Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This must be part of the new tactic from Evri.  They know they are going to lose. They take it to the wire and then don't bother to turn up in order to save themselves costs and of course they don't give a damn about the cost to the British taxpayer and the extra court delays they cause. This is a nasty dishonest company – but rather in line with all of the parcel delivery industry which knows that their insurance requirements are unlawful. They know that their prohibited items are for the most part unfair terms. They know for the most part that a "safe place" is exactly what it means – are not left on somebody's doorstep in full view. They know that obtaining a signature means that they have to show the signature not simply claim that they received a signature. They are making huge profits especially from their unlawful and unenforceable insurance requirement. Although this is less valuable than the PPI scandal, in terms of the number of people who are affected nationwide, PPI pales into insignificance. I hope the paralegals working for Evri are proud of themselves and they tell their families what they have done during the day when they go home.
    • Your PCN does not comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9[2][a] (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The only time on the PCN is 17.14. That is only  a time for there to be a period there would have to be a start and and end time mentioned. of course they do show the ANPR arrival and departures  times but that is not the parking period and their times are on the photographs not on the PCN. They also failed to comply with S.9[2][f] as they omitted to say that they could only pursue the keeper if they complied with the Act. That means that they can only pursue the driver as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. As they do not know who was driving and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will struggle to win. Especially as so many people are able to legally drive your car and you haven't appealed giving them no indication therefore of who was driving. Small nitpicking point-the date of Infringement was 22/04/2024. They appear to be saying that they can charge an extra amount [up to £70 ] if they have to use a debt collector. You do not have a contract with a debt collector so they cannot add that cost. You paid for four hours so it can only be the 15 minutes they are complaining about. You are entitled to a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of the parking period which would be easier to explain if the car park had been bigger. However if you allow for two minutes to park and two minutes to leave that gives you one minute to account for. Things like being held on the way out by cars in front waiting to get on to Northgate or even your own car being held up trying to get on to Northgate at a busy time. then other considerations like having to stop to allow pedestrians to walk in front of you or being held up by another car doing a u turn in front of your car. you would have to check with the driver and see if they could account for an extra one minute things like a disabled passenger or having to strap in a child . I am not advocating lying since that could lead to serious problems [like jail time] but there can be an awful lot of minor things that can cause a hold up of a minute even the engine not starting straight away or another car being badly parked as examples. Sadly you cannot include the 5 minute Consideration period as both IPC and BPA fail to comply with the convention that you can include that time with the Grace period.  
    • Defence struck out not case struck out...you have judgment  Well done topic title updated Regard's Please consider making a donation if not already to support us to help others.   Andy.   .
    • Hi all, I wanted to update you and thank you all for your help. I am delighted announce that after the case was struck out due to no response from Evri, judgement was issued after I submitted the forms and I was just about to take it to warrant.  today I received an email from the claims department requesting my bank details to make payment for my full award. The process has been long since the initial proceedings  in January i must say your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated.  
    • Quote of the century "Farage pops up when the country’s at a low ebb; like a kind of political herpes" - Frankie Boyle Updates
  • 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

Job Seeker Agreement Problems


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3741 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

you don't have to supply printouts/screenshots don't you?

maybes but its always worth a try isn't it, i haven't got a printer to supply the evidence they require lol.

 

The UJM Toolkit manual quite clearly states that personal circumstances must be taken in to account when asking for screenshots/printouts - It repeats in several places that "a claimant my not have a printer or funds to pay for ink/paper", consequently, provisions should be made for the claimant to use a DWP Internet Access Device if printouts are required - Yes, a JCP advisor can ask for screenshots and printouts if the claimant has a printer, paper and ink (either at home, a library, or DWP IAD).

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

the ujm says may ask not mandatory, big difference.

 

 

It catch 22 while it not mandatory to provide screenshots / printouts ( I think screenshots from smartphone are accepted) if JCP requests additional info and its not provided they will simply raise an ASE doubt 89 and 90 of this link

Keiron,

Have you been sanctioned for points 89 and 90 of this link

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/169272/response/411434/attach/html/3/FOI%203354.pdf.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

A JCP advisor may ask, and if the evidence is not forthcoming, a query could be raised that you are not actively seeking employment - If they do ask, that is the time to inform them that you do not have facilities to print stuff out and that you require the use of a DWP IAD.

