Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We need to see the actual document from the IAS where it is written - "The Operator's evidence shows no payment for the Appellant's vehicle, or anything similar. It does show two payments for the same registration in quick succession. I would take a reasonable guess, based on the circumstances described, that the person paying has paid for the registration of the person they assisted again." You can't just type it up yourself. At the hearing in July or August or whenever the judge will have two Witness Statements. One from Bank's director says you never made a second appeal. You say you did make a second appeal and the IAS concluded that payment was made. The judge will immediately twig that either you or the director is lying.  But who? Fail to show the documentation form the IAS and instead just produce something you've typed yourself will make it look like you just made up the appeal and you are lying and you will lose the case. Please let us see what the IAS adjudicator sent.
    • I used to have a retail outlet in London selling my husband's photography.  We also had a co-op with staff so they weren't directly employed by me, but I paid for the other overheads etc.  When my husband died, I carried on as usual for a while but then I became ill and moved quite far away so logistically was becoming very difficult.  I came to an arrangement (verbal) with one of the guys I trusted, that I would send him the images to print and sell as normal, and I wouldn't take any money, as a short term solution until I got back on my feet and worked out the best way to do things. He would pay all the  rent, insurance etc... Over a year later, not able to give things away for free anymore,  I drew up a contract as a wholesale agreement, so I would get everything printed and sent to him and I would invoice his for what he ordered. I noticed form the beginning that he wasn't ordering enough or frequently enough to be making any money, and was suspicious he was doing his own orders on the sly and ordering just enough from me to keep my happy.  I checked with my printer, which I've been with for 20 years, and he sad he wasn't getting orders for my images from anyone else. I emailed a few other printers to ask them to keep a look out for some images but I soon realised this would be impossible to police.  The only option really would be to buy a print from him and check the stamp on the back of it.  I finally managed to get hold of on the prints on sale, and sure enough, he did not order it through me.   In the contract he signed in 2022 it explicitly states that he must destroy all files I had previously sent him etc etc so e is in breach of that.  When I drew up the contract, I was careful to make sure it was legally binding, but before I let rip at him, I need to know where I stand.  The contract is here: PARTIES This WHOLESALE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made effective as of 30th June, 2022, by and between ############################## The Supplier and the Client, collectively referred to as the "Parties," hereby agree to the following terms: TERMS AND CONDITIONS SALES OF GOODS The Supplier agrees to provide the following goods to the Client (“Goods”): Description of Goods ################################# Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b BOTH PARTIES AGREE: The Client purchases the Goods through the Supplier directly, and agrees to delete/destroy any previously held digital images (Goods) owned by the Supplier, and agrees not to use any such files for monetary gain, outside of this agreement, either directly or through a third party from immediate effect of this agreement. The Client purchases the other materials necessary for resale of the Goods independently of this agreement. The Client shall have exclusive rights for resale of Goods at ###########, and also with permission, as a retailer of the Goods elsewhere, provided that there is no conflict of interest between the Supplier and the Client. The Client is free to decide their own retail prices, for the Goods. The Supplier shall use #####  to provide the printed Goods on Fujifilm Crystal Archive paper, with Lustre finish, and will not use any other Printer unless #### cease to trade, without prior approval from the Client. The Supplier shall not impose restrictions on size or frequency of orders made by the Client. The prices provided by the Supplier shall not increase for a minimum of 3 years, unless the prices of the raw materials rise, in which case the client will be informed immediately. Any discounts/promotional prices of raw materials shall be passed on to the Client by the Supplier, and the invoice will show adjustments for this, as well as credit for return postage of any damaged goods. This agreement can be terminated by the Client without notice; the Supplier must give notice of no less than 90 days, unless the terms of the agreement are breached, in which case, the agreement can be terminated with immediate effect. PAYMENT Orders must be paid for upon receipt of invoice, via Bank transfer: ######### Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b DELIVERY AND INSPECTIONS All orders received by 12.00am (midnight) shall be processed by the Supplier the following working day and delivery of order shall arrive in accordance with the Royal Mail schedule, or DPD, should express delivery be requested. The Client shall be liable for the delivery charge which shall be added to the invoice. The Goods will be delivered to the address specified by the Client. The Client shall be provided with order tracking, and should any problems arise with the ordering system or the couriers (Royal Mail, DPD), the Client shall be informed without delay of any such issues. The Client will inspect the Goods and report any defects or damage to the Goods in transit as soon as possible upon receipt of Goods, and will retain damaged Goods for return to Supplier for refund/replacement. GENERAL PROVISIONS CONFIDENTIALITY The prices of the Goods and other information contained in this Agreement is confidential and will not be disclosed by either party unless with prior written consent of the other party. INDEMNIFICATION The Client indemnifies the Supplier from any claims, liabilities, and expenses made by any third party vendors or customers of the Client. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with UK Law. ACCEPTANCE Both parties understand and accept the wholesale arrangement stipulated under this Agreement. Doc ID: 3d54c1d336d8780243801e0e068ebd33114b088b IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed this Wholesale Agreement as of the day and year set forth above.   Signed by us both electronically.   I haven't broached any of this yet, and I am looking for some advice about what action to take.  The main issue I've got is that he has still go those images.  If I terminate the contract, I will need to know that he no longer has those images and I can't think of a bulletproof way to do this. I'm thinking I might tell him I will continue with the contract but ask for a  sum in damages and say that if I find out he's still doing it down the line I will terminate the contract and sue him for damages. The damages side of things I'm not sure how it would work as he is self employed, and I'm positive he doesn't declare all of his earnings to HMRC, in order to find out how much I have lost, would the court demand to go through his tax self assessments?  I'm not sure how to proceed with this, I don't want to lose that place as an outlet as it is in a prime spot in London, which is why I let him have those images in the first place as I would have had to pull out altogether at that point.  I am regretting it somewhat now though.  Please help.
    • I cannot locate anything in my paper work that states 2 payments were made? Perhaps you could point this out? In reply from IAS it states "The ticketing data has been attached" nothing was sent to me. I made a response to the IAS all this was done online
    • Thanks again for your responses. The concern I have here, is that freeholder of the land (a company, who presumably would have been the ones to have initially instructed PPM to manage the parking here), will have proof of exactly how long the vehicle was on site for, as the driver was meeting operatives from that company on a separate matter. On this basis, if the matter was to get to court, I feel all the other technicalities about signage, size of signage/font, lack of start/finish times, will not be enough to have any case dropped? This PCN was brought up to the freeholder but they have advised that PPM will not waive this charge. 
  • 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

