Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Problems with DWP are a possible reason for the delay in paying beneficiaries. If for example DWP suspect that benefits paid prior to the deceased's death have been overpaid they have to right to recover the overpayments from the Estate. Until the Executor has agreed with DWP what is owing to them and paid them they cannot pay beneficiaries. Sometimes the overpayment of benefits, usually because the deceased had not given correct information to DWP, goes back years and can be a substantial amount. Possibly so much that there is no money left to pay other beneficiaries. When I've dealt with DWP on overpaid benefits you get a lot of threatening letters from them telling the Executors that DWP has a duty to recover overpayents to protect public money and will go to court to recover it if they have to.    The bad news at the moment is it takes months to get anything sorted out with them. eg, just before Christmas I got a reply to letter I sent to DWP on a routine matter last February! Covid support has swamped them. I agree with HB that you should wait. And you might have to wait some time I'm afraid.   Of course if you don't believe the story about problems with DWP you might want to take action now. I can't say if it's true obviously, only that it is credible.
    • is response to CPR rules you sent me - my observations are   1)they havent stated under what law/legislation they make a claim, they have mentioned document they rely on but didnt serve it with application as above   2)they didnt serve application or evidence on me ever! court knows this    3)this is a telephone hearing where no oral evidence is to be given , do we do skeleton arguments or court bundle , when do we give to court - order is to only submit evidence in response 7 days before hearing   4) there are /is a document which gives complete defence to the claim, disclosable at trial , so they shouldnt have sought summary judgement a)i have an email from them ,  a deed of guarantee and indemnity (DOGI) was required for guarantee, pre condition to lending b)i have a docusign email sending request to sign this  DOGI document (not attached it was a docusign login) , c)they dont have a copy of it and havent provided under SAR or specific request.  d) anyone who does a DOGI, is not defined as a 'Guarantor' in the agreement, which is not signed in a personal capacity anyway, e)so in the application they rely on loan agreement having a self contained gurantor section, and the fact my name is next to word guarantor (but not signed personally, no statute of frauds anyways)   their definition of a guarantor-"person named in offer letter who enters into this loan agreement to provide a personal guarantee and indemnity. this definition excludes any third party guarantor who enters into a seperate DOGI"
    • Hi Anney.   Let's give this a bit longer. With the best will in the world, altosbestos hasn't been here very long and we don't know much about them. It would be good to know what forum regulars think about what altos is advising.   HB  
    • thanks for that very helpful, ill make some points on it in a minute just wanted to say they never served me application against CPR, i had to obtain off court a copy. They refer in wtiness st - marked as what they rely to support application a paginated bundle PR1 which apparently accompanies the statement, i can see from the references and amount of pages it should be the loan offer and loan agreement, as you would expect.   so i asked court can i have copy of PR1 so i can check, they just got back and said  claimant has never either in electronic database or in paper, served a bundle PR1 with the application,    there said it was claimants job to serve everyone and me- so ask them      i was about to and i had a thought, they havent submitted any evidence in support of their application why remind them !   in theory judge will get to hearing and go where is your evidence of this agreement?   and for the record they are very sloppy and do make major mistakes in their paperwork, so this isnt unusual
    • You can draft the letter before action yourself and send it against the individual that's not giving you clear responses. No need to involve solicitors at this stage.   I would recommend you do it today, start maintaining a paper trail. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

invited same day to job interview, couldnt attend - will i get sanctioned?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2763 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

so if you leave the box about allowing the DWP access to your account unticked does that mean advisors can't ask you to sign in to UJM at appointments?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

so if you leave the box about allowing the DWP access to your account unticked does that mean advisors can't ask you to sign in to UJM at appointments?

 

DWP staff are not permitted to allow a claimant to use their computer to log in to UJ (as per DWP UJ Toolkit and a host of other internal data security documents). To use the UJ, an adviser should direct you to one of the Internet Access Devices installed for such use.

 

Should the "adviser" hover over your shoulder whilst logging in, you can refuse on the grounds that there is a risk of your password & login ID being compromised - It is called Shoulder Surfing and is oft used at cashpoints and other publicly accessable terminals.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
DWP staff are not permitted to allow a claimant to use their computer to log in to UJ (as per DWP UJ Toolkit and a host of other internal data security documents). To use the UJ, an adviser should direct you to one of the Internet Access Devices installed for such use.

