Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better to keep my suggested paragraph as one rather than split it......defence above amended.
    • So they've produced a copy of a statement amounting to the figure claimed for AND a copy of the CCA but it isn't signed... Not sure if that's admissable or not due to it being online, it does have my account number and address on, but the customer signiture and date section is blank.  They posted this up online the day after the case meeting....   Is it game over?
    • PD 44 Timing of summary assessment   9.2 The general rule is that the court should make a summary assessment of the costs – (a) at the conclusion of the trial of a case which has been dealt with on the fast track, in which case the order will deal with the costs of the whole claim; and (b) at the conclusion of any other hearing, which has lasted not more than one day, in which case the order will deal with the costs of the application or matter to which the hearing related. If this hearing disposes of the claim, the order may deal with the costs of the whole claim, unless there is good reason not to do so, for example where the paying party shows substantial grounds for disputing the sum claimed for costs that cannot be dealt with summarily. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-44-general-rules-about-costs/part-44-general-rules-about-costs2#para9.5    
    • I find many inconsistencies in the posts from Louiseannmarie, not least her reference to her 'badge number'. Since when have the British Police held badges? They are issued with a warrant and use collar numbers for identification. Possibly has watched too many American movies!   'Her' spelling and grammar are less than I would expect of a Police Officer and her threat to report the site to the West Midlands Police, whilst claiming to work for them does not ring true.  Suspect that 'she' is a troll.
    • Thanks @lookinforinfo.   The text is updated:   1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The Airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest. Furthermore, VCS has been running the parking business at airports over the years it would be expected that they would become familiar with the Airports Act. Unfortunately, they choose to neglect and deny the Act in their Witness Statement.
  • 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

Ingeus and Courses for ESA claimants


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2017 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

Hey All. I am currently on ESA and have been with Ingeus for 18 months. I have done all the in house courses and my advisor is now banging on about other courses that could help me, with outside providers ie: College courses. There is one course I have agreed to do which is with another training provider (the qualification will help me in the long run).

My advisor pulled out this form to sign which was written in 'legal speak' ie: completely incomprehensible to the average person. I told him I don't understand this but he assured me I was simply agreeing to do the course. My 'suspicion radar' went into overdrive and I told him I would sign it just before the course started and not now.

If I sign this form and it turns out I have unwittingly agreed to do a fortnightly job search (ESA claimants are not mandated to do this) as part of the agreement, what happens if I refuse to do the job search?

Or am I just been paranoid?! Thanks. Mooney.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Three warning signs that should put anyone signing a document:

 

  • Refusing to give you time to read it properly.
  • Written in gibberish or uses convoluted phrases.
  • Refusing to allow you to take the document away for a second opinion.

Unless you know exactly what you are signing up for, don't do it. You can not be mandated to sign anything, not even the "signing in book".

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the replies though after seeing IDS on the news this morning it seems WRAG claimants are going to be pushed (and no doubt threatened with sanctions if they refuse) into part time work anyway.

There doesn't seem to be many JSA claimants doing job search any more at my Work Centre so they obviously aren't making as much money now from people finding full time work. I suspect Ingeus and all the other companies have been contacting IDS with the only alternative.......(to force WRAG claimants back into work so they (Ingeus and the rest) can get paid.

So this time I can refuse to sign the form and they can't do anything but at some stage a refusal to sign could end with a sanction!:-(

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...