Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for posting up the results from the sar. The PCN is not compliant with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. Under Section 9 [2][a] they are supposed to specify the parking time. the photographs show your car in motion both entering and leaving the car park thus not parking. If you have to do a Witness Statement later should they finally take you to Court you will have to continue to state that even though you stayed there for several hours in a small car park and the difference between the ANPR times and the actual parking period may only be a matter of a few minutes  nevertheless the CEL have failed to comply with the Act by failing to specify the parking period. However it looks as if your appeal revealed you were the driver the deficient PCN will not help you as the driver. I suspect that it may have been an appeal from the pub that meant that CEL offered you partly a way out  by allowing you to claim you had made an error in registering your vehicle reg. number . This enabled them to reduce the charge to £20 despite them acknowledging that you hadn't registered at all. We have not seen the signs in the car park yet so we do not what is said on them and all the signs say the same thing. It would be unusual for a pub to have  a Permit Holders Only sign which may discourage casual motorists from stopping there. But if that is the sign then as it prohibits any one who doesn't have a permit, then it cannot form a contract with motorists though it may depend on how the signs are worded.
    • Defence and Counterclaim Claim number XXX Claimant Civil Enforcement Limited Defendant XXXXXXXXXXXXX   How much of the claim do you dispute? I dispute the full amount claimed as shown on the claim form.   Do you dispute this claim because you have already paid it? No, for other reasons.   Defence 1. The Defendant is the recorded keeper of XXXXXXX  2. It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3. 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 simply contracted by the landowner 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. Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim. 4. In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5. The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer. 6. In a further abuse of the legal process the Claimant is claiming £50 legal representative's costs, even though they have no legal representative. 7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all. Signed I am the Defendant - I believe that the facts stated in this form are true XXXXXXXXXXX 01/05/2024   Defendant's date of birth XXXXXXXXXX   Address to which notices about this claim can be sent to you  
    • pop up on the bulk court website detailed on the claimform. [if it is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] . When you select ‘Register’, you will be taken to a screen titled ‘Sign in using Government Gateway’.  Choose ‘Create sign in details’ to register for the first time.  You will be asked to provide your name, email address, set a password and a memorable recovery word. You will be emailed your Government Gateway 12-digit User ID.  You should make a note of your memorable word, or password as these are not included in the email.<<**IMPORTANT**  then log in to the bulk court Website .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform . defend all leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time [BUT you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 ] click thru to the end confirm and exit the website .get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?486334-CPR-31.14-Request-to-use-on-receipt-of-a-PPC-(-Private-Land-Parking-Court-Claim type your name ONLY no need to sign anything .you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform.
    • well post it here as a text in a the msg reply half of it is blanked out. dx  
  • 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

invitation to office interview


loub
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4027 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, recieved the letter friday and been paniking since, i phoned jobcentre and they assured me they are picked at random.

i did some part time work... 2 hours a week earning 12.00 week which is under the £20.00 limit your allowed but its only just dawned on me that i maybe should of told them of this work and i am worried now i am under investigattion for a oversight on my behalf.

I am currently claiming jsa and i dont know what to do?

i am thinking of phoneing up tomorrow and admitting to my mistake and that i am willing to provide any letters etc they need, i am no longer working as it was only a temp position.

I honestly didnt realise i could of done wrong by my claim

 

help!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am just going to be honest about my mistake tomorrow and explain it wasnt done intentionally....anyone agree with me?

 

guilts too much even though it was honest mistake :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I would go to the interview. It's an informal interview by the looks of it, you'd know if it was an interview under caution. The informal ones are usually done by compliance rather than any fraud dept. It's possible they know about the work, but they'll also likely know it's under the 20 pounds, they may kick off about you not notifying them but you wont actually have been over paid so don't panic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

okai..phew..well i will take my statements and i will mention something if they do, i know i didnt go over the amount allowed and claimed thousands like some ppl do, i just dont wanna walk out the interview being done for fraud, i will just be honest at the time and own up to my over sight etc... tell you summat... i wont be making an over sight again, i have no idea how ppl actually commit fraud on purpose and actually sleep at night

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you do any work, even voluntary, always declare it. Insist on copies of all the forms you fill out and file them somewhere safe.

