Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I'll get my letter drafted this evening. Its an item I sold, which I'm also concerned about, as whilst I don't have my original purchase receipt (the best I have is my credit card statement showing a purchase from Car Audio Centre), I do unfortunately have the eBay listing where I sold it for much less. But as I said before this is now a question of compensation: true compensation would seek to put me back into the position I was in before the loss ie: that title would remain with me until my buyer has accepted this, and so compensation should be that which would be needed to replace the lost item. But in the world of instant electronic payment, it could be argued that as I had already been paid, the title to the goods had already transferred, and I was required to refund the buyer after the loss. And so, despite my declared value being the retail price - that which is needed to return me to my pre-sales position, the compensatory value should be the value I sold it for, which being a second-hand item from a private seller is lower
    • amusing that 'bad economic judgement on behalf of prior party ISN'T a major reason to wingers to move to deform yet immigration is, where record levels of such has been driven by the right wings terrible brexit and the later incompetent dog whistle 'proposals largely driven to whistle to the right wingnuts Just seems to confirm the are clueless numpties 'wetting their own shoes   Has farage bought a property in Clacton yet?   yet concern for the NHS is listed as a major issue even by those saying they are moving to deform  
    • Also, have you told us how much you paid for this vehicle? Are there any other expenses you have incurred – insurance, inspections et cetera? How far away from the dealership do you live?
    • In fact I see that in the document you posted above – your letter to big motoring world you refer to the diagnostics report and you say that you sent a copy to big motoring world but you haven't let us see it. Any reason for this?
    • You may have posted already – but anyway, have you got anything in writing from Audi or anyone confirming the water in the sills?
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

PIP - Decision on distance for PIP


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3888 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

At last, the government have now finally decided on the distance that will be used to measure Enhanced mobility for PIP - it is agreed at 20 metres.

 

This will once and for all weed out those that can walk the width of a football field yet are deemed so disabled that their mobility is seriously compromised and were awarded the highest rate of DLA mobility element.

 

We are now going to see that only those that are truly the most disabled and vulnerable in society, mobility wise, being handed a free car.

 

I can't wait to hear the screams and shouts from those part time walking stick owners and crutch wobblers that you hardly ever see the bottom of the stick/crutch touching the floor. Those that appear to be on their last leg one minute and yet are able to run around with their children the next. What fun we are going to have.

 

As I have said before I will be the first in the queue to have my HRM & MRC taken off me when PIP goes national provided that the 10's of thousands of others do the same so that the money available in the PIP pot is directed only at those with the most serious of care needs and mobility issues.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251631/pip-mobility-consultation-government-response.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, the car isn't free. If you go by that logic, then those on benefits get a free house, free food, gas, electricity, etc.

 

Those on benefits other than DLA get money from the government to be able to live a normal lifestyle. Those however on DLA and who receive HRM are given extra money to purchase their own car and pay no RFL or can exchange that money for a new car every 3 years with everything apart from fuel paid for. So to me considering that the HRM money never touches your bank, the government fund the car - which is deemed free to the claimant.

I would like to know where I can buy a new car costing up to £25,000 to include servicing, repairs, insurance, RFL etc for £55 a week - £8619 over the three year term?

 

Out of my HRM payments of £2873 a year, I have very little change left over after paying for all of the running costs excluding the loss of capital of approx. £3600 pa I have invested in the car. Insurance alone costs me over £1100 a year, not counting tyres at £185 each, brake discs and pads at £700 every 3 years, general servicing at £480 a year as well as the cost of the annual manufacturers warranty of £725 a year.

 

As this thread has nothing actually to do with mobility cars (which are free to the claimant in my opinion) I can foresee a lot of screaming and stamping of feet when the car goes back and people have to fund their own out of their own resources like the majority in this country currently have to do.

 

Being able to walk the equivalent of the width of a football pitch and be awarded HRM is to be honest a joke. Yes I too receive HRM, and have always felt guilty even though I qualify when I consider that I have been put in the same category of someone that probably couldn't put one foot in front of another.

 

Don't you too think that that is slightly ridiculous? 50 metres or 1 metre, both are under DLA said to be unable to walk.

Edited by bedofweeds
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 meters doesn't get you that far though.

 

164 feet? That's far enough to say that there is nothing wrong with your ability to walk! Yet the DLA criteria says that 164 feet is an acceptable distance to prove that you cannot virtually walk? Who's kidding who?

 

Now 66 feet is a more realistic limit to judge walking ability. But no doubt those that only a few years ago swore blind that they couldn't manage 164 feet without pain or severe discomfort will tragically find that when PIP comes about they will have the same problem with 66 feet. I have visions of claimants going back to their consultants asking for a rehash of their letter which originally stated that 164 feet was the maximum that they could walk - can you please substitute that figure for 66 feet? Yes I too have a written report from the spinal unit that 164 feet was my maximum, bit I am blowed if I am going to embarrass the consultant to vary the distance to suit the new regulations.

 

None of this actually deals with the new figure, so I presume that everyone is like me and thinks that it is reasonable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm . . . not sure I agree with the 20m. For some people that's barley enough to get off there street never mind lead a full independent life! even at 50m most people can't get to a shop, bus stop or other facility. I am in favour of kicking benefit cheats off benefits, but not stripping legitimate claimants of resources that help them overcome the barriers which still exist in out society. When we have a barrier free environment (utopia) then we can move away from a benefits approach, as there will be no need for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm . . . not sure I agree with the 20m. For some people that's barley enough to get off there street never mind lead a full independent life! even at 50m most people can't get to a shop, bus stop or other facility. I am in favour of kicking benefit cheats off benefits, but not stripping legitimate claimants of resources that help them overcome the barriers which still exist in out society. When we have a barrier free environment (utopia) then we can move away from a benefits approach, as there will be no need for them.

 

The reason for the reduction is that the government want to target the most disabled in society. One way of doing this is to reduce it to 20 metres. Anybody that can walk further than that cannot be classed as the most disabled and deserving. I'm not saying that reducing the limit won't hurt some people, but with the limited resources that this country has isn't it better to give it to the most disabled?

 

I can walk just about 50 metres, 20 metres is easily attained. Would it be right for me to get the same enhanced rate as those who can't walk 20 metres? I don't think so.

 

Would I give up my award so that the most disabled can have theirs? Course I would and would expect everybody else to do the same.

 

There are only so many times that the government can divide the Welfare Budget into.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...