Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks DX , true I was reading it as my own licence when I can now see it is the VED thanks for the clarification. As for the payments that does make sense and I will give them a call today. I have to watch the date as I have 21 days from the 29th May to respond to plea of guilty or not.
    • This is the latest response from IDR. I know exactly what has happened - I left Qatar in 2006 leaving behind card debt of QAR13,000 (unintentionally, I thought it was paid off). When I visited Qatar for a weekend in 2012, I was blocked from leaving the country - ended up having to go to the Court, met with the bank and negitiated a settlement  - they wanted about QAR90,000 in total and supposedly agreed on QAR40,000 to settle completely. Unfortunately, I only have a pay-in receipt for that and no confirmation the whole debt was settled: I was so focussed on getting the exit ban lifted. Anyway, I left and I have visited Qatar since then with no issue. My concern is that the statute of limitations  will run from 2012, rather than 2006. Should I continue to ignore or explain to IDR that I don't agree there is an exisiting debt? IDR 10062024 redacted.pdf
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.View the full article
    • as with some of your threads in the past. you are not reading things carefully and understanding things properly by going off on assumptions. not sure where you are getting your driving licence is being revoked from? nowhere do they use that word. nothing to do with it. vehicle excise licence. (Road Tax), a VEL cannot be revoked only voided. you are also wrong and nowhere does the DVLA state they cancelled the DD.  the court summons clearly states in the DVLA statement: it was your cancelling/reclaim of the DD on 15-02-2024 that caused this, NOTHING to do with the DVLA, they did not revoke the VEL. as they received no payment, on 02.05.2024 the VEL was Voided. it appears you have got the new DD setup wrong to the wrong DVLA account/ref number/VEL number. they have not received the payments to the correct VEL. i would be ringing DVLA and finding out where these payments are on their system and get them attributed to the correct VEL. that should solve the problem.
    • Its UK customers must now pay £1.99 to return clothes, with the cost deducted from their refund.View the full article
  • 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

Latest WCA Handbook for Health Professionals, Version 7, 9th Feb 2015


stu007
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3380 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

Latest WCA Handbook for Health Professionals, Version 7, 9th Feb 2015

 

This guidance is for healthcare professionals who undertake Work Capability Assessments on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

 

This document tells you how health professionals are supposed to assess you.

 

It can be downloaded at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-capability-assessment-handbook-for-healthcare-professionals

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing i noted reading that was their allowed/encouraged to assume things like this example

The report must contain sufficient detail. It is not enough to state "sat comfortably at interview"; better is to state "sat comfortably for 25 minutes in an armless chair without fidgeting, and this indicates that there would be little likelihood of any problem with sitting for longer than 30 minutes".
How can they assume things like this do they have a crystal ball or something ? that assumption is meaningless ,but clearly is one such method they use to cheat people out of a benefit that they should be entitled to
Link to post
Share on other sites

for me, I may be in pain, but if I don't sit absolutely still the pain intensifies dramatically. These one size fits all criteria are really silly.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had a quick nose at some of the stuff that affects me. Unless the law has changed (and DVLA and RNIB have kept this quiet, which I doubt!) they've given completely wrong information regarding the eye chart and holding a driving licence.

 

Well, if I do end up being assessed in the future, that's going to be fun! Because according to that handbook, I could actually legally drive. (my situation is rather more complex, so I actually can't) But at the same time, can't read anything smaller than font size 20. (and that's on e agood day!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

for me, I may be in pain, but if I don't sit absolutely still the pain intensifies dramatically. These one size fits all criteria are really silly.

 

Yeah but the clear issue I have with what tommy quoted is that the DWP think its still ok to decide things on assumptions instead of facts.

 

If someone sits still for 25 minutes, its a pure speculative assumption that they not in pain and they can do it for over 30 minutes. Its definitely not a fact. Yet they encouraging HCP's to make these assumptions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but the clear issue I have with what tommy quoted is that the DWP think its still ok to decide things on assumptions instead of facts.

 

If someone sits still for 25 minutes, its a pure speculative assumption that they not in pain and they can do it for over 30 minutes. Its definitely not a fact. Yet they encouraging HCP's to make these assumptions.

 

The whole wca is assumptions - you are being......facilitated to answer questions in a certain way, so that certain assumptions can be made to lead to the lowest possible score. It's just how it works.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

And that's why it is flawed,Any real HCP does not assume that a patient in their care can or can't do something, imagine the consequences if they did, This test is meaningless and should be scrapped,

Shame we couldn't play the assumption based on nothing game on them, i didn't turn up because i thought with all the evidence that i submitted that i would be awarded enough points

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...