Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Presumably you have received your own NIP/s172 request after the lease company identified you as the person the car is leased to?   First thing to say is that, regardless of any questions over the date of the first NIP, you must still reply to your own NIP/s172 within the time limit given otherwise you are committing an entirely separate and more serious offence than any speeding infringement.  If you were the driver you should nominate yourself.   You need to be careful arguing that the first NIP was not sent out in time.  Note that it is only the first NIP that is subject to the 14 day limit, and that NIP needs to go to the Registered Keeper.  There is no time limit on subsequent NIPs.   So are you 100% certain that your lease company is the registered keeper and do you know that for a fact?  Please note that the registered keeper of lease vehicles is often not the lease company, but a finance company.   If the police are saying that the first NIP was sent to the RK within the time limit, you can be 99.99999% certain that they will have evidence proving that fact.  Assuming it was sent out first-class, there is a legal presumption that it was delivered two working days after posting, unless the addressee can prove it was never received.  So if the police are saying the first NIP was sent out within 12 days, the RK would have to prove it was never received within 14 days to provide a defence.  As you might imagine, that is very difficult to prove otherwise everybody would claim it.  Unfortunately, "reminder" NIPs are usually not marked as such and may be indistinguishable from the original.   So you need to confirm (preferably by sight of a copy of the actual V5C document as staff of lease companies do not always know) who the Registered Keeper is, and when they recived the first NIP.  If it was received after 14 days can they prove that fact (eg by a date received stamp and an appropriate system for dealing with mail received) and can they prove that they didn't receive an earlier NIP?   Hope that makes sense!  If it doesn't another poster called Man in the Middle will clarify what I 've not explained well or got wrong.
    • Simply confirming no mediation and the claim is proceeding to allocation.   Andy
    • Thanks for the swift response. Will continue to read around.   I have a date of march 10.
    • First of all, they always say that you should be prepared to give up ground. If you are convinced as to your rights in the matter – and we certainly are – then there is no reason for you to give up any ground at all. You may come under pressure to give up ground – but you don't have to concede any ground. The benefit to Hermes is that they don't end up going to court so that they are spared extra expense and also there are spared the embarrassment of a judgement against them. When you are given the mediation date, then let us know and then we will go through it with you. However, read up on all of the threads in this sub- forum. You will find exactly your situation have occurred several times and have already gone to mediation and you will find that we have already given explanations on each one of the points. Familiarise yourself with the stories and the principles involved. When you get your mediation date then come back here and let us know.
    • I have read the page on mediation, but wanted to clarify a few details.   I have been given an arranged time for the mediation call. The email from the court states:   "for mediation to be successful, you would need to be willing to negotiate on the amount of the claim and have a degree of flexibility".   Should I have to give up ground? At this stage, I feel I am owed what I have lost, and what the claim has cost me, not to mention my time. The email says if you aren't willing then mediation is unsuitable.   It then also suggests:   "It is crucial that you are able to briefly and accurately explain your claim or defence. It is vital that you have prepared for the mediation by putting together a brief summary of your opening position. Only the key points are necessary at this stage as the longer the time taken discussing the disputed issues will reduce the time available for exploring settlement options."   I am of course aware of my opening position - that they were negligent and lost my item and thus I believe I am due recompense. However, I am not certain of the legal particulars of my argument.   Furthermore:   - Should I mention that the defendant may not wish to proceed to court as it may support a precedent for others in a similar situation to also claim against them? - Are there any other things I should be mentioning to the mediator?   Appreciate the guidance.
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Electronic signing..get it in writing!

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1624 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

My JC is about to start electronic signing - they already have the little pads installed but are apparently undergoing 'problems' so it won't be operational anytime soon - no surprise there, then!


According to what I've learned, as well as being proof that you attended, signing electronically automatically authorises the payment going through and the clerk doesn't have to do it manually. All well and good..until the damn thing goes wrong and there's no record of you having been there to sign on and your payment isn't put through. Even the advisers are worried about this happening and the mess it will create. I see no reason why they can't also retain the usual signing-on sheet as backup but maybe that's too easy.


Yes, I'm being pessimistic but we all know what the DWP is like; if it can go wrong it will. We can't do much about it generating payments except to hope it works but make sure you get something in writing from the adviser to at least prove you attended.


I always get them to sign and date my jobsearch, both to prove I attended and to stop them trying to raise any doubts after I've left.


I distrust JC advisers and computer systems equally - cover yourself at all times!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree.I would be very weary of electronically signing on.I would want something in writing to prove i had attended.At least then if something goes wrong then you have proof you were there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you go in to "electronically" sign on do you still have to see an advisor to have your jobsearch checked?


If thats the case then this is a very expensive way to save the advisor about 1 minute (time taken to be given and sign the booklet)


or, heaven's forbid are these machines going to actually replace all those truly loveable and adorable advisor's......................

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we'll still be dragged in to attend and they'll still check our jobsearch and if it isn't satisfactory then they'll probably not let us sign the pad. One adviser told me electronic signing was to 'remove the human element and prevent mistakes'. I pointed out that the computer systems were designed by humans in the first place. She didn't have an answer to this :)


If they want to truly 'go electronic' then we could sign-on via the internet and submit our JS evidence the same way but this might cause even more problems if emailed evidence went missing - or was 'lost' by the JC. Annoying though it is, I prefer to be seen in person and be satisfied there and then that my jobsearch was fine and the money is going through, rather than sit at home and hope everything is okay and some adviser in a bad mood wasn't going to cause problems.