 

Should the "adviser" hover over your shoulder whilst logging in, you can refuse on the grounds that there is a risk of your password & login ID being compromised - It is called Shoulder Surfing and is oft used at cashpoints and other publicly accessable terminals.

 

at the sub provider i'm with and ingeus i see advisors sitting with people, UJM open on there screens and at the sub provider one of the advisors opened UJM on her computer and said to the person she was seeing "put your password in".

 

so as i haven't ticked the box's allowing them access they won't be able to do that with me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A WP provider has no legal right to insist on you logging on to a computer on their premises for the purpose of showing your activity on UJ or any other site. If they make such a demand, tell them to seek qualified legal advice and contact the Information Commissioners Office.

 

They can ask to see evidence of your job search activity, but like the DWP, they can not decide on the format or method the information is presented - I had this argument with A4e when one of their harpies insisted I kept a record on my laptop for her viewing. She got a hand written log and a blunt reprimand for asking.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
A WP provider has no legal right to insist on you logging on to a computer on their premises for the purpose of showing your activity on UJ or any other site. If they make such a demand, tell them to seek qualified legal advice and contact the Information Commissioners Office.

 

They can ask to see evidence of your job search activity, but like the DWP, they can not decide on the format or method the information is presented - I had this argument with A4e when one of their harpies insisted I kept a record on my laptop for her viewing. She got a hand written log and a blunt reprimand for asking.

 

the only thing they see is my job diary sheet and email responses from employers, so when i get asked if i've signed up to UJM will the advisor ask for my email?

 

also as i haven't given them access to my account when they click on it will it say something like 'this profile is set to private'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
the only thing they see is my job diary sheet and email responses from employers, so when i get asked if i've signed up to UJM will the advisor ask for my email?

 

also as i haven't given them access to my account when they click on it will it say something like 'this profile is set to private'?

 

WP advisers have no access to your UJM account whether or not you allowed access to DWP staff.

 

If you didn't check the box to allow DWP staff access, they'll get some sort of error if they try to access, or maybe the option to view your account simply won't present itself to them. I don't know exactly how it works from their end, but they will know you haven't granted access. As things stand, that is your right - they can't hold it against you provided you show evidence of jobsearch in some other way.

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
WP advisers have no access to your UJM account whether or not you allowed access to DWP staff.

 

If you didn't check the box to allow DWP staff access, they'll get some sort of error if they try to access, or maybe the option to view your account simply won't present itself to them. I don't know exactly how it works from their end, but they will know you haven't granted access. As things stand, that is your right - they can't hold it against you provided you show evidence of jobsearch in some other way.

 

it seems the jobcentre and all these WP providers are obsessed with UJM, if they ask for access to my account i'll tell them no as its my private data :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
WP advisers have no access to your UJM account whether or not you allowed access to DWP staff.

 

If you didn't check the box to allow DWP staff access, they'll get some sort of error if they try to access, or maybe the option to view your account simply won't present itself to them. I don't know exactly how it works from their end, but they will know you haven't granted access. As things stand, that is your right - they can't hold it against you provided you show evidence of jobsearch in some other way.

The check-box giving DWP access is irrelevant - when candidates create an account within UJ, they accept a number of Terms and Conditions - including that the Monster Corporation, operating UJ on behalf of the DWP, is a Data Processor, and may distribute the data contained to whichever party is deemed authorised by the Minister of State, without requiring permission or authorisation from the candidate. The same basis as the Job Centre transferring personal data to the Work Programme.

 

The check box is irrelevant - notwithstanding that candidates may invoke their rights not to release confidential information on their UJ Account, candidates have absolutely no control over how the data contained in the system is distributed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well i will hardly be using UJM to do job search as the whole site is just weird, i mean whats with that survey thinggy?! you can tell its a big brother style website as soon as you start the sign up process and the invention of this site is perhaps the worst decision ever!

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know i keep going on about stupid things but i'm kinda worried about what happens when i signed on today :(

 

 

well the guy i saw looked at my job search diary and i asked if there were any restrictions preventing me from doing a full job search, i said no there isn't and he started telling me details of how to fill out my job search form if an application was made/not made or something, then he wrote on my job search diary no restrictions and i'm worried this means i'm going to get sanctioned :/

then went the meeting was over he said have a good forenight, you may get lucky.

