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

Misuse of the European Social Fund


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2405 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

Hi guys,

 

Just had a quick thought and wondered if anyone could clarify if there may be a legal avenue here.

 

I noticed that many providers of services to the DWP make use of this fund.

 

Is there a case to be made that t he use of sanctions and the behaviour of some of these companies is at least not in the spirit of the European Social Fund agenda?

 

The European Social Fund (ESF) is the European Union's main financial instrument for supporting employment in the member states of the European Union as well as promoting economic and social cohesion.

 

I don't really know much about European law, I understand though that you generally have to exhaust things here before going up a level but surely there must be a way to raise this there. I'm email my MEP about the behaviour of some organisations who run the work programme, but just wondered if any of you could give any insights.

Edited by Choosealetter
Link to post
Share on other sites

The A4e case is old news around here I'm afraid, and was just one of several investigations in to the company over the years. There were probably a number of other frauds being investigated that involved other providers and were quietly swept under the carpet.

 

If you were hoping to bring these companies to book over misuse of ESF funding, you had better have plenty of hard evidence and deep pockets to pay the legal costs.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Many of the programmes that have been introduced by DWP over recent years have been subsidised by the European Social Fund.

 

As with all other government or official documentation the ESF has volumes of bumf attached containing all sorts of rules and regulations, does and don'ts.

 

There is an interesting document titled "European Social Fund Operational Programme 2014-2020" that could answer most of your enquiries. You can read/download it at -

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/461596/ESF_Operational_Programme_2014_-_2020_V.01.pdf

 

If you have experience or evidence of programmes that you have been obliged to participate in that have been funded wholly or in part by ESF, that did not conform or comply with the stated aims or outcomes set out and agreed as being a condition of the funding being allocated, then there is no reason why you could not use the law to seek redress.

 

The idea that setting out on this course of action is beyond you financially is fanciful. A formal letter to the organisation that you are in dispute with setting out your case and leaving them in no doubt that you intend to take the matter to the limits allowable under the law is usually sufficient to end the treatment of which you complain before it gets anywhere near the stage where you need to start thinking of costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...