 

Had a case a couple of years back where I'd been doing some p/t work, always declared, and then got a demand for an overpayment "because you did not tell us" - One snotty letter informing the DWP that I had copies of all paperwork for the period in question, and that they were welcome to view the files once suitable terms, conditions, and fees had been negotiated. Case closed :razz:

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

How do you know the interview is about those extra hours working and not informing the DWP. The interview can be about anything, and your reasoning is totally subjective and working yourself into a negative state of mind.

 

Has it been confirmed that this interview is with the fraud department

 

For all you know its probably an interview your job centre advisor has set up to do with your job search or job seekers agreement

 

When i was claiming JSA, i had to attend weekly interviews with my advisor

Link to post
Share on other sites

it says

INVITATION TO OFFICE INTERVIEW

 

Dear.......

we would like you to attend the interview at:

 

we need to see you in order to discuss the benefit we are currently paying. we need to ensure your payments are correct and is essential that you attend this interview to discuss this matter.

 

then gives a list of what they need to see including 3 months worth bank statements which shows my payments from the work i did so they will ask about it anyway from looking at my statements,

so i am best to just own up to my oversight etc and promise not to do it again, never done it before so i am likely to get a slap on the wrist hopefully

Link to post
Share on other sites

it hasnt been confirmed its from the fraud dept and i most likely worked myself up into a state, i didnt earn over the allowed amount which they will see from statements so i am expecting a telling off for not telling them to be honest

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it been confirmed that this interview is with the fraud department

 

It's a Compliance interview. They are a totally separate section to FIS but often get confused on this forum because one of the things they do deal with are cases downgraded by FIS.

 

They do not interview under caution & any overpayments they do establish cannot end in a prosecution or sanction.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I very much doubt not a thing to be honest, payments of the odd 12 quid is nothing, a relation might be paying it to help out now and again for all the DWP are aware of

 

It is regular payments above i believe £94 they are interested in. so RELAX

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we just bear in mind that the weekly allowance is £20 for lone parents. LouB, are you a lone parent?

 

For couples it's £10 and for single people it's £5. This still isn't likely a big deal. While you should always declare income, as Squaddie said, a few pounds a week is not likely to be seen as a major fraud. If there's any overpayment you would be asked to pay it back from future benefits, and then you'll likely be told to go and sin no more.

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

It is regular payments above i believe £94 they are interested in. so RELAX

 

All work should be declared. Different benefits have different earnings rules.

 

Someone earning £25 per week undeclared on JSA could find themselves in serious trouble if they did it for long enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting silly and unnecessary

 

We are not talking of £25 per week payments

 

We are talking of a few payments of £12.00

 

yes all work should be declared, but if this if mentioned in an interview, it will result in a slap on the wrist i would think, not worth bothering about

 

JABBA , I know you mean well but your comment is unnecessary

Link to post
Share on other sites

i am a lone parent on jsa, i definatly didnt go over the 20 pounds a week and if it comes to light i have been over paid i have no issue in paying back whats owed and obviously in future i will be not making any oversights and declaring any other income no matter how big or small... i have never done this before and it was not intentional

Link to post
Share on other sites

jabba i am very aware that i can get into serious trouble if it went on long enough which is why i am on here asking for advice on whats likely to happen etc :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i can tell u what i earned....

 

jan 28th- £83.11

feb - 5.55 for some reason they paid me twice last month hence why its only 5.55

march - 15.25

 

my hourly earning was 6.25 per hour and i did 2 hours a week

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting silly and unnecessary

 

We are not talking of £25 per week payments

 

We are talking of a few payments of £12.00

 

yes all work should be declared, but if this if mentioned in an interview, it will result in a slap on the wrist i would think, not worth bothering about

 

JABBA , I know you mean well but your comment is unnecessary

 

Excuse me? I've already said earlier that this is a Compliance interview not FIS. They probably don't even know about the £12 per week earnings (but it should still be declared)

 

I was replying to your advice that that is only regular payments of £94 they are interested in. That is complete rubbish & could mislead someone else reading this thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The comments i have made are in relation to this thread, not another thread dealing with some one Else's unique set of circumstances that will be irrelevant to this particular problem

 

Your comments i consider are subjective and not objective to other peoples own problems

 

Now lets move on to the issues of this thread and speak no more of it

Link to post
Share on other sites

YOU mentioned the £94 rule in this thread! Myself (& Antone) were pointing out it was wrong!

Jeez. I give up.

 

Loub is not in trouble. For the 3rd time. It's a Compliance interview.

Edited by jabba jones
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...