Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So I am in the process of stating my defence. I have seen your template which states " It is denied that the Defendant parked in Bristol Airport at the times ..." My claim is about 'stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited'. Do I admit I stopped and then state that it was due to an emergency phone call that I had to answer? Or do I just deny I stopped? Also, is it relevant that I wasnt actually driving at the time?
    • Sorry, what bit are you complaining about?.   The 6 hour wait in A&E once the catheter was in?. What would you have preferred instead? (If they'd sent him home with the catheter in? - would you then be complaining that they didn't give him a trial without catheter.....) If they'd waited less time? would you then be complaining that they removed it too soon, and the retention was bound to recur?   I've answered already about the bladder scan (or lack thereof).   It seems to me that your current mindset is that they are "damned if they do, and damned if they don't"   For the hospital, why not approach PALS? again, not as a complaint, but wanting to understand what happened ; if you calmly ask questions you may find they help you come up with the right questions, for you to get answers (and it might even turn out you then find you don't need to complain......)
    • add the above into our std 3 -5 line defences found here Programmable Search Engine (google.com)
    • @BankFodder I've received this letter through the post im a bit confused by the date they quoted I sent an email to aviva re the data protection yesterday and I've received this response so a bit perplexed part of me is thinking should put my case forward now as to how aviva have acted as now I've got someone whose taking this all seriously  any thoughts please ? Adobe Scan 08 May 2021.pdf
    • OK, here goes. I'm going to construct 2 artificial scenarios, both based loosely on the situation you've described, but each at opposite ends of a scale.   I'm not saying either are what has happened with your relative, only that I'll try to make them both compatible with what you've posted to date (so, if there are features that you haven't mentioned that make either incompatible with your relative's scenario ..... that isn't down to me, as I'm not psychic!).   Patient A. Dementia, Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy (BPH), sleep disturbance, agitation. Goes to GP A, who prescribes sleeping tablet type X that can precipitate urinary retention. This flashes up on the prescribing system with a "are you sure" alert, and GP A clicks "yes, sure", without further thought, despite sleeping tablet type Y being a far better option, with no risk of precipitating urinary retention, and no other reasons not to use sleeping tablet type Y. Urinary retention occurs, Consultant in hospital says "sleeping tablet X has precipitated the urinary retention" because it has, (though is silent as to if this was a negligent choice, because they don't know the background as to why it was chosen).   What is a just outcome for patient A and GP A?.   Patient B. Dementia, BPH, sleep disturbance, agitation. Goes to GP B. GP B is actually a GP Speciality Trainee towards the end of their GP training, one week to go to complete. They've passed their MRCGP exam, flown through all their assessments, and are highly regarded. So much so that the practice has offered them a job, pretty much on the terms Dr B wants, as they are desperate to keep them there for fear of losing such a good practitioner to a different practice when its so hard to recruit the best GPs. They've carefully considered all aspects of the consultation and Patient B's background, even to the point of noting that prostate surgery was considered for patient B, but it was considered as too high risk. They've looked at all the options, and none are great. They could not give sleeping tablets at all, but Mr B is sleeping poorly and getting agitated. They've considered sleeping tablet X, but it carries the risk of precipitating urinary retention. They've thought about tablet Y, but it can't be used with the other medicines Mr B is on. They looked at sleeping tablet Z, but it might tip Mr B into heart failure. There is no 'good' option, but on balance tablet X seems the "best option" of a not great bunch : it might tip Mr B into urinary retention, but it might not. Even if it does, Mr B is going to need a catheter at some point, so it isn't causing something that would never have happened, only make it happen sooner (if it does precipitate it). They don't actually NEED to discuss this case with their educational supervisor, but because they are confident enough in their abilities that they aren't scared to discuss complex cases, they go and run the options and state their preferred option with the Senior Partner who is also their Educational Supervisor (not that they need much supervision these days .... the practice staff all want them to be their nominated GP next week when they join the practice as a fully fledged GP!). Being long in the tooth, the Senior Partner also raises the theoretical option of tablet W, not much used these days, just to show they are old and wise, (and know a few tricks) but says it is also a poor option, as it runs too high a risk of causing renal failure, and patient B's renal function is already not great due to their age and BPH. So, Dr B's choice is agreed as the most appropriate, and Dr B notes this in the medical record, (including  details of the thought process and why the decision was reached, and of there being a discussion with a senior colleague).    Urinary retention occurs, Consultant in hospital says "sleeping tablet X has caused the urinary retention"  because it has, (though they are silent as to if this was a negligent choice, because they don't know the background as to why it was chosen).   What is 'justice' for patient B that is also a just outcome for GP B?.   This is why I've been suggesting that the first step is to find out what happened BEHIND the decision to use sleeping tablet X (and if it was noted in the records). Even if it wasn't noted, you might still find out by asking.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Car Cash Point still up to their old tricks


Recommended Posts

Hi folks just a bit of a warning  for people looking for quick money do NOT use Car Cash Point 

They WILL refuse your payments be rude offensive and obnoxious to you on the phone  WHEN you can get thru to them they start Court Proceedings  with out warning they use THUGS to steal your Vehicle of your Property .

 

There is another thread on here regarding said company i suggest you read it and the link from it to "time orders "

Be very weary of this company Look into its filings with companies house  they have little real worth they loan to loan to you . Be warned   keep WELL CLEAR

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

they cant use thugs to take any vehicle off private property!

 

 

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

It would be helpful if you provided a link to that thread.

Also – read our customer services guide and implement the advice there when you are doing anything on the telephone

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...