Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, yes this is the same sort of response I keep getting about this. Yes so it asked for the registration number of the car, and this was inputted correctly. It’s then “found” the brand and type of car “Kia carens 1.6” etc and then came up with the “Recommended” list we then selected the tyres from. I have checked it since we bought them and the same tyre still comes up. In response to the lady above where we “assumed” we did assume the tyres would be correct in the list so didn’t see any need to ring to confirm if you see what I mean. We did try ringing the company but they were unwilling to provide information of supervisor. It seems like the company isn’t going to do anything about this.. 😕
    • They are all actually your interpretations, and nothing more than incorrect assumptions and extreme misrepresentations (at best) of mine (and thats being kind)  
    • pop up on the MCOL website detailed on the claimform. [if mcol is not working return after the w/end or the next day if week time] .  register as an individual  note the long gateway number given  then log in .  select respond to a claim and select the start AOS box. .  then using the details required from the claimform .  defend all  leave jurisdiction unticked  you DO NOT file a defence at this time  click thru to the end  confirm and exit MCOL. . .  get a CCA Request running to the claimant https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332502-cca-request-consumer-credit-act-1974-updated-january-2015/  leave the £1PO blank and uncrossed . .  get a CPR 31:14 request running to the solicitors [if one is not listed send to the claimant] . . https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/332546-legal-cpr-3114-request-request-for-information-when-a-claim-has-been-issued/ . . type your name ONLY no need to sign anything . you DO NOT await the return of paperwork. you MUST file a defence regardless by day 33 from the date on the claimform [1 in the count]  
    • Hello   Thank you for your response, I think I have done this right. My responses are in bold    Name of the Claimant ?  Merligen Investments LTD    Date of issue –   12/11/2019        Particulars of Claim     What is the claim for –  1. The defendant owes the claimant £209.79 under the a regulated agreement with Studio Retails T/A Ace dated 16/10/2015 and which was assigned to the claimant on 19/07/2017 (debt)   2. Despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay   and the claimant claims £209.79 and further claims interest thereon pursuant to section 69 of the county courtact 1984 Limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate ot 8.00% per annum amounting to £16.78    What is the total value of the claim? £301.57     Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC ( Pre Action Protocol) ? No    Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No    Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? no    Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? cat debt    When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online     Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/ Equifax /Etc...) ? No    Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim.  Debt purchaser    Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? No not received any correspondence apart from a couple of recent Text messages and in all honesty I thought it was a [problem]    Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? No     Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? No Nothing     Why did you cease payments?  About 3 years ago     What was the date of your last payment? Can’t remember     Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No dispute     Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan?  no          
    • stick to letters.   look in the debt collection section of our library there is a pro rata letter   send that to everyone.   if they don't agree then we'll deal as and when those that do or do not reply. pay what you say when you said it to show good faith. use BACS transfer via online internerweb portal of your bank ...not DD>   dx  
  • Our picks

Lapsed Workaholic

Number of jobs I must apply for in a week

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1768 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

Does anyone know of any law, rule or regulation that specifically states the number of jobs that have to be applied for weekly?

 

 

Could a claimant be sanctioned for not applying for a specific number?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they can be sanctioned. Don't know what the official number is. I don't think one exists as it varies depending on the steps a jobseeker agrees to within his / her jobseekers agreement. And sadly at the whim of the JCP+ adviser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they may sanction you if you agree to a set amount and don't do that many?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends on what is on your agreement. I had this argument with them last year. They changed my agreement and told me to sign or it would go to a decision maker. On a whim they upped me from 5 a week to 12 a week. I signed it and then added at the bottom "signed under duress" My adviser went mad and ripped it up and printed it out again, so I did the same.

 

The way I see it, its an easy way to sanction. If the jobs weren't there and you only applied for 11........sanction cos you agreed to apply for 12. (example)

 

If I get anything with a specific figure on like that........signed under duress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your quick response chaps, though it grieves me to read them.

 

 

My JSAg does not stipulate applying for any.