Seetec Peterborough : re-appeal was allowed and they awarded in my favour


k2nyl
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3721 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

Ok so here is a quick update. Went in on thurs to see the manger to discuss the complaint got the same answer the whole way through/ "It's in black and white. He would also type up all that had been said in this meeting. Guess what a week on nothing. Would also not provide the 3 letters that where sent after the 15th Aug, bearing in mind that's 2 weeks since I missed the first appointment. My guess is they did not even know I had missed the first appointment till the second one was missed. None of these 3 letters state anything about missing any appointments and where simply reengagement letters. 2nd letter was to make sure I had got the first one, 3rd one was to make sure I had got the 2nd one.

 

 

Same day submitted re-appeal to JC with complaint to Seetec ETC. Today found out a week on the JC never even sent them and they have been lost. So they now want me to provide all the documents again. So this will delay the process even longer.

 

 

Went in today I still have the same rude useless advisor that does not listen. When I requested a change in my complaint. as there is quite clearly a problem. Given action plan by him no discussion just given it. Which may I say I never signed. (Got Away With That Nicely) to find he has listed the dates in back to front order again (My Guess To Try And Catch Me Out Again). Yet my friends was in perfect order. Guessing he is doing this out of spite.

 

 

He even filled in an application form for me listing the most recent job as the first one I ever did, and the less recent job in the list as the one I left in June. Plus stated that I started claiming in May when I did not leave the last job till June. (Impossible me thinks)

 

 

So Sadly at the end of my wick with it all and not sure what to do next. Or who to turn to.

Edited by k2nyl
Mistake
Link to post
Share on other sites

So Sadly at the end of my wick with it all and not sure what to do next. Or who to turn to.

