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
      • 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

Retroactive interpretation of the 2014 amendment to EEA immigration regulations?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3163 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

Hello,

 

first post here and apologies if you've seen my post on other forums, but I am in need of help to claim my Permanent residence certificate as a EEA citizen in UK.

 

Hello,

 

the original formulation of article 6(2-3-4) of the The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006 were as follows:

“Qualified person”

 

6.—Worker

(2) A person who is no longer working shall not cease to be treated as a worker for the purpose of paragraph (1)(b) if—

 

[...]

 

(b)he is in duly recorded involuntary unemployment after having been employed in the United Kingdom, provided that he has registered as a jobseeker with the relevant employment office and—

 

(i)he was employed for one year or more before becoming unemployed;

 

(ii)he has been unemployed for no more than six months; or

 

(iii)he can provide evidence that he is seeking employment in the United Kingdom and has a genuine chance of being engaged;

 

[...]

 

(4) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), “jobseeker” means a person who enters the United Kingdom in order to seek employment and can provide evidence that he is seeking employment and has a genuine chance of being engaged.

The amendment introduced 3.12.2013 have modified the interpretation of retained worker status and jobseeker:

“(2A) A person to whom paragraph (2)(ba) applies may only retain worker status for a maximum of six months.”;
and:

(7) A person may not retain the status of a worker pursuant to paragraph (2)(b), or jobseeker pursuant to paragraph (1)(a), for longer than six months unless he can provide compelling evidence that he is continuing to seek employment and has a genuine chance of being engaged.”
For the purpose of counting periods of unemployment as exercising treaty rights matured before 2014 (and only for that period), will the new regulations apply or the old one?

 

Looking forward to your valuable feedback.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

Can you tell us a bit more about the problems you're having please? I myself haven't seen your posts on other forums.

 

HB

Hi Honeybee,

 

I posted the same question on an immigration forum but not here on consumeractiongroup .

 

The problem I have is that I am in the process of applying for a document certifying permanent residence: form EEA (PR).

 

I'm Italian and I've lived in this country for many years. I never needed to justify my presence in this country, but the 2014 amendment to The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations [i can't post links yet but you can google it] have moved the goalpost from the requirement the way they were before.

 

In particular, as explained in my first post, they have changed the definition of "retained worker status" and "jobseeker".

 

This makes things particularly difficult for me, because I have periods of unemployment lasting more than 6 months, all this in the period 1999-2013.

 

According to the old rules, I would have kept the status of "worker" even after 6 months of unemployment. According to the new rules, the periods after the 6 months don't count as "exercising Treaty Rights". In other words they could potentially break and reset the count of the continuous five years.

 

In other words I wouldn't be counted as permanent resident in this country.

 

My question was, and is, if they changed the rules, would these rules apply retrospectively to before 2014 or not?

 

I have long researched this topic and I haven't found a definite answer. I think it would be unfair they did apply retroactively, as I was in the expectation that I was in this country and exercised my rights as European citizen.

 

I hope I have clarified the issue but please let me know if more details are needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The definition of a "Worker" under EU law is being employed for at least 12-14 hours a week.

 

6.2.1.2 “Worker” includes:

 

  • job seekers
  • those between jobs (for example, women who have ceased employment on becoming pregnant but who intend to resume work at some point after the birth)
  • those undergoing training in their own or another field
  • sick, injured and retired workers

 

 

I cannot see these ammendments being retrospective, you cannot be punished with new legislation on things happening in the past you had no direct control over

 

As a rule, without clear words to the contrary, statutes do not apply to the past. They apply to a future state or circumstance.

 

I am sure this has, or will be appealed to the ECtHR.

 

This again is a knee jerk reaction badly thought out Government policy that will be overturned by our own domestic, or european courts. This is in direct violation of Treaty law

 

My advice would be contact a local law centre that specialises in immigration matters. The advice is free

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...