Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The reason that I have indicated that it is the seller who should bring an action against Hermes is not because they are the seller – but because they are the person who suffered the loss. If you haven't suffered a loss then you probably don't have the status – locus standi – to bring a court action. Of course there is a slight problem that you didn't enter into the contract with Hermes – the purchaser did. Until 1999 this would have been a problem and would have prevented you from bringing any kind of action at all – at least on the basis of contract. However, since 1999, the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act gives the beneficiary of any contract full third party rights as if they were a contracting party. The only exception to this is that if the contract specifically excluded non-contracting parties – and I'm not aware that Hermes has yet amended their contract to try and prevent this. Of course as usual, Hermes will make a big point about the fact that no insurance was purchased. Hopefully you have been reading around the threads on this sub- forum and you have seen that our view is that it is completely unfair and in fact it is absurd to require a customer to pay money to protect Hermes or any other service provider from the consequences of their own negligence or the criminality of their own employees. Every time this point has been raised with Hermes in mediation, Hermes have settled and we consider that it is because they want to avoid going to court to get a definitive judgement that their insurance scam – is precisely that – a scam. On the basis of what I understand here, this is more than just negligence there is criminality and your bike has been stolen. You've already begun a complaint and you have been knocked back and so I think there's no point in mucking around and I think that you should simply issue a letter of claim to Hermes giving them 14 days to settle in full or else you will begin a court action. Make sure that you have read around the forum about taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very easy but you need to be aware of the steps. If you send the letter of claim, then don't expect that they are suddenly going to refund you your money. They won't. They will force you to issue the court papers and who will then force you to pay the hearing fee. At this point, they will opt for mediation and they will try to knock you down and get your compromise in your claim. You should stand your ground and refused to compromise even a single penny. We will help you all the way. You seem to be a seller and a purchaser here who are getting on very well together and so as you are motivated by a common purpose, you may want to get an agreement where you decide to share the fees of court action – which won't be very much. I haven't checked the court fees for this value claim – but I expect that the whole thing will be only about £120. Of course you will get that back when you win – but bear in mind there is a is a slight risk factor and that means that £120 would be the extent of your risk and would be the maximum that you would lose. It is inconceivable that you would lose. You should be claiming the cost of the bike, the cost of delivery, plus interest which is presently 8% – a very good rate in today's economic climate. Of course you will also claim back your court fees. If you want to proceed then please let us know and let us know also that you have read around the stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court and that you understand what you are doing. If you do your basic reading over the next couple of days then we can help you draft a letter of claim on Sunday and you can send it off on Monday. I would recommend that you post your draft letter of claim on this forum so we can check it. Keep it short and to the point.
    • That's what keeps divorce lawyers and mediators in work, I suppose. You think he's being unreasonable and he thinks you are.   My gut feeling is that it would be better to have this agreed in writing so it can't be challenged later, but that's just my opinion. Here's more information from the CAB in case it covers something you haven't already considered.   HB
    • Biden doesn't seem bothered about negotiating a trade treaty to suit the UK government's timetable. I don't suppose they saw this coming, not that the amount of trade involved makes up for what's being lost with Europe anyway.   https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-boris-johnson-usa-trade-deal-b1807616.html
    • No we haven’t mentioned divorce yet The fair split is I give him half the equity and anything he wants to take from the house  I just feel he is now being unreasonable because I won’t change my mind and take him back 
    • Hi.   Have you spoken to a divorce lawyer or has your husband? Trying to look at this from the outside, it sounds as if it would be better to agree a fair split according to divorce law rather than deciding between you.   Sadly, once money becomes involved things can become more complicated, but I'd have thought a divorce lawyer would be able to advise.   ETA: Here's some advice from the government.   HB
  • 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
      • 33 replies

400,000 people had their Jobseekers sanctioned


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2644 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

Hi estellyn,

sometime back I was in a job where I was told to ignore well-known H&S rules. I said no and was told to “Get a grip” or leave.

 

I did leave.

 

Did it help the staff that I had to protect? No.

Did it cause the company any trouble? No. They just hired someone else.

Did it cause me loss of income? Yes.

Did I sleep well at night? Yes.

I think there is a right path for all people.

I can look myself in the mirror knowing I've not hurt or put anyone a risk just to draw a salary.

Best regards,

pitcher

(Thanks for the edit, who ever you may be, I did not want to offend)

 

 

 

You have every right to make that choice. But personally I can't find it in myself to condemn people who look at their children and want to protect them from their home being repossessed and having to spend an extended period living in a dodgy bed and breakfast, having to eat whatever food can be had from the food bank etc. I don't blame the individual when the policy is set by managers. There will always be those individuals that get pleasure from inflicting difficulties or pain on others, and that is something else entirely. But I suspect there are other generally good DWP employees who feel very trapped by the situation.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I did read that - it's pretty bad. As the CPAG guy pointed out, if sanctions were really effective, there'd be fewer of them, not more.

