Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First of all, I'm not sure why you want to given 30 days to do the repair. It is excessive. I have the sense that you feel that you have to be reasonable in order to gain the approval of the court if that's the way it goes. You certainly should be reasonable but 30 days is excessive. Frankly I don't think that you should get the vehicle repaired by Cinch. They have undermined confidence. They have been notified of your quotation and the cause of the problem and they either haven't responded or they have declined to help. You have no way of knowing that if they are allowed to touch your vehicle, that they will do a quality job. I would suggest that the best thing to do is to get the vehicle repaired and then send them the bill. One them that this is what is going to happen and that if they don't pay you within seven days of receiving the bill then you will sue them. So I would book the car in for repairs on a date about 10 days from now. I would then inform Cinch in a letter of claim that the car is now booked in on XXX date. They have already had the inspection report in the estimate for repairs. You're paying the bill and seven days after that if they haven't reimburse you against the bill which you will submit to them, you will have them without any further notice. This will give them about 14 days to respond with the payment. You will have your car repaired and if they refuse – which they probably will – then you issue the claim papers without any more mucking around. If this appeals to you then draft a letter of claim which expresses this plan. Book the car in tomorrow for the work. Once you know the date then jiggle the dates of your letter around so that Cinch have 14 days before you sue them
    • TINY applies here... tough It's Now Yours.  its a person to person private sale  it's not covered by any rules/regulations at all. even if the MOT was fraud a county court claim is not the place to address this issue and most certainly not using the seller as any defendant against such, nor using it as an excuse to try and get out of buying the car and getting a refund. the claim is a dead duck. simply do AOS and file a defence stating this was a private sale between 2 private individuals, the car was test driven and the buyer found no faults nor were any aware of by the seller. dx
    • You can try & persuade them not to prosecute even up to minutes before the case is heard, approaching the prosecutor on the day. IF they agree, you’d have to be able to settle the agreed amount there and then, not by payment plan. You may find it hard to persuade them, but no harm in trying if your aim is to avoid a criminal conviction (which isn’t the end of then world…. Check out the NACRO and Unlock websites) if you don’t get offered an admission instructive settlement and it goes in front of the Magistrates Bench it will no longer matter about persuading TfL you won’t reoffend The circumstances might be offered to the Magistrates in mitigation, but in terms of if they find you guilty or not, it will be in the facts of if you failed to show a valid ticket when asked (which you didn’t, and it doesn’t seem you have any of the statutory defences, so a conviction seems inevitable IF TfL don’t agree an administrative settlement as an alternative to prosecution)
    • copy of some lease pages-compressed.pdfHello Lolerz I have uploded some pages of the lease. Working on some other paperwork but only have my phone so finding it slow.  
    • Thankyou very much for your help. There was no oil leak when it went for the mot and the buyer said the oil leak was after it broke down so around 10 days after he bought it. He said it had been taken to a garage who said the car had the hole in the engine block and believed it was a fraudulent mot. But we haven't seen any report.
  • 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
      • 160 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


vicky87
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3615 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

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.

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

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.

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

 

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.

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

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...