Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • On the first point, yes, but I now know that the "traffic building up beyond my control after I entered the box" is not an acceptable defence due to the rules.   Re second point, well I *did* have to break suddenly, otherwise I'd have hit the black car in front of me. I understand now that this is not "defence enough" on the contravention.   Re loophole on pics/video: I read in another post somewhere (not sure it was here or someplace else) that your reg must be clearly seen in the pics/videos at the *time* it's committing the offence ("captured live" I think it was the expression used) and that it's not permitted for someone to go over the footage in order to zoom in your number plate. So, what I'm saying is: from the pics/video (except the really dark pic that's zooming on my reg only), you *cannot* see the reg of my car. Hence why the pic zoomed on my reg doesn't show the full car *actually commiting* the offence. They're trying to *infer* that it's my car. (*I* know it is, but don't they have to prove the offence actually being committed by *my* car with pics that show the full car/position *and* reg? aka, not just a random zoomed in pic that could've been anywhere, hence the argument about "not being allowed to go over footage in order to capture offence/details").   Thanks for your time in answering btw ☺
    • Hi   Robinson Way are still chasing on this saying its not statute barred, but another issue has come to light since submitting a mortgage application.   CL Finance have a second charge on the property for this from ~2012, which the mortgage lender want removed before making an offer. CL Finance Limited (Company no. 01108021) was dissolved in October.   Does anyone have any advice on how i can have the charge removed and how we can stop Robinson Way chasing.   Many thanks   Dean
    • Yes - always best not to bury your head in the sand
    • Don't worry about the hearing fee date....concentrate on complying with the courts directions by date.   Andy
    • Hi @slick132 apologies for the delay responding.   Letter to the gym (1Life):   "Dear 1Life   RE: Cancellation of memberships ********* & **********   I refer to the aforementioned memberships at 1Life ******* Leisure Centre. We have cancelled our Direct Debit mandates and now realise that we did not provide 30 days’ notice needed. I therefore offer to pay the outstanding £49.98 for the notice period, consisting of £24.99 for ********** and £24.99 for *********.   I will pay no administration or cancellation fees and no further membership amounts. I consider the third parties attempt to charge unlawful penalty unacceptable and unfair to me as a customer. Hence the contract is terminated and we will ignore any further demands. If you confirm in writing that you will accept the amount of £49.98 in full settlement of all that I owe, I will pay you promptly. If you fail to accept my offer within 14 days or you demand any higher amount, I will pay you nothing and my offer will be withdrawn.   Yours Sincerely,"   Letter to DCA (DFC):   "Dear Debit Finance Collections Plc   RE: Notification of Unpaid Direct Debit Payment - Ref No ******** & *********   Further to receipt of emails from yourselves regarding missed payment and late payment charges, I confirm that I will pay no administration or cancellation fees and no further membership amounts. I consider these attempts to charge unlawful penalty unacceptable and unfair to me as a customer. Hence the contracts are terminated and we will ignore any further demands.     Yours Sincerely,"   Interestingly (and more than likely irrelevant) the email response from DFC stated that they wouldn't deal with me regarding my partners membership due to data protection, but then they also named her in the email! Surely a breach of data protection in itself!   Thanks Buddy2015  
  • Our picks

Whatnot

Change of allocation policy = age discrimination

Recommended Posts

 

.So I’ve been at the flat for a number of years , you had to be a certain age back then, now all ages and couples with young babies get put here , first floor , no garden not a good area not so bad either .

 

ive just had a letter to say I’ve been taken off the list to transfer to a more appropriate home ,  no notice just taken off, council are saying my age group no longer qualify.. I spoke to equality and human rights council they suggested I complain siting The Public Sector Equality Act 2010. ( The General Duty and Specific Duty)  relating to age discrimination. 

 

 

But I’ve also come across this in LAW Quarterly online Mag. 

 

LHA’s allocation scheme suspending applicant’s ability to bid (R (Alemi) v Westminster City Council)

The High Court has held that Westminster City Council’s allocation scheme suspending certain applicants from bidding for social housing for 12 months breached section 166A(3) of the HA 1996 (setting out which groups of people should be given reasonable preference when allocating housing).

 

Interesting i thought? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Whatnot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely if they are no longer saying “reserved for older people” then they are being less age discriminatory?

(discrimination can cut both ways: discrimination against the elderly, but also discrimination against younger people).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bazza

I really don’t mind who moves here it’s out of the flats I’m after , but now I’m stuck here trapped unless I fall over and damage myself permenatly or sadly get a medical condition that requires ground floor accommodation.   I feel like in old age older folk require the right accomadation for their needs  to help them keep their independence , but to keep me here trapped in a first floor flats is not fair.

 

as a group to simply eliminate your place on the list due to age is nonsense I fully appreciate there is a housing shortage but by keeping me here is wrong? 

If the council were to have to house folk earlier in care homes due to residents being in isolation it’s certainly going to cost the tax payer a lot more , and as the population is made up of a very large % of elderly this policy is shortsighted to say the least. 


Whatnot..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...