Funny how back in the 70's when I had a spell of unemployment you never got any problems at all - mainly because you weren't asked to show any JS evidence. You walked in, signed and walked out, with no words being spoken. The worst thing that could happen was that the post was late and your Saturday giro didn't arrive until Monday (which was a bitter blow as I loved my Saturday afternoons in my local) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh the 70's...

The reason they did not pressurise you so much then is that there were plenty of jobs going and most people were not on the Dole long.


I can remember being made redundant, signing on the next day and starting another job the day after and it did not

only happen just once in that decade. There were more jobs than people out of work and nobody really bothered about

the stigma that is attached to numerous jobs nowadays.


Nowadays, you see someone picking up litter and most people think they are people who have been to court and

sentenced to xx hrs community service for their crimes.. In the old days the job was seen as someone working for the

council and being paid to do the job.


I suppose that's is where it would have eventually ended up with people doing job search and applying through UJM if it worked correctly and the

electronic signing linked to the UJM system so it could check your JS and issue the payment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if Universal Credit and the Universal Jobmatch systems were fit for purpose they would have been fully operational by now.


That would mean that all the checks on job search activity would now be automated and checked by computer and any discrepancies or doubts would be automatically notified to the claimant and acted upon.


If the act of signing-on becomes automated then there would be no need for desk bound advisers at all. Small wonder that they are resentful of its introduction and react so negatively.


This could explain why advisers seem to have relaxed the pressure on claimants to use UJ and concentrate on the more manually orientated work book nonsense. Expect to see them putting all sorts of obstacles in the way of the full implementation of this bit of technology.

Link to post
Share on other sites
if Universal Credit and the Universal Jobmatch systems were fit for purpose they would have been fully operational by now.




If the act of signing-on becomes automated then there would be no need for desk bound advisers at all. Small wonder that they are resentful of its introduction and react so negatively.


Yep, they don't want to add to the unemployment statistics.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But would seeing an advisor sign on and the machine saying their JS was not good enough and sanctioning them be poetic justice?


It certainly would :) I think however they'll always need human advisers to check jobsearch - they could possibly use computers to count how many applications you made via the UJ site but I've never applied for any job via UJ itself, I always use an external method so technically my UJ jobsearch applications reads 'zero' even though I have applied for some and have proof.


I've found that if you give the impression you're doing all you can to find work, that's half the battle and any half-decent adviser will accept this, whereas computers are only interested in hard figures; you can't negotiate with them, bluff them or threaten them with complaints to their District Manager and Union:)


One thing computers are good at is making a HUGE mess when they go wrong; an adviser making a mistake on a claim can only affect one person - which is bad enough - but if a computer system starts acting up, thousands could be affected.


I don't want the advisers to have more time on their hands - that just means they'll poke about in your business more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My old jobcenter also has the pads for electronic signing already prepared.


They also tried the old line "All jobsearch will be recorded on ujm from now on as we will nto be doing paper anymore"


She received form me a polite "No chance" and told her to go get the regulations and guidelines that say online record of jobsearch is now mandatory"


Unsurprisingly after returning from seeing her manager I was told that they are availabel online. To which I replied "Yes i Know, I have read them and understand that my proof of jobsearch can take many forms including PAPER RECORDS. The following week I even printed out the UJM toolkit with the paragraphs highlghted as well. Was left alone for the next meeting and signed off for new job just after :D








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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I have recently experienced this electronic pad and been deceived into signing this pad multiple times without first receiving lawful information as to the pads purpose. the advisor follows gov policy and tries to justify the pads purpose as being 'documented' in the *my claimant commitment* 'booklet'. We are not 'claimant' 'clients' 'individuals' or legally named PERSONS - people in communities are men, women [children, sons or daughters] living breathing flesh and blood. So why therefore are we deliberately deceived by the civil service - which has a code of conduct by the way - this link if for scotland but is there will be an English equivalent gov scot Resource Doc 923 0110016 pdf url.

The link above clearly states that civil servants MUST: "comply with the - law - and uphold the administration of justice". I verify that civil servants have been deceived also. They have not been taught actual law/common law. cCivil servants are corporate puppets, intentionally indoctrinated like ALL other civil servants to obey rules, regulations/policies and procedures to entrap legally named PERSONS.


My local job centre has twice now point blank refused to provide me with lawful information relating to this pad but the advisor has also failed to provide lawful information to which, man or woman within the dwp/job centre is making a superior claim over me [i, a woman] to sign the pad and paper documents. The consequence of which - they've refused to process my benefit claim. I will add I have been honourable and provided ALL relevant info despite the fact I do not need to - because, I revoked consent and do not consent to their fraudulent activities. I have made it clear [in writing] I am happy to comply once the dwp provide lawful info on the two points/request [which are now demands] I have made.


What we the people must remember here is we have right which are being stripped from us. Pleas consider the 'political' climate we currently live in. No prejudice expressed here but please consider people who are in crisis but do not have English as their first language. politician are ALLOWING persecuted people to come here because the benefit system is geared to take their signature's fraudulently i.e. the electronic pad. a lot of immigrants/refugees have benefit forms completed on their behalf by civil servant advisors. This is a serious point we must all pay attention to.

i would strongly advise that anyone involved with this electronic pad serves common law notices to their dwp corporation and DEMANDS lawful documentation on this pads purpose. signatures are being stolen every minute of the day and we must seriously question WHY. its time to look to common law, folks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're on the wrong website, this isn't GOODF or any FMOTL nonsense.

  • Haha 1

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...