 

As to how JCP staff sleep at night, well, would you prefer that they all walked out and that there was no-one to pay benefits? How would that be a help to claimants?

 

I am sure not all JCP staff are bad, I imagine they fall into one of these 3 groups.

 

1 - Idiots, who fall for the propoganda and try to be bad to claimants.

2 - Staff who havent fallen for the propoganda but unwillingly sanction X amount of people to keep in the manager's good books and preserve their own job.

3 - Staff who rebel against DWP policy due to their principles and probably get harrased by the manager and other staff for it.

 

I have taken this look at JSA and sanctions now.

 

I dont think people should be able to ride the system doing nothing at all and still get their JSA, however I do think people need to be treated with respect and similiar to how they would be in a job.

 

So lets say i have a job and I pull a sickie because the night before I got drunk etc. Quite common event.

A employer likely discipline you or just let you off. Whatever they decide the only wages you lose is probably for the day you didnt go in. If an employer decided to not pay someone for 3 months and then they was told they still had to work, how many of these people would still turn up for work? not very many I expect.

Edited by worried33
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sure not all JCP staff are bad, I imagine they fall into one of these 3 groups.

 

1 - Idiots, who fall for the propoganda and try to be bad to claimants.

2 - Staff who havent fallen for the propoganda but unwillingly sanction X amount of people to keep in the manager's good books and preserve their own job.

3 - Staff who rebel against DWP policy due to their principles and probably get harrased by the manager and other staff for it.

 

I have taken this look at JSA and sanctions now.

 

I dont think people should be able to ride the system doing nothing at all and still get their JSA, however I do think people need to be treated with respect and similiar to how they would be in a job.

 

So lets say i have a job and I pull a sickie because the night before I got drunk etc. Quite common event.

A employer likely discipline you or just let you off. Whatever they decide the only wages you lose is probably for the day you didnt go in. If an employer decided to not pay someone for 3 months and then they was told they still had to work, how many of these people would still turn up for work? not very many I expect.

 

I never met a Job Centre staff member who is an idiot. Some clients though.

 

General staff members do seem to be typical bureaucrats, for good or bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I never met a Job Centre staff member who is an idiot. Some clients though.

 

General staff members do seem to be typical bureaucrats, for good or bad.

I have met a few

All PWP ones which says a lot about PWP to me and nothing good

Link to post
Share on other sites
You know yourself

Based on here though I'd say no is the answer

 

You're too kind :wink:

 

Though to be fair, if I was an idiot who wished harm on claimants, I wouldn't be here at all. It's not like I get paid, heh.

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 seems to me than any moral compass DWP/JCP staff had or have is stifled by pressure from above, nothing concentrates the mind like the prospect of joining the 2.7 million on the other side of the desk.

 

I am finding more and more of a 'my hands are tied' or 'oh well, that's the way it is' attitude among DWP/JCP staff these days. Even those in a position to change a claimants life for the better seem reluctant to act for some reason, staff seem over keen to apply rules that adversely effect claimants, and not so keen on rectifying mistakes made on claims.

 

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

Latest escuse the PWP use is that they must be stricter yet they ignore that they are petty vindictive bullies instead. You'd think that they may want to support but no -far from it

 

They add more stress and the latest idea is to blame you for being unemployed instead of the recession, cutbacks and people never willing to give others a chance plus the constant demonisation of the unemployed

Link to post
Share on other sites
They add more stress and the latest idea is to blame you for being unemployed

 

"It's your fault for being unemployed" is not a new idea - I had the same cr*p on the FnD programme, although I did get to turn the tables on the lead harpy when it was announced that the FnD was to be scrapped.... "Well, it looks like you will be out of work yourself soon. Don't expect to be tuped across to the next bunch of charlatans."

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

Yes - the present government (and the last one, to be fair, this isn't party political) is pushing the idea that unemployment is the fault of the unemployed.

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

I know it's a popular tactic

Just the first time someone's dared say that

And it's cos I denied UJM access and I think they are trying to get me to buy into the lie they are somehow helping me by bullying, being petty and trying to victimise me

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if someone at a work programme interview if they refused to blame themselves (but otherwise are doing what they can to find work) would be considered not complying and sanctioned?

 

IS it going to get to the point where people have to sign a declaration where they are legally finding themselves at fault for been out of work un return for JSA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if someone at a work programme interview if they refused to blame themselves (but otherwise are doing what they can to find work) would be considered not complying and sanctioned?

 

IS it going to get to the point where people have to sign a declaration where they are legally finding themselves at fault for been out of work un return for JSA?

 

At present, you can't be sanctioned because of what you think - only what you do (or don't do). So you can't get into trouble for disagreeing with the government.

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
As anyone read this? 400,000 people had their JSA sanctioned under new rules, how do the Jobcentre staff/decision maker sleep at night knowing their are causing and hurting people's life and not to forget stress.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24829866

 

Individually they are nothing but together that's an army that could do serious damage to the tory MP's!

Edited by honeybee13
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...