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

man cuts his neck in job centre due to bedroom tax


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3886 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

Political speech.

 

There are a lot of 'the Government this and the Government that' in this thread, but the reality is they are in the exact same boat.

 

Have a read in the Debt forums about people borrowing to pay bills, well this is exactly what this Government are having to do thanks to the last lot of muppets. Borrowing to pay bills eventually comes to a head and all further funding is non existent.

A nation as great as the UK should be lending money to others not borrowing. The Labour Government didn't care and just continued to borrow, borrow, borrow wasting it on silly projects like 'two' giant aircraft carriers, ships we don't have the sailors to crew or aircraft to arm.

 

The biggest bill in the UK is the Welfare bill which outstrips the amount collected, it can't continue.

 

First of all, no-one in government is in the same boat. That's why the slogans of "we're all in this together" etc. make me so angry. MPs are not having to choose between eating or paying the rent, they are choosing whether or not to take a pay rise.

 

The "deficit" is in my opinion a non-issue. Even if I am wrong on that point, it isn't being paid off anyway. In fact, it's getting bigger! The measures that affect the poor and vulnerable most, such as the bedroom tax and WCAs, are not effectively saving money. The entire benefits reform is completely unnecessary, and if they had just decided to scrap that instead, they could have saved themselves a fortune and whole lot of hassle.

 

This government's priorities seem completely skewed to me. Internet porn, their own wages, gay marriage (and i'm gay btw) are not issues the government should be concentrating on when so many people are suffering. I genuinely don't understand how they sleep at night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Please don't think I am taking sides here as I am not.

 

Welfare was set up to provide funds for those, (mainly war widows), who had hit desperate times, it was never devised as the complete wage for those not in work that it has turned into.

Coupons and cash were issued so a family could survive not live a normal wage earners standard of living.

 

I'm not saying there are enough jobs to go around etc, but with the myriad of add on's and credits available now, it has got out of hand.

 

So, so right!

 

I watched a two part documentary recently about how the Victorians dealt with poverty. They simply shamed people for being in poverty - most were there through their own inability to think and act for themselves.

 

Having come to the conclusion that they were probably right - it leaves me thinking that today things have changed for the worse - there is no shame anymore in not being able to provide for yourself and family.

 

The welfare culture has become a way of life - some recipients receiving far more than they would if they worked.

You can't blame the employers, the fault lies with the governments of the past in making it possible for many to receive benefits approaching £500 a week.

 

Even I remember that being unable to pay your debts was a criminal matter. Being unable to pay your way was considered anti social.

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very few receive £500 a week in benefits. Contrary to what the media want you to believe, many of us receive nowhere near as much as that.

 

The problem is low paid jobs, which are then having to be topped up with benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched a two part documentary recently about how the Victorians dealt with poverty. They simply shamed people for being in poverty - most were there through their own inability to think and act for themselves.
Well why not return to the Victorian way of life? 12 year old prostitutes on the streets of east London, and cotton mills. Most were in poverty because the government and elite class of the day wanted them there, if there was not a huge foundation of expendable life at the bottom of the pyramid how could those at the top pay for those little luxuries?

 

 

You can't blame the employers, the fault lies with the governments of the past in making it possible for many to receive benefits approaching £500 a week.
The fault lies with successive governments keeping NMW at near poverty level and subsidising employers profits with top up benefits. How many benefit recipients ever got close to receiving £500 per week?

 

Even I remember that being unable to pay your debts was a criminal matter. Being unable to pay your way was considered anti social.
Yeah bring back debtors prisons, banging up hoards of the debt ridden will really save the country loads of money won't it?

 

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.
You will be happy to know that it already is in the form of residential workfare for the disabled, you know those other feckless debt ridden parasites, they really have no shame when it comes to being unable to pay their way. While we're at it can't we return to locking up unmarried mothers as well?

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.

 

It probably has.

 

The tory version will be up and running just as soon as everyone on benefits has received a sanction for three years or more, saving on average around £100 per claimant per week. Then they will pay an unknown (probably foreign based) company around £500 per week to house them in disused factories, and feed them with food salvaged from Aldi's waste bins.

 

The only delay is finding a politician's brother-in-law, cousin, uncle etc. who owns a foreign based business, has no respect for human life and has a lifetime's supply of brown envelopes.

 

Tokenfield, are you really "fed up and old"?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well why not return to the Victorian way of life? 12 year old prostitutes on the streets of east London, and cotton mills. Most were in poverty because the government and elite class of the day wanted them there, if there was not a huge foundation of expendable life at the bottom of the pyramid how could those at the top pay for those little luxuries?

 

Mmmm, Cholera ;)

 

Thank you for confirming the troll is a troll. You have prevented me from angrily stomping my fingers across the keyboard :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It probably has.

 

The tory version will be up and running just as soon as everyone on benefits has received a sanction for three years or more, saving on average around £100 per claimant per week. Then they will pay an unknown (probably foreign based) company around £500 per week to house them in disused factories, and feed them with food salvaged from Aldi's waste bins.

