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

Getting someone to call DWP on my behalf - I'm hearing impaired

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1734 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I do apologise if there was a thread on this recently; but I can't find it.




In short, the DWP have decided you won't be reassessed if you're in the support group and

- the condition will always be present

- there's no realistic chance of recovery (such as a transplant or surgery)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do apologise if there was a thread on this recently; but I can't find it.




In short, the DWP have decided you won't be reassessed if you're in the support group and

- the condition will always be present

- there's no realistic chance of recovery (such as a transplant or surgery)


There is no link Nystagmite.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again and reading the statement giving by DR UK, they again highlight the main problem which the DWP and the government seem to be ignoring and its stems from the most important part of the procedure carried out by Health Professionals who clearly are not qualified to carry out such an important assessment which the Claimant should be able to rely on.


It goes further though when you consider the figures giving, after someone appeals the decision of a unqualified professional preparing a report, when the DWP consider this during the mandatory period they too are getting it completely wrong, when you consider that 82% of reconsiderations are rejected but higher down the road of appeal and when in theory a qualified doctor, judge and disabled person are presented with the same evidence 70% of Claimants are successful.


So considering both percentages only 2 in 10 and after they have been told that they do not qualify are awarded ESA by the DWP ON appeal, but the figure of 7 in 10 are in favour of the Claimant but a Claimant needs a Tribunal to be able to establish this.


The system and those figures prove beyond doubt that not only is the current system of a DWP medical assessment not working, and not up to a standard that any Claimant should be giving a basic right to a fair and proper assessment, the Tribunal Service are having to put right time after time, the wrong decision making being carried out by the DWP, after an assessment.


The DWP are and in theory in a win,win situation, because they are always afforded to defend any decision that they make, which is wrong all the way to the Tribunal and chance their hand on the day, but going by those figures they are not proving their original decision to be correct in any event, quite a poor return.


I would be interested to know how much public funding is being waged and evidently lost by the DWP in allowing these appeals to go all the way, knowing full well the chances of them proving their original decision in Court as 1 in 5.


Where could I request the figures that show just how much public funding is being used to and in real terms argue a case that they evidently lose four times out of five.


They and like the Health Care Proffessionals that they initially rely on to take Claimant off of welfare benefits that they are entitled too are not accountable in an anyway whatsoever, lets see how much they are costing the public in pounds, shillings and in pence, in chancing their arm in Court, so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they waste millions on these private companies that are not British owned, to carry out these farces they call assessments , So they will be shelling out a similar amount of money on tribunal hearings which the other farce known as the MR was put in place to cut the number of cases going to tribunal , Me thinks government have been lying about this, The assessments are a guise to deny as many as possible sickness benefits, & nothing more the whole thing is set up that way

assessments should be carried out by GP's or consultants who know the claimant

That is the only way people will be fairly assessed unless they audio/video record every assessment these callous companies and their charlatan HCP's then their examination techniques can be subject to being scrutinised too

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I don't need an apointee to deal with my finances. I just need someone to speak to the DWP for me. I'm hearing impaired and have issues with my speech and other peoples speech, which is harder over the phone.


I'm trying to get a letter from the DWP but can't get past the automated questions because no matter how many times I speak, I'm not understood and can't pass any further.


Can I just give my personal details to my parents and get them to phone? Or do they need my written permission, etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

DWP would need to go through security questions with you. Your parents could phone on your behalf while you were with them. But the phone would need to be passed to you to answer security questions. Once the security questions were answered, you could authorise for your parents to speak on your behalf for that phone call.


For each benefit, there are alternative contact options, such as text phone. Here is a link for the information on ESA contact options.




Your parents could make an appointment at the nearest Job Centre, so you could speak to someone about the benefit issue you want to raise.


What benefit department are you trying to contact ?


What letter are you wanting from DWP ?


Could you write asking for the letter to be sent to you ?

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. 


I can't answer the security questions because it's automated and no matter how many times I've been asked to repeat myself, it doesn't get my date of birth right.


I only wanted a letter to confirm that I receive income based ESA. Ended up going down the job centre in the end. Was just as quick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Getting someone to call DWP on my behalf - I'm hearing impaired
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...