Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds

 

You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds

 

 

BankFodder BankFodder

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I make a post and ask you some questions and you then go in and make a response which deals with something completely different and which ignores the questions which I have asked completely. I don't see how we can move forward on that basis
    • Thank you. First of all, this is not chronology so we don't have any sense of the timeline. It's still rather complicated – but maybe when you produce a chronology it will come more into focus. However, there are a few things that we can start to tease out. You say that you accepted £250 in an offer which was intended to reflect distress. Although you say that you accepted this offer mistakenly, it may well be that you have no further rights on this issue because of course it would have been up to you to understand the situation properly before accepting any kind of financial offer. However, it would be useful to understand the reach of this offer and so please could you post up the offer letter by uploading it in PDF format. You say that "high-volume messaging" is not explicitly covered in the terms and conditions – but there may be references to "fair use policy" and it may be an interpretive problem rather than looking for words which specifically match your situation. So it will be helpful to know what words Vodafone were relying upon and also what was the extent of your high-volume messaging. Did they give you any warnings. You say that they referred to terms and conditions which you did not sign. However, it isn't necessary to sign terms and conditions. We would have to understand more about the context – but generally speaking if there is an agreement which refers to terms and conditions from the outset and you then embark upon the agreement and use the services, then all the signs would be that you've accepted the conditions of use. Signed written terms and conditions are generally speaking only required in contracts for property or copyright or shares. You say that the contract was put in your sole name despite the fact that the company name was on the agreement. We don't have a chronology so we don't see how long this went on for and you don't explain why you didn't raise any objections to this – or maybe you did? You say that you have sent Vodafone and Lowell an SAR but "so far" you are waiting for a response. This suggests that you sent the SAR some time ago – but you haven't told us anything about when this might have happened. You are referring to obligations under the Consumer Rights Act but I'm afraid that these obligations refer to contracts between a trader and a consumer – and you are not trading as a consumer so these probably wouldn't apply to you. Finally, you are worried about expressing a claim in legal language. If you begin a small claim then you certainly don't need any legal language – and in fact that kind of approach simply gets in the way. Also, it seems to me that you are gearing up to bring a court claim – which is fine, in my book – but you haven't identified your cause or causes of action and you don't have a plan. I think we need to slow down and have a more careful and methodical look at the situation. Otherwise you're simply going to find yourself in trouble
    • Late to this, sorry - my wife claims contributory ESA and got her P60 about two weeks ago. Now I know she's overpaid on her tax and I'm just waiting for HMRC (the department I currently work for) to figure it out. They owe her about £150.
    • World Bank President David Malpass says billions of people will have their livelihoods affected. View the full article
    • World Bank President David Malpass says billions of people will have their livelihoods affected. View the full article
  • Our picks

LB85

DLA Past Presence Test, Genuine sufficient link

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 488 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

Hi I would be grateful for a little bit of help, or confirmation that I'm on the right tracks for putting my case forward to DLA for mandatory reconsideration please.

It involves the past presence test, genuine sufficient link test etc.

Basically I really could do with someone showing me where to find the relevant decision makers guidance and confirming whether what I'm going to write is correct.

I have found some DMG but I don't know if its up to date, so Ill need to ensure I link the correct DMG paragraphs etc to support my claim.

 

Basically we do not meet the past presence test as only returned to uk in nov after living in Australia for 18 months....but I believe we meet the other three criteria involving eu regs, hab residence, self employment etc, genuine sufficient link to uk....meaning, I think, that this means past presence need not apply to us.

We are British born, lived in uk al our life barr 18 months, have worked in uk most of our adult life, live here now, wife self employed , both have nics paid, kids go to school here/college etc.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/2890/regulation/2A

 

I need help how to link and word this please.

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Claims by Incomers

16 The first step is to establish whether the claimant is within the personal scope of the EU co-ordination regulations1 and whether the UK is the competent state for

paying DLA (Care), AA or CA.

1 1 Reg (EEC) 1408/71 & Reg (EC) 883/04

17 If the UK is the competent state and the past presence test is satisfied as at the first day of entitlement then it is not necessary to consider whether the claimant has a genuine and sufficient link.

18 Where the past presence test is not satisfied, the DM will need to establish whether, as at the first day of potential entitlement, the claimant has established a genuine and sufficient link to the UK. The factors set out in paragraph 14 above should be considered. This may result in the DM deciding that there is no entitlement until the past presence test is satisfied.

 

CERTAIN EMPLOYED AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS

21 The following persons who are EEA or Swiss nationals are treated as satisfying the past presence test (DMG 070994), and DMs do not have to consider whether the have a genuine and sufficient link with the UK

Persons who are currently employed or self-employed, who pay UK national insurance contributions (and their family members). This includes posted workers (see DMG 070976) and frontier workers (see DMG 070977) and

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone can help me Id be really grateful, I only have 4 weeks from 30th Jan to do a mandatory recon.

I have some of the DMG volumes and relevant indication numbers, if someone can help me clarify if I'm correct it would help me massively in wording this mr.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi.

 

If people here can't help, you may need to find a welfare rights adviser to help, or ask a charity that helps people with your son's condtion. You can find welfare rights through the CAB or your local council normally.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its more so a person wo knows how to interpret Decision makers guidance which I need....they've declined based upn not meeting past presence test, nothing to do with his disability, more on a legal point really.

I have the guidance which I think I can use to defend it, but I'm just wanting a legally minded bod to give me the nod to say I'm interpreting it correctly really. (or not)

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, well let's hope someone legally minded about benefits spots your thread.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope so too, thanks a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...