still signing on every fortnight as my hours vary and the JCP keeps the claim open for that reason.

Today my partner went to sign on as usual. When he got to the desk of the advisor and sat down she said to him that he hasn't done his jobsearch requirements. He can prove everything he did because his A4e advisor is aware of all he does. However JCP staff (first the advisor and then the manager) has decided that is not enough as he hasn't put it all on the Universal Jobmatch site. My partner told them to call the advisor in A4e but they refused. Instead they said he is not allowed to sign and our claim probably will be suspended. Later on today he received a phone call from the same manager he spoke to previously and he informed him that the claim has been sanctioned for 4 weeks.

 

We do not receive any JSA due to my wages being too high. However we feel this is not right. My partner has done everything he has been asked to do, we had no warning and by JCP staff we can't appeal either.

 

Is there anything we can do?

 

JCP is refusing to get in touch with A4e and A4e says, they can't do anything unless JCP gets in touch with them. That is insane!!!

 

We are now worried it will effect our Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit.

 

Please help!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are people on the forum who are employed by the DWP

 

As far as i am aware using UJM is not a condition for receipt of JSA

 

The JCP staff cannot sanction your benefit, it has to go to an independent case examiner who will make that decision and they have to give you a form to appeal the decision when the sanction doubt is raised to begin with

 

you need also to contact your local council as they will stop your housing benefit, again, to receive housing benefit is not a condition of receipt of JSA, it is done on income

 

wait for more replies though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that,

 

however it looks as the JCP staff have their own rules. We have been told the claim is sanctioned for 4 weeks (within aprox 3 hours from the initial meeting) by the same man who dealt with my partner on the first place. We have not got anything in writing or got any way to appeal. Apparently the decesion has been made and that is it.

 

I am sorry if this looks as if I hate everybody who works for JCP. I am just really angry with certain people and also hopeless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A decision to sanction can be appealed. Ask for a copy of leaflet GL24 "If you think our decision is wrong" - it explains the process and also has a handy form to send in with your appeal.

 

Also, these decisions cannot simply be made on the spot by a JCP adviser - they're made by a separate team called DMA (Decision Making and Appeals) and you should always be allowed to put your case before they reach a decision. You should always be notified in writing of the outcome.

 

And finally, he can only be sanctioned for not using UJM if his adviser issued a specific Jobseeker's Direction to him about it.

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

This looks like that JCP office was also included in these sanction targets that have come to light.

You most definitely need to appeal this sanction, Phone up DWP and ask for the appeal form to be sent if they have not

sent you a letter yet. I would also be asking why this Sanction Doubt hasn't been sent to you via formal letter with your

right to appeal been fully informed to you.

 

George

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless things have changed for the worse, a sanction can not be verbally issued. It has to be done in writing and various documents must be supplied - One of which must contain details of the appeals process. If nothing was provided in writing, start with a formal complaint (and cc your MP) and follow it up straight away with an appeal.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone who responded.

 

We will have to contact our MP and put the complaint in. Problem is that we have no official dates, we do not even know when does this sanction begins. We only know that it is for 4 weeks and it has been given for not using the UJM properly as there was not all the info they required. Even though it was fine until now.

 

Another thing thas is puzzling me is what is it that they are going to actually sanction? I mean how is this going to affect us when we are not in receipt of JSA due to my currently high income.

 

Thanks antone we will ask for the form you suggested.

 

Any other updates or ideas are most welcome.

 

I will also keep you updated on the progress.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision is not made by JCP the referral is swent via JCP to DMA who will consider the infornation provided by the client and the applications that could have bben made and other activities as per the JSAg and action plan (work program provider agreement).

If a decision is made that the client cannot be treated as actively seeking for the period it is a disallowance for 2 weeks with a further referral ade at the end of that period for consideration of a 2 week sanction as per the revised guidance from October 2012.

A 4 week sanction is the outcome following first failure to attend a signing or work program appointment without good cause.

 

Your partner can request a reconsideration of the decision if they are able to provide new and additional information to what was originally provided.

If applications were made via email then you can print those off and send with the reconsideration request.

On the letter you can request that the decision needs to be referred for appeal if the decision is not reconsidered favourably. (although this also looked at automatically on receipt of the appeal).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everybody,

so we still don't have the sanctions confirmed in any formal way. We went to JCP yesterday and questioned this and the advisor was not even aware that the sanction took place as this did not show on their system. Then eventually she found it but only for the period of 2 weeks and aparently the claim has already been reinstated and is up and running as usual. :shock: She gave us an appeal form which we were suppose to be given in the first place and also told us that she had never heard that not using UJM could result in sanctions.:| The site doesn't work correctly and it is sometimes very hard to get on it. She said it should be enough if you verbally inform the advisor about what kind of activities have you been doing.

However we have to put the complaint form in because this is not right!!! We are going to appeal as well!!! And there will be letter to our local MP!!! I am not giving up and l am not going to let anybody mess with my life!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a carry on! It seems once again that it's down to the JC not knowing their own rules and just saying the first thing that comes into their heads - when are these people ever going to a) know the rules and b) actually abide by them? Job training appears to be a thing of the past with the majority of JC staff these days.

 

Definitely send those complaints in - if not for yourself then for the others who have been/will be given wrong info and worried unnecessarily.

 

As the rules stand at present, if your advisor hasn't actually mandated you to register with Universal Jobmatch, then you don't even have to look at the site - we all know however that eventually we'll all have to register...only a matter of time.

 

Hope you get it all sorted out - and the clerk and manager who gave you wrong advice get disciplined for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We will deffo do that! Btw just for the interest, there on the appeal form it is asking for the date of our decision letter. What a joke!!! Hard to write one when we didn't receive any. Or now thinking, maybe it is clever tactics on behalf of JCP. Yeah, right!!!:?:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi everyone,

sorry it took me a while to get back in touch but I waited for some more news.

So here it is.

We found out that the manager in the JCP who put the case forward for sanctions, was acting as the "independent" decision maker, when it came to deciding if the sanctions should be implemented. But that is not all. He was also the "independent" person who makes decisions about the appeals!!!! So judge, jury and executioner all in one???!!! THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT :???:

We never received a letter informing us of these sanctions.

However we wrote to our MP and although we have not heard from him, yet we had a very interesting phone call from JCP.

The sanctions have been lifted, aparently the very same day (yeah, right...). Our claim is clean. They lifted and wiped out everything and WE GOT AN APOLOGY. AGAIN!!!!! :jaw:

Shall this be motivation for everyone, never give up and if you know you are in right, fight. :whoo:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congratulations on getting an apology and a clean slate.

 

Hopefully, the offending participants will be severely reprimanded for failing to follow correct procedure and overstepping their authority. You might want to keep note of the names of the "adviser" and manager involved so that if they try to pull the same stunt again you could add victimisation to the defence.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My congratulations too! This is a horrific story though - that 'manager' needs dispensing with. The whole system is supposed to work so that no one person can, as you said, be 'judge jury and executioner' and all sides of the argument are examined independantly. The feudal system, where the Lord of the Manor reigned supreme, ended in the middle ages - though apparently it's still going on in your jobcentre.

 

I'd still be complaining to MP's and very senior DWP bods though, in case this 'manager' does it again to someone else. Wonder how many they've already done it to??

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...