Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • A bit of sadly all to rare promising news   ‘Smart’ antibiotic spares the microbiome An antibiotic called lolamicin targets disease-causing Gram-negative bacteria without disturbing healthy gut bacteria. Broad-spectrum antibiotics against these pathogens wreak havoc on the gut microbiome and can allow potentially deadly Clostridioides difficile to take over. Mice infected with antibiotic-resistant Gram-negative bacteria survived after being given lolamicin, whereas almost 90% of those that didn’t receive the drug died within three days. Lolamicin did not seem to disrupt the gut microbiome and spared mice from C. difficile infections. Nature | 4 min read Reference: Nature paper
    • Yes that's right-Parking Eye are usually very good at getting their PCNs compliant with the Act. So both being out of time means that PE cannot transfer the liability for payment from the driver to the keeper. So only the driver is liable to pay the PCN not the keeper. I understand from you that at least one of the keepers was not driving at the time which puts them in the clear providing PE are not told who was actually driving on that day. However even if with the other car the keeper and the driver were the same person the driver can still successfully argue that they are not liable to pay. The arguments are that there  appears to be no entrance sign advising that the car park is now private. That no signs were there advising that this was a new car park as it was at that time. That the signs are prohibitory so even if PE do have a contract with the landowner, the contract cannot extend to the motorist as there is no  offer other than no parking for those without a permit. You cannot form a contract with motorists trying to park if you are not allowing them to park there because they do not have a permit.  In those circumstance [parking without a permit ] you may be considered to be trespassing but only the landowner can sue for that not PE. And its not worth the landowner suing because the cost of suing would probably not outweigh the fine for trespassing.   PS  I sent you a private message-not about your case.    
    • Please accept my apologies for the delayed update, but i have been trawling through emails for supporting evidence, you see we are in the consultation phase and there will be three meetings during the process. So as i have said  my role is at risk due to the scoring and mine being low. As explained i never received my report as my line manager left during December and i was on leave. So i was not afforded any meeting, i received no feedback at all, so how am i meant to know any areas to improve or to attain a higher grade. So with this in mind i gathered my supporting evidence, i found the email from my then line manager and the objectives that he set out and we agreed.   I then supplied 20 emails that  showed that not only did i reach the targets, i smashed them, highlighting areas that i had saved the company a considerable amount of money, idented issues  implemented process and solutions with ongoing support. All emails are verified and prove that i should have received the highest possible grade going by their criteria. I also included the email from HR when i challenged  the score and they replied with " the outgoing manager supplied thorough feedback to the incoming interim manager who should have provided this (this was never received, and report i received was blank with just a score. Highlighted was the email from HR stating " a two is not a concerning grade"  well clearly it is as less than a month later it is what was used to decide i was at risk. I have supplied this information to the line manager and the external HR rep that was on the call as i have 48 hours to supply this. Had i had a proper and fair review like everyone else had then i would have been able to provide this evidence when he issued the score, he could not argue with the sheer volume of evidence that i had. This proves what was said to me when i took this position, " there was some politics in me getting the role, their line manager had promised the role to one of his guys, they cant really do anything but watch your back" He should not have promised this anyway as two interviews were required in the process *which i sat) so i earned the right to the role. This was because the three of them knew there was a lot that would be uncovered and they wanted it covering, i started to see this after two weeks, had i not said anything then it would have looked as though i was incompetent or stupid. I did try to work with them on this to remedy but sadly they went the other rout instead.    
  • 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
      • 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
  • Recommended Topics

D.l.a to p.i.p assesment , why is it to early ???


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3402 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

hi im on D.L.A indefinite and have been on years ( HRC and HRM ) I live in the "M22" area, ,

I understood I shouldn't be re-assessed from around oct 2015 to oct 2017 ?

I have had a re-assessment letter delivered to me on 21st January 2015 saying I have to ring up before 18th feb to start my re-assessment from D.L.A to P.I.P

SAYING they have invited me to claim P.I.P ?

 

 

can you tell me why I have been "invited" to be reassessed early ? instead of 2015 to 2017 ?? like advertised

nothing has changed in my condition or in my life to getting worried why I have been selected ??

 

 

I am starting to worry now which isn't good

Link to post
Share on other sites

does this mean me ??? I have indefinite award,

 

 

"At the moment, the only people being reassessed from DLA to PIP should be under the 'natural reassessment' system, which only applies to DLA claimants living in the 'natural reassessment' area (which includes all M postcodes) who reach the age of 16, reach the end of a fixed term award, report a change of circumstances or volunteer to be reassessed now."

Link to post
Share on other sites

The timetable is just a guide - as it states indefinite awards in the areas from October, you've just been unlucky in being an early claim picked from the bag. The timetable 'guide' isn't something you can challenge - you've been asked to apply for PIP and there's no way out of it, I'm afraid.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The timetable is just a guide - as it states indefinite awards in the areas from October, you've just been unlucky in being an early claim picked from the bag. The timetable 'guide' isn't something you can challenge - you've been asked to apply for PIP and there's no way out of it, I'm afraid.

 

 

 

 

 

So is the letter I got a bog standard letter to change from D.L.A TO P.I.P. ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, just the luck of the draw, I'm afraid.

i have just rang the pip number given to start the change from DLA TO PIP and was told by pip woman to ring DLA woman to tell her that pip woman says iv to tell the DLA woman that I have an indefinite date award and why have I been sent this letter ??

and that the PIP woman has to tell the DLA woman I AM ON A INDEFINATE AWARD not me so again im trying to contact the pip woman to tell her what the dla woman has said .... im confused even more now !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could be some time before the actual claim form arrives. I had the letter in November but nothing arrived until January. I did phone up and they took some details. sadly it seems to be one almighty cockup but that's IDS for you . PIP blame DLA and DLA blame PIP . I have sent mine back but been told it could be 26 weeks before they sort it out

Any opinion I give is from personal experience .

Link to post
Share on other sites

hiya iv rang pip twice and rang dla 3 times dla have said they are unsure why pip lady gave me this info ??

she is going to contact someone and get back to me maybe Monday regarding this and the info I have been given this all started after I had rang to starting my pip claim !!! now im getting confused ??!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...