Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
  • 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

The right to claim ESA instead of carers alloance


richardscanlon
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3732 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

Hi, I am a married man aged 61 (62 in August) and at the moment I am receiving ESA on the support group and I get full DLA for both care and mobility. My wife is my full time carer but she also is receiving ESA. The reason that I am posting this query is that at her last Atos screening she was awarded 0 points this was only 6 months after being put straight on the ESA support group at the previous Atos exam. She has put in an appeal against the decision but we are of the belief that the reason that they have refused her ESA is in order to force her to claim carers allowance instead; which is of course a substantially less amount than the ESA that she has been claiming. This is not about the amount of income we will receive but about her right to claim this benefit in her own right and not be pushed onto another benefit because it suits the DWP and reduces the number of people who are on ESA, the final part of their statement to the appeal panel is that if they find in my wife favour that she be put in the WRAG group which would suit them just as much because they could then stop her benefit because she would not be available to do work related placements or attend other meeting as they are required in the WRAG group.

 

I would be very grateful if anyone can offer any advice on this matter, as I have said this is not about the finances as she has been only receiving the assessment rate since May last year but due to the drop in income, the rate of other benefits like housing and council tax made it hardly noticeable

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is not a DWP conspiracy. They simply don't operate that way - it's of no consequence for Atos or DWP employees and they don't get paid enough to bother with personal vendettas against claimants.

 

That said, it's possible your wife could claim both CA and Income Support (instead of ESA) on the basis that she is your carer. That's the first avenue I would explore. Is her ESA contribution or income related? And is yours contribution or income related?

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

Hi Antone and thank you for your reply, I do find your comment rather strange as you will have to admit that both the DWP and ATOS have a long record of using dirty tricks and both have been proved to have lied over medical reports and individuals condition. The DWP control the Job centre plus and it is common knowledge that they do have targets and enough whistle-blowers from all 3 departments have backed up the claims of people who have been badly let down by the people who are supposed to be helping them. Getting back to my original question though; it’s not about finance it’s about the right to claim a particular benefit and not be pushed onto another to suit departmental figures.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tbf though richardscanlon, you are 'of the belief' that the reason she was given 0 points by ATOS was because the DWP want to push her on to carers allowance instead, where is your evidence for this belief? I suspect it is far more likely and probable that the assessor rightly or wrongly awarded your partner 0 points because that is what they felt they should be awarded.

 

There is a sticky at the top of the forum on the appeal process, do ask any additional questions after that on appeal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As Antone said, there is no conspiracy. Especially given that a person can claim income based ESA and carer's allowance at the same time (and be better off), or can claim contribution based ESA and carer's allowance and get an underlying entitlement which can mean they then qualify for income based ESA where they didn't before.

 

 

So why wasn't your wife claiming carer's allowance with the ESA, anyway?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your wife is older you could claim Pension Guarantee Credit as a couple. Otherwise as you are 62 in August you'll be at the state pension age for women on 6th November 2014 or 6th January 2015, when a claim for Pension Guarantee Credit could then be made. Unless Universal Credit is introduced first, when you'll both have to have reached the state pension age for women.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Antone and thank you for your reply, I do find your comment rather strange as you will have to admit that both the DWP and ATOS have a long record of using dirty tricks and both have been proved to have lied over medical reports and individuals condition. The DWP control the Job centre plus and it is common knowledge that they do have targets and enough whistle-blowers from all 3 departments have backed up the claims of people who have been badly let down by the people who are supposed to be helping them. Getting back to my original question though; it’s not about finance it’s about the right to claim a particular benefit and not be pushed onto another to suit departmental figures.

 

So, basically you are suggesting that the DWP is engaged in a nefarious plot to give your wife the same amount of money as she currently receives or possibly more?

 

As Estellyn said, she can claim ESA and CA at the same time, although if she does claim CA as your carer, she might be better off looking at IS or perhaps Pension Credit (again, as mentioned). Different benefits are paid to different people for different reasons - this is not part of any conspiracy.

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...