Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK - thank you. I understand the concept of LIP, and the need to keep my claim as simple and straightforward as possible. The legal arguments presented in what I called my skeleton statement were already in the original template I downloaded from this site. In that document I opened with "I am not proposing to set out the sequence of events." Might it be worthwhile for me to include a very brief timeline at that point, which would perhaps then allow it to become my witness statement? Or do you consider two separate documents are required? 
    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
  • 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

Tribunal preperation for back dating of SDP

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3474 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...