 

You have exhausted the Seetec complaints procedure and failed to get a satisfactory resolution, in accordance with "due process", you can now take it up with http://www.ind-case-exam.org.uk/ - This will cost Seetec £5,000 for the privilege. You also have the right to ask your MP to intercede on your behalf, but I gather he is a bit of a wet rag (based on what others have said).

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to let you know, my re-appeal was allowed and they awarded in my favour. What a huge weight lifted. The complaint was sent to there head office. As this is the process they said I need to follow. They are looking at it and will reply in due course. Plus surely the sanction being overturned goes in my favour against them meaning Seetec.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The saga continues, I received yet another mandatory attendance letter from Seetec yesterday.

The letter has been dressed up to look like JCP issued it. There is no reference to Seetec at all, just their address.

The letter was accompanied by a print out of this job description.

 

Nursery assistant required in a busy nursery setting. Roles include supporting the room leader in maintaining the welfare of children. Assisting in planning for Children's learning and development. Must have a minimum of NVQ Level 2 [sic]. (no mention of a CRB check)

 

For those that might not know, I am a 58 year old male ex carpenter currently on long term (24 months) ESA that has never volunteered for the WP.

 

Ridiculous hardly covers it.

 

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

Bet they blame it on an 'admin error' WHEN you complain about the complete unsuitability of the position!

 

I luckily haven't had any comeback from going on ESA and then finding some temporary work, then I still have to have a CT guided root nerve block in my neck in January - don't know what will happen after that.

 

I may luckily be kept on in the job after the current project is finished, the boss seems to like me and most of my colleagues are okay, its a bit of a trek but is an easy journey, only one change of train, 1 1/2 hours door to door and 15 minutes of that spent waiting for the main line train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The saga continues, I received yet another mandatory attendance letter from Seetec yesterday.

The letter has been dressed up to look like JCP issued it. There is no reference to Seetec at all, just their address.

The letter was accompanied by a print out of this job description.

 

Nursery assistant required in a busy nursery setting. Roles include supporting the room leader in maintaining the welfare of children. Assisting in planning for Children's learning and development. Must have a minimum of NVQ Level 2 [sic]. (no mention of a CRB check)

 

For those that might not know, I am a 58 year old male ex carpenter currently on long term (24 months) ESA that has never volunteered for the WP.

 

Ridiculous hardly covers it.

 

They should have called it Odd Job Man. I would go along and see what they had on offer and bugger the description. If you don't fit in, they will not want to pay you as I think they might be able to get volunteers.

 

I made the mistake of not doing this before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have called it Odd Job Man. I would go along and see what they had on offer and bugger the description. If you don't fit in, they will not want to pay you as I think they might be able to get volunteers.

 

I made the mistake of not doing this before.

Engaging with the Work Programme in any way, shape or form. Is not on my agenda.

 

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

Engaging with the Work Programme in any way, shape or form. Is not on my agenda.

 

My sympathies, but not my recommendation.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?408134-How-to-deal-with-the-Work-Programme

 

A show down meeting for me to tomorrow. I don't know if I can make a deal with merchants and thieves though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And so the saga goes on......... Was due to get a payment today because the sanction was allowed. But because there is 2 sanctions for the same period 13th October to the 17th November. 1 was allowed and the other was not. So there going to pay me nothing even though the lying bleep on the phone said they where. So why is it that 1 was allowed and the other was not. So how can this be. So I ask what was the point in overturning the 1 sanction. Surely if they both cover the same period then it should have been lifted all together.

 

 

I'm lost and the Job Centre are totally un-helpfull at explaining anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I Have now received a good cause letter for failing to attend Seetec's offices two weeks ago, that's after being told by the ESA advisor, and the advisor that deals with the WP at my JCP to ignore any mandatory activity letters from Seetec.

 

The harassment never stops, it's a good job I'm a curmudgeonly old git else I would take it to heart!

 

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

I have a sneaky suspicion that the recent spate of Mandatory letters (mine said it was mandatory too) are to try to help justify their cause during the coming financial reviews - we have sent out x amount of letters and have had x amount of people sanctioned because of our activity....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a sneaky suspicion that the recent spate of Mandatory letters (mine said it was mandatory too) are to try to help justify their cause during the coming financial reviews - we have sent out x amount of letters and have had x amount of people sanctioned because of our activity....