 

If an ASE query is raised, it would be for a Decision Maker to decide based on the evidence in front of him/her. If there is no printouts or a note about why printouts have not been provided, a sanction is the most likely outcome - It is not a battle you can win. If a JCP advisor asks, request access to an IAD and put the onus on them to provide the printer, paper, and ink.

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

Caring responsibilities exist regardless of age - you may need to get a letter from a professional to confirm your child's needs and that they are permanent.

 

 

Have you got your MP involved? It might be an idea.

 

I haven't got MP involved yet - The manager came back asking me to talk to her on the phone-but I refused as I want her reply in writing. I met with me JCP 'coach', the same one who tried to trick me! he changed my working hours to 30 but re-iterated that they will go up when daughter turns 16!

I have looked at the legislation and can't find this anywhere, I can only imagine that they are thinking in terms of leaving a child alone before the age of 16 and have made it up.

Will wait to see what manager says on reply then move it up to the next level of complainants system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want to quote the conversation leading to the sanction so as to Caggers can learn from it and prevent a sanction?

 

It may be a new epidemic as I was asked to print out my fortnighty job search after my adviser said: "You have not given access [to Uni Jobmatch]. I can not see your job search. We send it to the decision maker", which made me s l i g h t l y nervous. Told her she can not see evidence because she has not looked at my job search booklet though it was in front of her. First I thought she wants evidence printed out leading up to signing on date this incident occurred last week. Was told not that lot, but whatever I do now, two weeks job search, I have to print out for my next signing on date to show her.

 

My money was put through, though I was not quite sure it would be, after DM was mentioned at last signing. So if they have no access to account to trip you up in there, they will demand print outs of job search?

 

Tried to use printer at the JCP but guess what: the two occasions I went in there was no one to superwize the IAD room so I could not print. So spending a fiver on papers that go in the bin immediately as advisers have no time and no interest to look through evidence is a bit harsh. They do not seem to have proper printing paper. At least at the WP there was plenty. I am post work programme support now so any PWPS clients who were asked to print out evidence? I was never asked to print out anything during my three years of claim so a bit of a shock.

 

So if Keiron tells us how it happened, it may help. Maybe you were not sanctioned yet: the payment is suspended until you provide evidence / print outs of the fortnightly job search so do demand that they allow you to use the JCP IADS and printer. Put it into writing towards them if no printing facilities that you have no access to printer and no money to print so you request JCP allows you access to printer.

 

Were you asked to print out screen shots of Uni Jobmatch account and of which pages exactly if specified? We can not advise until you state the above. They may ask for a screen shot to prove you have a public CV and an account but DWP policy or law does not state you have to print out pages of account as job search evidence.

 

If it turns out to be a sanction and not just a suspension, you need to ask them in writing within 30 days of the disallowance letter to reconsider their decision. Wait to see if adviser puts the outstanding amount through at next signing after seeing the great pile of print out you provide. Do not bin the print outs as it should be attached to your request to reconsider decision together with a copy of your job seekers agreement for DM to see what needs to be covered per week.

 

I am worried they want to see print outs to show daily log ins if you do not allow access to account so tell us how it happened and what was said. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, did not read the whole thread before posting so missed the bit that claimant is in receipt of hardship which means a sanction was applied.

 

In the sanction letter they do not state the reason why, just the date of the disallowance and that you can ask for a written explanation of the decision as well as a reconsideration, after which you may appeal.

 

Evidence of job search does not have to be Uni Jobmatch screen shots but print out whatever you have done to apply for jobs. Normally you get a confirmation email with name of website, job title, ref no, your name: shall be sufficient proof if printed out.

 

The hardship payment is recoverable meaning what you get now later will be deducted from your allowance so ask the decision to be reconsidered if you are within the 30 day limit. Say in the letter you did not receive a disallowance letter. Send it to local BDC with all the print out and keep a copy of the letter and proof of posting. Your NI number is your reference number to identify you and the sanction.

