Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
  • 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

Call to scrap disability assessments


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2767 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

 

I'm of the view with ESA claims, that if a claimant has medical evidence, reports from a specialist ect, that confirms someone's condition, then unless they have very good grounds the DWP should award the benefit, these assessments are a waste of money and they know it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the view with ESA claims, that if a claimant has medical evidence, reports from a specialist ect, that confirms someone's condition, then unless they have very good grounds the DWP should award the benefit, these assessments are a waste of money and they know it

 

But it's not based on the condition. It's based on function. (or lack of)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the basic fault in the current system is that the default outcome is set at 'not entitled to benefit', be that ESA or PIP, or in other words, claimants are assumed to be lying on their forms. If it were turned around so that the default position is that a claimant is telling the truth and is entitled to benefit unless proven otherwise, the system would be much fairer.

 

Whilst the DWP go on about the number of successful appeals being only a small proportion of the total claims, the bottom line is that at least (since not everyone who might have succeeded will appeal) 60% of decisions to deny benefit are wrong. As an analogy, take HMRC and self-assessment tax returns. If they decided that 60% of returns were 'inaccurate' and those people had to pay double the amount of tax there would be riots - particularly since they simply do not have the number of staff to investigate that number of returns! Given that a lot of claimants have medical evidence and self-assessment returns do not require you to submit any supporting evidence, the bottom line is that the government is assuming that accountants are more honest than doctors!

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea of the assessment is to get more information. So if a claimant doesn't give enough information, what is the alternative?

 

But, surely people do give enough info and are just ignored, or else why would so many be winning their appeals not all who appeal submit more info (I didn't).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just had my pip reassessed early (3 year award, sent reassessment form bang on year early) had my care removed and mobility lowered from enhanced to standard !

I sent in all my medicines proof and proof I now take more medicine and condition has stablised but not gone - purely due to medicine, if i stopped my medicine I'd be constantly in hospital.

 

Call back from someone basically said I didn't send any supporting medical evidence, even though I clearly not cured ! I'd need new lungs to be cured !

Been told to go tribunal if I don't like it !!!!

 

Fuming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's not based on the condition. It's based on function. (or lack of)

Gp's i think can refer patients to occupational therapists, they could give their clinical expert findings /opinion of how physical health conditions are likely to affect what someone is capable of , and a expert in mental health conditions is way better than what the DWP sub contract to for WCA's

 

There was little wrong with the older system when it was called IB, though that was harsh on some ,

But the idea of satisfying the descriptors for points isn't a fair way of assessing if someone is unable to work or not far from it, ESA it's self was not intended as a long term benefit,. they whole thing is rigged in the favour of the establishment thanks to IDS and NEW labour before him in i think 2010 the BMA condemned the WCA why has it not been changed so that it is fair & fit for purpose?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My GP will not write supporting letters, he maintains all my info is there for them to see, and if he prescribes or feels I am not well enough to work - then that is his view after being my GP for over 20 years, not some 30 min medical by a none qualified person.

I know this does not help but that is his view.

I won my PIP appeal as the person who saw me had NO idea what border line personality disorder was, she kept asking did I have OCD (of which I don't) and commented in her report how 'together' I looked. She had read none of the report from my CPN or the psychiatrists report.

Her decision was overturned in a phone call.

 

It seems like a lottery to me, and nothing to do with how ill you really are, but more down to who you get to see and what way the wind is blowing that day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...