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

Child Benefit


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2728 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

That is the case sorry, the other parent can continue to have the entitlement to receive the child benefit and all associated benefits for a period of 56 days unless they relinquish it voluntarily earlier than that. Your friend could approach the mother and ask her to make a contribution towards his living costs during that period but she is under no legal obligation to do that.

There is very little that the other organisations such as the local authority can do until the relevant benefits are paid.

I used to be a processing officer for DWP Income Support and would have claims waiting for the full 8 weeks before I could make a decision and have the parent on the phone either desperate and not knowing what to do or where to turn or the extreme of shouting that it was me personally holding everything up. I would have thought that nearly 20 years later things would have improved but sadly not.

 

https://www.gov.uk/child-benefit-child-lives-with-someone-else your friend you try to show the mother this link that does state she may wish to consider making a contribution for their sons upkeep but again not legally binding.

Tax Credits are not usually paid without the child benefit being paid but there are exceptions to this, it may be worth getting in contact with CAB or even local MP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to speed things up is to get the mother to write a letter relinquishing her claim for child benefit and tax credits for the child, but she is under no obligation to do this and from what you posted is highly unlikely to do that.

As for the 56 days I have no idea where that figure came from sorry and not going to add my personal opinions as they won't change the outcome.

 

Hope things are sorted soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I certainly didn't take anything personally :)

The 56 days is there and as I stated previously unless the mother voluntarily relinquishes the relevant benefits then the decison will not change regardless of your friend making a mandatory reconsideration request or appeal.

I was speaking to someone at work today who also used to work in benefit processing and jobcentre and they seem to recall that the 56 days is there as sometimes a child will go and stop with the other parent for the duration of school holidays but still remain resident with the main parent so it was to protect that claim, how true that is I don't know sorry and have been out of the jobcentre for several months now and processing for many years prior to that.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...