Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Have you seen dbuk2000's result? Absolutely thrashed a PPC in a residential parking case today.
    • Evening all My wife went to view a 25,000 mile Hilux pick up at a dealers in Doncaster last week. I couldn’t go as I was at work. She’s owned a few trucks in her time, so is fairly conversant with them I’d found it for her on the web, checked out the photos, called the dealer who assured me it was ‘stunning’. It says as much in their advert I specifically asked about the underside, which he said was also excellent. After viewing the truck, my wife left a £500 deposit by bank transfer. She also transferred £335 for car tax, which was done by the dealer with a receipt to prove so. On collection two days later, I found the vehicle to be woefully substandard. Areas of damage had been repainted with a brush (!) and the underneath was plagued with serious rot. The dealer said he couldn’t refund me our deposit as the boss was on holiday and it would need his approval. He then went on to say I was a time waster, I knew nothing about vehicles, that I was being intimidating (which is utter tripe)  He added they had incurred costs getting the vehicle ready for collection - yet more guff I have since sent an email recapping the event and asking for the deposit and the tax to be refunded. We have evidence of payment by bank transfer and also a bill of sale from the garage. Needless to say we left without the truck! Can anyone please advise us from how to proceed? Thank you
    • Does it really matter? Unless it becomes explicitly relevant / needed, I'd rather avoid naming them just yet, but if it helps they are my internet supplier. But I've encountered this with several companies in the past; so it seems to be a common tactic. I'm interested in hearing a general good way to deal with this tactic, if anyone has such a thing! 😆
    • If the driver was taken ill then there is a legal term called Frustration of Contract - i.e. that it was impossible to respect the contract/overstay times due to illness. Do you have any proof of this? From  https://motorwayservices.uk/Tibshelf#google_vignette  there is a free stay period of two hours, after that you have to fork out money. Yes, contacting the organ grinder is always a good idea.  The CEO of Roadchef is  https://www.ceoemail.com/s.php?id=ceo-77835&c=Roadchef Motorways-CEO  Lay it on thick about the illness, attach any proof, and request they have the invoice cancelled..  
  • 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

Igneus Problems

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3672 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Writing this on behalf of someone else(same as last thread) who is sat with me but says I may aswell post it instead of him making an account for one query :p


Basically, my friend has been on the dole for nearly 2 years now after being made redundant. Being dyslexic, he has found it harder than most to secure employment. However he has managed to get a 0 hour contract recently which he has now started.


About 2 days before he signed his contract, the jobcentre referred him to igneus. He has not yet had his initial appointment with igneus. Today, he signed off the dole, was told his final payment will be there on monday and that everything is sorted with the claim being closed down and that. About an hour or so later he received a text from igneus saying he had to attend an appointment with them tomorrow at 11.40. He rang them to say he had signed off and doesnt need their 'help'...was passed around FIVE people to try and cancel this appointment, then was finally answered by a lady who told him that in order to cancel the appointment he had to tell them all of the details of his new job. He refused to, as he didnt see what business it was of theirs, especially as hes not actually even on their course yet. They then tried to tell him that he would have to make another appointment to come in and let them know employer details if he would not tell them over the phone...as the jobcentre have nothing to do with him now and everything should be through them. Is this right? Surely if the jobcentre are satisfied and have signed him off and have his new employers details and such, he does NOT have to tell igneus anything?


Hes a bit worried now, but I told him not to be. As far as I am aware, they can sanction but if hes not actually on jobseekers anymore, theres nothing they can do to him?


I suspect from reading around a bit, that igneus are trying to claim credit for my friend getting the job, despite it having absolutely nothing to do with them, in order to claim their bonus :|

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he hasn't attended the initial induction appointment, Ingeus can not claim any outcome payments. They can stamp their feet as much as they like and even throw the toys out of the pram - If your friend has closed his JSA claim, there is no legal or moral reason for him to have any contact with Ingeus.


They are trying to complete the "attachment process" so that they can "claim" the outcome payments, but if he does not attend the initial appointment, they can't complete. If he wants to, a short letter to Ingeus:

My claim for Jobseeker's Allowance was closed on , as a consequence, I am under no obligation to engage with you or provide any information. As per DWP provider guidance (Chapter 4), you are required to return my referral to the DWP and update PRaP with "status rejected".


No further correspondence will be entered in to, and any attempt to contact me will be regarded as harassment and reported to the relevant authorities.


Who he works for, how much he is paid, what he had for tea on Sunday is not information he has to provide to Ingeus or even the DWP - If they ask again, tell them where to go. As he is not claiming any qualifying benefits, he can not be sanctioned.


P.S. As he is on a zero hour contract, talk to the council and seek council tax relief and housing benefit (if he has to pay these). These can not be "sanctioned" and he is entitled to claim if his pay is low.





No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is living with his father at the moment until he makes enough cash to put down for a private rented place.


Good to know about igneus, though I have a feeling they will hound him now. I thought it didnt sound right them saying his claim had nothing to o with the jobcentre and everything (inc closing the claim) had to be done through them..especially when the jobcentre confirmed the claim was now closed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good to know about igneus, though I have a feeling they will hound him now. I thought it didn't sound right them saying his claim had nothing to do with the jobcentre and everything (inc closing the claim) had to be done through them..


"Closing his claim through Ingeus" - A load of . It is his responsibility, and his alone, to close the claim with the DWP/JCP without the "help" of a third party.


Perhaps we should buy a few old and soggy kippers and send them to this office. if nothing else, it might mask the odour of the bull$*** coming out of there.





No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites


I suspect from reading around a bit, that igneus are trying to claim credit for my friend getting the job, despite it having absolutely nothing to do with them, in order to claim their bonus :|


Ingeus do this all the time, all they care about is their bonus! :mad2:


As he is no longer signed on, ingeus can not claim any outcome payments..................If he hears from ingeus again tell them to do one!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be interested to see how any WP could claim to have helped someone into a job when the person hadn't even set foot in their offices or ever spoken to them.


No doubt the DWP would have something in their guidance which would allow this, to show that the WP has had yet another 'success'. Both as bad as each other.


Tell Ingeus to go forth and threaten them with the police if they start any harassment; that would now be a civil matter and an offense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WP Provider Guidance, Chapter 4:

Participant starts work between referral and attachment


71. Claimants may report that they have found a job in between their referral interview with Jobcentre Plus and engaging with you.


72. If you are notified before the job start date you should endeavour to engage with them and complete attachment activity, up to and including the day before they actually start work.


73. Undertaking this action promptly will enable you to offer the claimant both the initial support they may require to begin work, for example travel expenses, clothing etc and ongoing in-work support to help them sustain employment.


74. In these circumstances you will be eligible for the attachment fee and any subsequent outcome / sustainment payments in line with current award criteria.


75. If you are unable to complete engagement activity before the claimant starts work you must not attach them.


IF, and only if, the provider can complete the attachment process can they claim the outcome payments. To do this, the (ex) claimant has to attend a mandatory (sic) induction meeting and sign on the dotted line(s). Suffice to say, the total value of the payments coupled with the desperation to hit targets, the claimant's signature could be forged and it is unlikely to be spotted.


Would this happen here ?


Several A4e employees have been charged with fraud in cases going back a number of years, the Slough case being the most recent.





No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't be bad - get the 'claimant' in for a quick 10 minute induction and paper-signing exercise, get their employers details and ... wait for the payments to come in.


Best way would be to stall Ingeus untill your friend actually starts his job, then according to Paragraph 75 which Mr P published, Ingeus won't be able to claim at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...