Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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

Tribunal preperation for back dating of SDP

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3497 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

Hi All,



I am new to this forum, and I am currently going through the tribunal process with DWP and claiming of back dated SDP.



I know it is a long shot but



my son moved out jan 2013, and I genuinely never knew there was a SDP!!

seems you need to be in the know to be able to get this premium.



I made the Housing Benefit aware of the above changes, and thought no more of it,

until a friend of my father's asked me if I thought his award for benefit was correct,

they had overlooked his SDP when he was awarded PIP standard rate care,

and they had revised his weekly esa to include the extra 61.00,



he was given a back dated payment,

DWP told him it was a oversight DWP should automatically award this premium to anyone on Qualifying rates of DLA/PIP

which I am finding out more and more just does not happen.



.. anyway my question is,



at this stage in my tribunal it is still evidence collecting and DWP responding to what I submit,

they use all the rules and regulations which I am lost with,



I have been trying to find thru gov.uk website these files but I can not seem to find what I need,



I have had someone quote me reg 6 (2) (e) which apparently I should include this as a response,

also the fact that the rules and regs they are quoting only pertain to Benefit not a premium which sdp is..



..if anyone can help me find the reg above or explain if it is still current,



I would be most grateful,



the 2nd part of this is I completed A questionnaire which I was asked to submit before jan 8th 2014,

this form obviously gave my circumstances as at that point a year after son left home,

and I ask for a explaination why the ESA was not back dated to when I applied,

as with most benefits this is what happens,



their response was well in a nutshell I was on a migration from one benefit to another

and this is not treated the same? and spewed a lot of regulations in the response.



I feel they have roll out certain regulations to suit them and

I am always at a dis-advantage as I do not know the rules no one does apart from them,



wondering if me even fighting them is worth it as it is causing me a great deal of strain,

but its the principle of how certain people are treated in the benefits system,



I am mentally ill sometimes I feel I am being discriminated against,

like I should just accept what I am told and that's the end of it.



sorry for the ramlings but I find it so hard to put into words,



also my tribunal is being heard by letter as I am not able to attend hearing .

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are arguing that when you were transferred to ESA in Jan 14 the DWP failed in it's duty to consider your circumstances fully.


So although you failed to notify a change or circumstances in Jan 2013, the form you handed in in Jan 14 was effective notification and SDP should be awarded from that point.


SDP is not "back dated" as such it is paid from the point you became eligible no matter how far back that was. Basically if the DWP fail to investigate or fail to award then it's the fault of the DWP and thus maladministration.


Except...... where a change of circumstance that would make you eligible for SDP is not notified to the DWP. Here it is only at the point of notification of that change SDP is paid from.


The rightsnet forums would be a good place to have a look on and this thread has some links in it to the failure of the DWP to consider all the evidence in ESA conversions




I haven't a clue if that would be from the point you returned the form or the date of the conversion decision?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you speedfreak , that is it in a nutshell, sorry I do not find , finding the words as well as you do, I will browse the link you posted. thank you for your response it is most appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Speedfreek, just thought I would let you know as you were kind enough to reply to my post, I have today just received Tribunal Decision, they have awarded me SDP from 9th jan 2014 . So I will be getting it back dated to at least the date I informed them in my medical questionnaire a bit of good news, thanks once again for your kind help. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that's what I call a good Christmas present!


Congratulations and well done you :whoo:


It is really a good and fair result :thumb:


The only extra you might have gotten would be an extra 3 months of SDP - this wouldn't have been the failure of the DWP to award (which you've rightly won) but you trying to argue (as well as that) your failure to notify. A failure to notify !, is a back date of the decision to award and is... 1, for a max of 3 months 2, hard to argue 3, you'd be out of time to apply for 4, a lot of effort for little gain in this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Thank you Without your help I would not have found the links or the words to put my case over, and yes a lot of effort and sending copies of documents I always keep just in case (annoying others lol) but I keep paperwork just in case, and it paid off too. I rarely argue a decision, just accept as I am grateful we do have a welfare state to help us when we are in need. But I felt justified. I will when I receive payment make a donation for the help the forum gave me. so thank you again speedfreek :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...