 

 

It does say that I must check my UJ Account at least 3 times a week. I have been ignoring that particular stipulation since it was inserted many months ago without my consent and there is nothing they can do about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your reply raised a chuckle, Kernowlife. Recall when I did exactly the same, added 'signed under duress' after my signature. My adviser went ballistic, he ended up claiming that it made no difference anyway as long as he signed it. I did notice that he later deleted it from his monitor.

 

 

I was later made aware of a Latin phrase, "Vi Coactus" sometimes abbreviated to "V.C.", used in legal circles to signify 'signed under duress'. I wish I'd known it at the time, just to see the look on that pompous adviser's face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regulation 18 of the Jobseekers Allowance Regulations state that 'more than two actions should be carried out' to comply with the requirement of 'actively seeking work'. So basically, do three things and you're covered. Here's a report from a case where someone was sanctioned for apparantly not doing enough but the Information Commissioner decided they were - using these rules - and the sanction was quashed. Interesting reading.

 

Remember, everything can be argued with the JC adviser - everything they do has to be 'reasonable in your circumstances' and designed to help you, not just done for the hell of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...but the Information Commissioner decided they were - using these rules - and the sanction was quashed. Interesting reading.

 

Remember, everything can be argued with the JC adviser - everything they do has to be 'reasonable in your circumstances' and designed to help you, not just done for the hell of it.

 

Not quite the information commissioner. It was the Social Security Commissioner.

 

This was in 2007

 

Id be careful about using this case law as many reforms in the legislation that this was based on I think have been altered or added to. What we could do with is someone to get hold of the new book of DWP regulations :)


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite the information commissioner. It was the Social Security Commissioner.

 

This was in 2007

 

Id be careful about using this case law as many reforms in the legislation that this was based on I think have been altered or added to. What we could do with is someone to get hold of the new book of DWP regulations :)

 

When my niece was on JSA, she was told to apply for 10 jobs per week. So she did....including Editor to Financial Times, Executive to some sort of manufacturing company. She didn't have a hope in getting the job, but she did at least for-fill her obligation to applying for 10 jobs per week. She has now got a job and one she really enjoys, but it was at least a way round the ridiculous demand to apply for so many jobs when she wasn't qualified or experienced in any the Job Centre were offering or suggesting!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not quite the information commissioner. It was the Social Security Commissioner.

 

This was in 2007

 

Id be careful about using this case law as many reforms in the legislation that this was based on I think have been altered or added to. What we could do with is someone to get hold of the new book of DWP regulations :)

 

I stand corrected :) Yes, best not to rely on this but it at least shows that things can be questioned and in some cases, won. So many people seem to just accept everything the JC say as gospel and law - and therein lies the problem.

 

A complete - and ongoing - list of current DWP/SS regulations is exactly what's needed; it's the getting it that's the hard part. I'm sure we've all noticed on the FOI site 'Whatdotheyknow' that whenever someone asks for disclosure of information which would really be helpful (or potentially damning to the DWP), the DWP claim 'it's not in the public interest to disclose' or 'it would cost more than the £600 limit to find the information requested'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many accept the jobcentre staff's word as law and don't believe there's any reason not to, it's only when they fall foul to bad treatment or/and sanctions they feel otherwise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a rule (I am at INGEUS) I just do one per day, usually one click apps unless I really fancy something so around 10-12 per 2 week period as I have NEVER and NEVER WILL jobsearch on weekend or Bank Holidays. All the jobs are repeats or fake so I also think I have applied for certain 'jobs' about 6 times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think they may sanction you if you agree to a set amount and don't do that many?

 

When i first signed on, i was told i had to find 3 a week. so 6 in a fortnight other wise id be sanctioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I stand corrected :) Yes, best not to rely on this but it at least shows that things can be questioned and in some cases, won. So many people seem to just accept everything the JC say as gospel and law - and therein lies the problem.

 

A complete - and ongoing - list of current DWP/SS regulations is exactly what's needed; it's the getting it that's the hard part. I'm sure we've all noticed on the FOI site 'Whatdotheyknow' that whenever someone asks for disclosure of information which would really be helpful (or potentially damning to the DWP), the DWP claim 'it's not in the public interest to disclose' or 'it would cost more than the £600 limit to find the information requested'.