 

The only delay is finding a politician's brother-in-law, cousin, uncle etc. who owns a foreign based business, has no respect for human life and has a lifetime's supply of brown envelopes.

 

Tokenfield, are you really "fed up and old"?

 

Yes he sounds very much like one of our serial trolls, best not to engage.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes he sounds very much like one of our serial trolls, best not to engage.

 

As the debtors act of 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt, and yer man reckons he can remember when debt was a criminal offence it follows that we have a 144 year old troll. Do you think he started trolling on parchment?

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't drug users a minority, anyway?

 

That they are. My brother is one of the minority, but not heroin by the way, he is in the process of trying to find work. But JSA is seriously not enough to support a drug habit like people seem to believe. They don't use their benefits on electric/food/bills, all that goes to pot because they don't think like others do about things like that & they end up very ill!! It's not the life of riley that the Daily fail has people thinking.

It causes horrendous depression & a nasty vicious circle. And if drug addicts on benefits are anything like my brother, they owe people money before they even get the benefits every other week

It's a miserable sh** life. I would rather be earning minimum wage & at least eating something to be honest. Being in debt to a legal company would seem a dream to a drug addict I think..

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, so right!

 

I watched a two part documentary recently about how the Victorians dealt with poverty. They simply shamed people for being in poverty - most were there through their own inability to think and act for themselves.

 

Having come to the conclusion that they were probably right - it leaves me thinking that today things have changed for the worse - there is no shame anymore in not being able to provide for yourself and family.

 

The welfare culture has become a way of life - some recipients receiving far more than they would if they worked.

You can't blame the employers, the fault lies with the governments of the past in making it possible for many to receive benefits approaching £500 a week.

 

Even I remember that being unable to pay your debts was a criminal matter. Being unable to pay your way was considered anti social.

A modern day version of the workhouse needs to be seriously considered.

 

Read the daily mail by any chance? Lol

I just laugh at comments like yours on here. I mean no offence but cummmmoooonnn are you SERIOUS?

Why not go the whole hog and lobby your waste of space MP into bringing about Action T4?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the debtors act of 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt, and yer man reckons he can remember when debt was a criminal offence it follows that we have a 144 year old troll. Do you think he started trolling on parchment?

 

'giggle', funny!

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

The majority of the welfare bill goes on pensions and housing benefit payments to private landlords - however these things are not targeted. The things that are actually being targeted make up a small proportion of the total welfare bill - this is simply a case of an economic excuse being used to push through an ideological agenda.

 

 

true the last 2 documentaries i watched stated that 90% of the welfare does go on that unemployment or sickness benefit

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not normally, no - at least if the person who lives in is a paid carer rather than a family member or friend. But if a person receives ESA and someone else receives Carers Allowance for them, then no Severe Disability Premium is payable

So the answer really is "it depends".

 

 

If the Disabled person who needs care and finds some one who is happy to care and the carer does not claim carers allowance, will the carer be seen as a carer in the official sense and will other benefits that the disabled person is receiving be affected..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do those who want to deride others always use this tired old analogy.

 

Not an 'analogy', an accusation, but you're right, it is entirely possible to be completely ignorant of the facts without being a Daily Mail reader.

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an 'analogy', an accusation, but you're right, it is entirely possible to be completely ignorant of the facts without being a Daily Mail reader.

 

Exactly - it's not that everyone who is ignorant of the facts reads the Daily Mail, but reading that paper does hamper one's ability to understand reality.

 

It's one of these overlapping set things. John Stuart Mill was famously caught out in that way, and had to clarify his position:

 

I didn't say that all conservatives were stupid, I said that most stupid people are conservative.

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

Wasn't the criminal offence abolished in Victorian times? Late 1860s I believe?

 

1869, if friend osdset is correct. Which, as he points out, would make tokenfield about 150 years old.

  • Haha 1

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

Its a sad individual who condemns a man for claiming benefits after he has cut his own throught for claiming said benefits.

This witch hunt is turning blood thirsty and I think its disgusting.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a sad individual who condemns a man for claiming benefits after he has cut his own throught for claiming said benefits.

This witch hunt is turning blood thirsty and I think its disgusting.

 

It's a good new stick for the Daily Mail crew, though, isn't it? "We give all this money to these scroungers and all they do is spend their time cutting their throats in the local Jobcentre!"

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

Exactly - it's not that everyone who is ignorant of the facts reads the Daily Mail, but reading that paper does hamper one's ability to understand reality.

 

It's one of these overlapping set things. John Stuart Mill was famously caught out in that way, and had to clarify his position:

 

We so need to do a Venn diagram of fact ignorance, fact awareness and daily mail readership. At the risk of getting something thrown at me - does fact awareness and daily mail readers actually intersect in order to make a Venn diagram? :-)

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office ~ Aesop

Link to post
Share on other sites

We so need to do a Venn diagram of fact ignorance, fact awareness and daily mail readership. At the risk of getting something thrown at me - does fact awareness and daily mail readers actually intersect in order to make a Venn diagram? :-)

 

You need another aspect to the diagram - cancer paranoia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...