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

Disability discrimination?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3274 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,

 

I just wanted to know if anyone has had the same experience or has any information on what to do about this.

 

At the start of my college course I informed them that I had epilepsy. I needed a few days off because of it and then I received an email in October from my tutor telling me I had been removed from the course. I hadn't been offered a chance to explain or offered any student support services before, or offered any reasonable adjustments.

 

I was told I might be able to get back onto the course if I was able to supply a letter from a doctor stating I would not have any more issues with the seizures. The person who told me this worked in healthcare and knew this was impossible. After a week I was able to force them to get me back on the course.

 

Then around January I was excluded from classes until I had a risk assessment for a few days.

 

I have now been told I have to have 100% attendance regardless of any epilepsy issues or be removed from the course.

 

Any advice on this?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what course it is.

If it involves hazardous materials and/or machinery it is their legal duty to make sure you are safe and therefore ask for a doctor statement.

Secondly, if the course requires 100% attendance, you should try to reach that target, but they should give you some flexibility based on your disability.

For example they could let you make up the lost hours with workshops, live learning or the very popular e-learning sessions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends what course it is.

If it involves hazardous materials and/or machinery it is their legal duty to make sure you are safe and therefore ask for a doctor statement.

Secondly, if the course requires 100% attendance, you should try to reach that target, but they should give you some flexibility based on your disability.

For example they could let you make up the lost hours with workshops, live learning or the very popular e-learning sessions.

 

Thanks King. We have very rarely an experiment. Maybe 3 or 4 a year but I was excluded from all classes which are 99% theory. Unfortunately there has been nothing offered to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you informed them of your medical condition on enrolement for the course and were accepted for the course?

 

Did you follow the colleges Procedure if ill/unable to attend the course?

 

Have you actually had an episode with your condition during college time?

 

How long had you been on this course before they decided a Risk Assessment was required due to your medial condition?

 

During this issue was it just a Tutor from your department or was it the Head Tutor for that department corresponding with you/had a meeting with you?

 

Have look at the colleges website and download:

 

Student Handbook/Information

Complaints Procedure

Attendance

Disability/Medical Conditions (anything referring to this)

Equality Policy

 

Have a good read of them

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

  • 4 months later...

I have been trying to sort some issues with my son and college. He's 17 and severely physically disabled. The difficulty I've found, other than ignorance is the cross overs in laws with it being a post 16 institution, which I don't fully understand. It's would seem to me tho that if either you followed their sick procedure or if you were prevented from following the proceedure due to your disability ( you can hardly phone to tell them during a seizure and from what I understand , following a seizure can take days to function 100% again) and they removed you from your course soley down to that absence, then it would amount to discrimination arising from a disability. Do you have anything stating that supplying this doctor notes is a condition of accepting you onto the course? I would imagine this is indirect discrimination although as you were taken back they have done what they can to prevent the discrimination. The 100% attendance I'd say is discrimination in any circumstance. If you are the only student that that applies to I think it would amount to direct discrimination. Even if it applies to all students you are still at a greater disadvantage due to your disability so would be indirect discrimination.

With regard to being off college - how long were you off, were u supplied with work? Were you able to go to college (not classes) or stay at home?

You should clarify anything I've put as its just info I've come across as a concerned/angry mum but hope you get on ok. I think the fact that your willing to stand up to such discrimination is great.

HSBC - 11/9/06 - prem letter sent

19/9/06 - lba sent £3391 requested

5/10/06 - MCOL

17/10/06 - offer for £1600 on one account recieved

28/11/06 - Full offer recieved

 

Capital one - 13/9/06 -letter asking for statements sent

17/10/06 - prelim sent for £640

 

Lloyds TSB - 13/9/06 -letter asking for statements sent

17/10/06 - prelim sent fro £732

Lloyds TSB - 26/9/06 - prem letter sent - £391

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...