 

There is a book of regulations somewhere that I have seen. It has everything that they use for reference. Will try and find it. It is not cheap if I recall about £70.

 

Problem then is you have to then interpret the information correctly and use case law to back you.

 

But yes you are right, people should stop taking their advisors as custodians of the law and where needed challenge them to put things in writing and to refer to the regulations.


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a rule (I am at INGEUS) I just do one per day, usually one click apps unless I really fancy something so around 10-12 per 2 week period as I have NEVER and NEVER WILL jobsearch on weekend or Bank Holidays. All the jobs are repeats or fake so I also think I have applied for certain 'jobs' about 6 times

 

Yeah but you dont sign on at ingeus, i am at Ingeus. but still go to JCP to sign on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My JSA agreement was drawn up in September 2012, includes visiting UJ website 7 times a week, look in local newspapers and write to 7 employers a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My JSA agreement was drawn up in September 2012, includes visiting UJ website 7 times a week, look in local newspapers and write to 7 employers a week.

 

I am surprised your agreement hasn't changed. My agreement was done in January 2010 and was changed sometime at the end of 2011, I do believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296135/v4am42.pdf

 

Decision makers hand book for JSA ESA and many other things, updated 2014 :) Have fun


PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am surprised your agreement hasn't changed. My agreement was done in January 2010 and was changed sometime at the end of 2011, I do believe.

 

I know. I have two appointments at the job centre this week, one tomorrow to sign on and a work review appointment on Thursday with my adviser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am surprised your agreement hasn't changed. My agreement was done in January 2010 and was changed sometime at the end of 2011, I do believe.

 

Mine hasn't changed once since i started 4 yrs ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mine hasn't changed once since i started 4 yrs ago.

 

They change mine regularly like at the beginning if the lie that is PWP supposed support which is far from anything actually supportive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/296135/v4am42.pdf

 

Decision makers hand book for JSA ESA and many other things, updated 2014 :) Have fun

 

 

You'd be surprised how often the handbook doesn't exactly reflect the regulations.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You'd be surprised how often the handbook doesn't exactly reflect the regulations.

 

It's even even more surprising how many JC/DWP staff have never even looked at the damn thing! (or even heard of it, in some cases).

 

I had an adviser once say 'We can't be expected to know all the rules, you know' to which I replied 'Your ignorance of the rules could - and no doubt has - caused people to wrongly lose their income so I'd think it was absolutely vital that you knew them'. Adviser not interested, naturally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's even even more surprising how many JC/DWP staff have never even looked at the damn thing! (or even heard of it, in some cases).

 

I had an adviser once say 'We can't be expected to know all the rules, you know' to which I replied 'Your ignorance of the rules could - and no doubt has - caused people to wrongly lose their income so I'd think it was absolutely vital that you knew them'. Adviser not interested, naturally.

 

 

My understanding is that the training is nothing like it used to be. To be a decision maker we had to do three months in 'school' learning the rules and system, then another 3 months in a training group having all our work checked, then an assessment over a number of claims - can't remember how many - where we had to get 95% totally correct with no errors, even the smallest error was a fail on that claim, and there was no leeway, even for regs that were so obscure we couldn't possibly have come across them before.

 

 

I doubt very much the training is so intense now - heard someone say it was 4 weeks, not sure if that is correct.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it depends on what is on your agreement. I had this argument with them last year. They changed my agreement and told me to sign or it would go to a decision maker. On a whim they upped me from 5 a week to 12 a week. I signed it and then added at the bottom "signed under duress" My adviser went mad and ripped it up and printed it out again, so I did the same.

 

The way I see it, its an easy way to sanction. If the jobs weren't there and you only applied for 11........sanction cos you agreed to apply for 12. (example)

 

If I get anything with a specific figure on like that........signed under duress

 

But is signing under duress every time worth the risk of getting sanctioned for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...