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

compliance interview (allegation someone else is living with me??)


frankiemoo12
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2672 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 used to work with a photographer by the name of John Hume (now deceased so can name him) who was employed for a time doing DWP investigation work and part of the recording of peoples coming and goings was that the person was expected to be allowed a person to stop no more than 3 nights/week. As you say this is not a hard and fast rule but it is something that will be considered because if someone is stopping at your house the majority of the time then they are in a practical sense not normally or habitually resident elsewhere. This is just one part of the story though, people can be considered to be in a permanent relationship or supporting someone even if they spend no time together like that.

 

When was he involved with this? Was it a documentary?

Please do not ask me for advice via PM as I will not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the 1970's No documentary involvement. He worked directly for the old DHSS doing undercover observations of people who were claiming they were single when it was suspected they werent. he also did a bit of watching peple who were claiming disability. Like many things rules of thum become code of practice and then are accepted as being a suitable benchmark for similar cases. You can look at many different fields and find the same, health and safety, parking and even employment law all have a "best fit" test of one sort or another without it being prescribed by legislation

 

The 3 nights a week rule really is an urban a myth - and certainly isn't in any code of practice.There are certain things that are considered when looking at an allegation of living together. Take a long distance lorry driver.. he might only be home one night a week but is considered to live there.

 

That has been the case since the mid '90's to my knowledge. As said above, what was the case in the 1970's certainly isn't today. The benefits that were around then have mostly been replaced.

Please do not ask me for advice via PM as I will not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again.

 

All you can do is go in and tell the truth. I'm sure the DWP have seen it all before and certainly here we've seen ladies who are pregnant but no longer with the partner. You aren't the first and you won't be the last.

 

Hopefully Shoelover will pop in and tell us their thoughts.

 

HB

Totally agree... it's just an informal interview. Anything you can provide which backs up what you have said here will help.

Please do not ask me for advice via PM as I will not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should I inform the baby's dad an allegations been made? Will he be called in? Would it look good if I provided documents from him To prove his address etc?

 

If he has his own address & you can provide that then that will be fine. At the interview you could offer to get a letter from him confirming that he lives elsewhere.

 

Try not to worry too much: most compliance officers are nice people. Sometimes they realise that you are not claiming all the benefits that you are entitled to.

 

Good luck with it - and your pregnancy x

  • Haha 1

Please do not ask me for advice via PM as I will not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
It's been a week and had no contact from them will they leave it now till after xmas?

 

Highly likely. Or you could ring and explain that you want to get it over with and they might slot you in.

Please do not ask me for advice via PM as I will not reply.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...