 

Mine also, not from Seetec but mine tells me it is part of my ESA review and the word mandatory has been used and highlighted several times in the same paragraph.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

It never ends.

After all the hassle I've had with Seetec culminating in a wrongful sanction referral last November, one would think that as Seetec have been read the riot act by JCP in regard to their constant harassment, and as their own operational director instructed Seetec Stratford to leave me alone, Seetec would perhaps of taken some notice. One would think that.

 

However in the post yesterday I find yet another mandatory appointment letter 'instructing' me to attend Seetec's offices next Thursday.

 

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

However in the post yesterday I find yet another mandatory appointment letter 'instructing' me to attend Seetec's offices next Thursday.

 

IF you go, presumably it will be a meeting with the branch manager so that you can re-educate him on certain matters ?

 

 

They have had plenty of time to get their house in order and correct any errors - Time to submit a formal complaint to the I.C.E. methinks.

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

IF you go, presumably it will be a meeting with the branch manager so that you can re-educate him on certain matters ?

 

 

They have had plenty of time to get their house in order and correct any errors - Time to submit a formal complaint to the I.C.E. methinks.

Yep, It's now blatant harassment IMO. I now have a document from the DWP stating that I have been removed from the programme and an apology for inconvenience, for what that's worth, plus the original paperwork from JCP instructing Seetec to take me off their books.

 

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

Copy that letter to the people who sent you the letters confirming you have been removed, and state that clearly Seetec need to have their administration systems overhauled as clearly they are not fit for purpose.

 

You could always consider going to the police and taking the documents which say you have been withdrawn and then show them the one asking you to attend... ask for a crime number and state you are being harrassed unlawfully by this lot - then send the crime no to the director at Seetec.... that should make them think again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sent a very angry e mail off to Seetec's Operational Director this morning, and included scans of four documents that show I was referred to the WP in error, each of them also state I have been taken off Seetec's books. Kept my MP in the loop and spoke to JCP's WP liaison officer who dealt with this issue before Christmas, she described Seetec as 'sick'.

 

I believe Seetec's actions fall foul of the Prevention from Harassment Act 1997, let's see if I can get some redress.

 

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

Seetec Stratford are denying all knowledge of instructions by their own operations director at head office and JCP to remove me from programme and cease contact. They are also stating that the sanction doubt and sanction that ensued last December must be a figment of my imagination because the advisor can find no record of it.

 

They are still insisting that tomorrows appointment is mandatory and failure to attend can lead to benefits being effected despite me e mailing all evidence this afternoon.

 

Seetec Stratford are completely out of control, I've never witnessed anything like it.

 

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

I went to Seetec's office yesterday to get the situation sorted once and for all, after explaining to various people that 'no I wasn't there for the appointment' one of the desk jockey's actually took some action. It seems that Mr Andrew Emerson the exec director has now made the Stratford branch his temporary home, perhaps in an effort to get the house in some kind of order. Anyway said desk jockey takes my paperwork into Mr Emerson's office.

 

As the office is glass fronted I could see but not hear what was going on, dear old MR Emerson didn't even look up from his paperwork whilst the DJ was explaining the situation, after a couple of minutes DJ emerges ever so apologetic and explains that she's just seen all the disputes I've had with the management team on screen (a blatant lie, I was watching), and that a note would be attached to my file ensuring I would not be bothered again.

 

All requests to see Mr Emerson were fended of with 'he's about to go into a meeting'. So no apology from the head honcho.

 

No explanation from anyone as to why after being told repeatedly by JCP since last November to take me off the books they failed to do so.

 

No explanation as to why when a WPO7b was issued on the 4th November instructing Seetec I was to be removed from the programme, Seetec saw fit to raise a sanction doubt for non attendance on the 19th.

 

Now I'm pushing for the raft of complaints to land on the desk of the ICE.

 

Seetec are a loose cannon, they regard themselves as unaccountable to anyone, especially JCP whose staff Seetec treat with complete contempt, god help anyone placed with this nightmare firm for two years.

 

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...