 

 

am i worrying over nothing or because i do most of my job search online as i suffer from anxiety not count as a full job search? i can prove i have applied for all the jobs on my form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sticking to one thread would help you,instead of posting in 3 threads !

 

Links edited !

 

Should work ,you need to be signed in

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/search.php?searchid=3437809

 

Edited by 45002
Links Edited

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming it records EVERYTHING you do; when you've logged in, what pages you've looked at, etc...and that's the dangerous thing.

 

Imagine you look at a vacancy but decide you don't want it or it's not suitable..if the JC clerk can see you've looked at it they might think it was a suitable job and you failed to apply for it..and you know what happens next.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm assuming it records EVERYTHING you do; when you've logged in, what pages you've looked at, etc...and that's the dangerous thing.

 

Imagine you look at a vacancy but decide you don't want it or it's not suitable..if the JC clerk can see you've looked at it they might think it was a suitable job and you failed to apply for it..and you know what happens next.

 

 

omg i hope not, so it would even record what you were doing on sites like facebook or twitter? :O

Link to post
Share on other sites

i know i keep going on about stupid things but i'm kinda worried about what happens when i signed on today

 

 

well the guy i saw looked at my job search diary and i asked if there were any restrictions preventing me from doing a full job search, i said no there isn't and he started telling me details of how to fill out my job search form if an application was made/not made or something, then he wrote on my job search diary no restrictions and i'm worried this means i'm going to get sanctioned :/

then went the meeting was over he said have a good forenight, you may get lucky.

 

 

am i worrying over nothing or because i do most of my job search online as i suffer from anxiety not count as a full job search? i can prove i have applied for all the jobs on my form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

joeski: The "no restrictions" would mean you are expected to apply for any job, be it part time cleaner on the night shift, a bar tender, burger flipper or brain surgeon. (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).

 

If there are certain jobs you can not do, or hours that are not suitable, you need to impress upon JCP staff what your limitations are. For example, I can (will) not work with food, chemicals, general public or in the cold. Hours are strictly 9-5 Mon-Fri cos public transport sucks outside those hours.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

As posted elsewhere:

The "no restrictions" would mean you are expected to apply for any job, be it part time cleaner on the night shift, a bar tender, burger flipper or brain surgeon. (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).

 

If there are certain jobs you can not do, or hours that are not suitable, you need to impress upon JCP staff what your limitations are. For example, I can (will) not work with food, chemicals, general public or in the cold. Hours are strictly 9-5 Mon-Fri cos public transport sucks outside those hours.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
joeski: The "no restrictions" would mean you are expected to apply for any job, be it part time cleaner on the night shift, a bar tender, burger flipper or brain surgeon. (sorry to be the bearer of bad news).

 

If there are certain jobs you can not do, or hours that are not suitable, you need to impress upon JCP staff what your limitations are. For example, I can (will) not work with food, chemicals, general public or in the cold. Hours are strictly 9-5 Mon-Fri cos public transport sucks outside those hours.

 

 

ok thats understood but will i get sanctioned for only applying for jobs using the internet and what reasons are there for the person signing you to right that on your job sheet?

Link to post
Share on other sites
so that means i probably will get sanctioned?

 

Nope, not likely - at least, not this time. "No restrictions" simply means that you are available to take any work. And seriously, until someone actually tells you that you may be sanctioned, stop worrying about it. Seek work, and seek inner peace.

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
Nope, not likely - at least, not this time. "No restrictions" simply means that you are available to take any work. And seriously, until someone actually tells you that you may be sanctioned, stop worrying about it. Seek work, and seek inner peace.

 

thanks, i'll try to stop worrying so much but i having a habbit of letting things worry me and i get stressed. i think also i read to much into what advisors say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks, i'll try to stop worrying so much but i having a habbit of letting things worry me and i get stressed. i think also i read to much into what advisors say.

 

I know you worry about things. It's understandable - the rules are complex and it's hard to know what any adviser means and what rules they're applying. Still, I recommend that you focus on finding work and, where necessary, protecting your rights. You might get sanctioned, perhaps, but don't fret about it until you have a reason to think it might actually happen.

 

If a DWP staffer wants to sanction you they'll have to tell you about it. In the meantime, look for work when you can and stop fretting about sanctions. You'll be OK.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...