Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please follow the link and read what we have to say about people who pay by bank transfer
    • Hi, yes, those are the people.   It's too late to ask SS to inspect.  This all happened in a big rush between xmas and new year; I complained to the woman I'd been dealing with, she liaised with the MD and came back with the £100 offer, took a couple of days, I refused, she then said I needed to contac the MD. When I emailed him, I got the out of office message back, and then, eventually, the offer of £150 which he deposited, without my agreement, into my account..  So it all took weeks.  I have plenty of photos though.   The social worker saw some of the photographs.  Because of the timing, holidays, everyone busy etc she said she would go by my judgement as to whether Friend should be allowed home (This was before the service was carried out)  I sent her some photos but neither of us mentioned Friend not coming home - nobody wanted him to have to stay in the care home any longer, it was totally inappropriate.  She knew I was going to take some action with regard to the service, but we didn't speak again.     Sorry, trying to catch up with all the questions.. I paid by BACS - it was the only option I was given. They are based in Wallasey, Wirral, and I think they have been there for some time.  I don't think they have disappeared.
    • Yes that sounds correct Commensurate use
    • I don’t have the details to hand, they’ll be on an old IDE hard disk from my old computer and I’ll need to buy an adapter to access those files.   But from memory, I think the case was around 2016 in an English county court. A lawyer was posting progress on a case he was working on, I can’t remember which forum, arguing that Erudios DAF forms breeched unfair contract law.   Erudio settled the matter out of court just before the case was heard when the lawyers client accepted an offer to backdate all his deferments and make changes to future DAF forms.   Very soon after all the posts relating to the case were removed from the forum, I suspect as part of the settlement deal with Erudio.   TBH I wasn’t sure at the time that I was going to be able to use this anyway, given that there was no ruling on the case to refer to.   I just wanted to make them aware that I knew they had granted deferment to somebody who hadn’t used their DAF.   I turned 50 in February 2018.   Strangely, I can’t find a copy of the default notice or their final response.   I say strangely because I have what I thought were all my Erudio letters in a file in date order.   I can only think therefore that they were sent by email and I did have a period were I had to switch email providers and email addresses because emails were being lost, and then when I switched the previous provider deleted everything.   I did manage to backup some of those emails before the previous provider deleted them, but again they would be on my old IDE hard disk, so I don’t have access to them right now.   Sorry I know this isn’t much help.   How essential are these letters?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Justice Secretary announces victim compensation scheme review, scraps unfair rule


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 902 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Justice Secretary announces victim compensation scheme review, scraps unfair rule

 

Ministers are to launch review of Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to ensure more victims get the right compensation.

 

-- Government to abolish rule which denied compensation for some victims of violent crime

 

-- First ever cross-government Victims Strategy to be unveiled on 10 September

 

The Justice Secretary has today announced a full review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme to ensure it reflects the changing nature of crime and can better support victims. The plans are set out in the first ever cross-government Victims Strategy, which will be launched tomorrow (10 September). The strategy will coordinate the already extensive government support for victims of crime to focus support and services around the individual.

 

Ministers have ordered this review of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme (CICS) to improve access to compensation, and to consider how the scheme might better serve victims - especially victims of child sexual abuse and terrorism. The review will begin immediately and is expected to report in 2019 with recommendations for reform.

 

READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-announces-victim-compensation-scheme-review-scraps-unfair-rule

How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...