 

Would rather spend a fiver on printing then allow this to happen so how did it happen? We really need to have a fiver if needed to provide evidence. How long is this sanction? Ask them over the free phone at the JCP about the date of disallowance and the length. If you did everything set out in your Jobseeker's Agreement, you have a leg to stand on and not leaving JCP without your print out, all right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of job search does not have to be Uni Jobmatch screen shots but print out whatever you have done to apply for jobs. Normally you get a confirmation email with name of website, job title, ref no, your name: shall be sufficient proof if printed out.

 

Indeed. The JC seem obsessed with UJ as though it was the only job-seeking tool available even though guidance states quite clearly we can use whatever sources we like to meet our JS Agreement.

 

I show my jobsearch evidence as screen prints from Reed and CV-Library, which both have an excellent 'My Applications' section which lists all your applications complete with dates so it's solid evidence for the JC. Even if there are jobs you simply don't fancy or can't really do, still apply anyway as they're all added to the list and will pad it out - make sure you apply for a couple each day so that it shows you're jobseeking daily. I'm only mandated to apply for 10 jobs a fortnight but I never show less than 50-60 and as the sites are 'one click to apply' this takes no time at all.

 

As the sites also send acknowledgment emails to your own personal account for every job you apply for (plus other job-related info), back up your evidence with screen prints from there too, though I've stopped doing that purely to save on printing costs.

 

To pacify the JC's obsession with UJ, I find a few vacancies on there which I can apply for externally - I never apply via UJ itself. There's always at least a couple. As has been said, solid proof is often asked for by the advisor so to show I am actually using UJ (or at least looking at it), I log in every day and create a new search. This gets logged in your 'Activity History' section and has the date on too - do this every day and you can screen-shot it and show them you've logged into UJ daily. Change the search titles and it also shows them you're 'broadening your search' - all good. I find as long as you show them something relating to UJ they're usually happy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone said don't appeal a sanction on here but i did and won, but im still angry because they made us wait ages for hardship payment, my partners mam had to sell stuff so we could have heating/electric and food for our 2 year old. Question is how do i play this now i've won, my local jobcentre is useless. Trying to publically embarrass me in front of everyone by shouting i should do the same, no but seriously they have to learn suggestions please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong, when you start a new search it doe's not log in your activity history, i can confirm that 100%. Lol i took screenshots after being sanctioned last time and you know what's coming next, they did even look at them.

 

Well, it does on mine :) Create a new search and it appears in your Activity History along with the date you did it. Modify an existing search and this also appears in your Activity History. Do one of these actions every day so the DWP can see you've at least been into your account.

 

Screen print below as proof - you can see the consecutive dates at the side where I've done it every day. Keeps the JC happy - they're not bothered about us finding jobs on UJ, only that we're actually seen to be using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never used their books or UJM to do my searches, never will, you only have to show you have been looking. My diary is in WORD format and dated day by day. I have never (in 1 year 2 months out of work) been asked by JCP or my 'adviser' at INGEUS to even prove I have applied - never asked me for email proof or anything but I suppose if you build some form of relationship up where they can tell you are serious about wanting to get back to work and not sit in all day watching TV or playing the XBox (not saying any of you do by the way) then it is easier for them and for us (me)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never used their books or UJM to do my searches, never will, you only have to show you have been looking. My diary is in WORD format and dated day by day. I have never (in 1 year 2 months out of work) been asked by JCP or my 'adviser' at INGEUS to even prove I have applied - never asked me for email proof or anything but I suppose if you build some form of relationship up where they can tell you are serious about wanting to get back to work and not sit in all day watching TV or playing the XBox (not saying any of you do by the way) then it is easier for them and for us (me)

 

They were always like that with me too - they knew I was organised, needed no help and was genuinely looking and they just took my word that what I'd written on my log was what I'd done, however a few weeks ago the policy suddenly changed and advisors were telling customers they had now to show concrete evidence of applications.

 

Obviously the genuine job-seeking customers are now being lumped in with those who only say they've been looking. Had to happen eventually. I'm surprised they didn't take this stand ages ago and make us provide hard proof - the DWP are not known for their 'Oh, I believe you and trust you totally' attitude :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't know it had changed now - I am with INGEUS and had 3 appointments so far and not been asked for proof of applications. Maybe they will soon!

 

Don't know if this is happening at all Jobcentres, but it's the policy at mine now - as we know, each JC seems to play by it's own rules. Keep one step ahead and always have some proof to show them if they ask (even if they barely glance at it!).

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...