Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • why is this in the overseas forum? as you or steadypay not in the UK?   dx  
    • I recently applied for a Sure Start Maternnity Grant and received a decision from the DWP today, declining my eligibility; under the basis that there is another child (under 16) in my family/ household. My situation is this,  I am co-habitating with my partner/ father of my new/ first baby.  Within the last 10 months, my partner's daughter from previous relationship (age 13) had to be removed from her mothers care, owing to domestic violence issues.  The family Courts are still dealing with the situation as her mother is contesting her daughter residing with us, as she wants her to return to her home/ care - so obviously there is Social Sevices involved etc. Anyway, prior to this situation arising, my partners daughter, had always resided with her mother and my partner, had regular acess etc. I have cited the Sure Start Maternity Grant Act/ Policy and the more recently published 'Restricting payment of the SSMG to first child only' -  I have to say, both have left me further confused as if you read the 'restricting payment policy/ in one paragraph, it states that in a situation where a woman has her first child and another child under 16, residing in same household/ family and is from the partners 'previous relationship' this would be considered a 'first child' and will be eligible for payment of grant. If however, the reverse applies (ie: it is the 'father/ partner' first child, then payment would not be made.   This seems pretty straightforward, but then the policy starts to contradict itself and goes on to define, the only exception for payment to more than one child, is in the case of the child living in same household, is not from partner.  Or if you are adopting a child under 1 year old/ special guardianship etc, then you are eligible. It does not offer the scenario of any childd in household under 16, from partner previous relationship being acceptable?   Can anybody please clarify this point please???  I want to challenge the decision/ request a Mandatory Reconsideration - but wanted to include my reasoning/ the point of law they have not applied correctly?   Any help advice / greatly appreciated.   thank you 
    • you don't respond LInk DCA ...the biggest fleecers there ever were know full well that: Barclaycard rarely even have enforceable CCa's for even debts from the last 10yrs, let alone one from the 1990's.!! not a chance!!   ignore until/unless you ever get a letter of claim. and read my red bits below if you aren't on a tablet or mobile.   dx
    • Looks like the 2014 TCE was ignored, or disregarded then as unless the scenario hinted at by UB is followed as in point the camera at the TV now show the serial number on the back and it is listed, there is no way that CGA could be compliant.  Don't think it could be in reality unless EA sees the goods in situ and lists them correctly. Might be big stink if there was a forced entry removal after a Virtual CGA.
    • asking for Trump pardons now aren't they
  • Our picks

    • 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
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 822 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

Really hope someone can give me some advice!

 

Took car to garage explained front wipers only working on fast and had done some research online but not sure if problem was the wiper motor or switch?

asked to diagnose problem for me.

 

Garage called back next day to inform me they had checked the motor and switch and that the problem was actually the ecu.

Advised it would need to be sent away to be fixed £175 and gave me an estimate of £300ish total including labour and car back within a week.

 

Two weeks later after 3 phone calls for update but none given,

they inform me that ecu is back and fitted but showed no faults when tested.

Mechanic then proceeded to tell me i will need a new wiper motor as he has just looked at it and it was swimming in water!!!

 

Now i understand things are sometimes difficult to identify but surely if he had tested wiper motor properly in the begining we would not have proceeded to even looking ecu???

am i wrong???

 

what do i do now and what is reasonable to pay?

 

I need car fixed as use it a lot for work but dont trust them now.

I only have £500 anymore and will have to scrap plus will lose job!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

These are not mechanics, they're cowboys.

Any mechanic would look at switch, wiring and then motor before venturing into other wild reasons for the fault.

Take your car away from there before they damage it beyond repair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first question to ask you is whether they are going to let you have the car back without insisting on payment for the unnecessary work.

 

You haven't actually been very clear about that

Link to post
Share on other sites

windscreen wipers controlled by ecu….:lol:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks so much for the replies!

 

So about an hour after i posted one of the boys from garage knocks on door hands me keys and and says your cars over there! ��

 

Grateful may be the wrong word but happy i can get to work now.

 

He said nothing about payment, should i expect an invoice later even though it is in exactly the same condition as it was two weeks ago?

Also should i let them fix motor or take it elsewhere and start from scratch??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great advice from the team. I am glad it looks like you might have a solution, if not please come back and do be put off by the replies you have received. Most people try their best to help.

Link to post
Share on other sites
windscreen wipers controlled by ecu….:lol:

 

 

Perhaps the laughter could backfire on you DX. It depends on the definition of ECU and since the early 2000's most cars have wipers controlled by an ECU. ECU is an electronic control unit. If the OP could indicate what age and what the car is it might be possible to identify what is going on. From that it should be possible to determine if the fault lies in the BCM ( which is also an ECU) the CJB ( not an ECU) or something more basic, such as a CAN or LAN line or even with a LIN line fault which is usually linked to a connector fault.

 

 

If you think an ECU is an engine control unit then you're about 15 years out of date as this is now a PCM.

 

 

If the OP could state what age and car it is, it would be possible to guide the OP to the correct way to sort the problem and then it would be possible to determine what sort of recompense may or not be available to pursue.

 

 

Wherever possible OP's should also include DTC's recorded as this can guide the correct sort of advice.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...