Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • we dont get N157 because its new OCMC but no court dont have evidence either.   Just seems a bit of a pointless wait but oh well
    • Post #9 suggested some options to avoid or put off having a smart meter. Post #12 a simple solution to your complaint about the ay they handle fixed monthly DD. It's not really clear why you posted if you're going get irate when members "jump in" with suggestions. You can see what I'm referring to on "gasracker.uk" to allay your suspicion that I was lying in Post #16 which was made to correct ther misinformation shown in your Post #15
    • Back to octopus from the smart meter/tariff salesperson. Octopus have now said just ignore the letter - I dont have to have one despite there letter implying (at least) it was required, but that i will HAVE to have a smart meter if current meters stop working as 'their suppliers dont supply non smart meters any more'. They also say they do not/will not disable any smart functionality when they fit a smart meter I am of course going to challenge that. Thats their choice of meter fitter/supplier problem not mine
    • Point taken that we should inform new Caggers that the £20 option is there in wrong registration cases.  Well, supposedly there, who knows what the PPCs would do in practice.  Anyway, the option is allegedly there with both the BPA as you say, but also the IPC (I've just checked). However, there's a danger here of baby, bathwater. The two easiest types of cases to win are (a) residential - due to Supremacy of Contract and (b) wrong registration - due to "de minimis".  Indeed until recently we has been boasting that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing. We simply can do nothing about a terrible judge.  The judge seems - I say seems because we haven't had all the details - to have ignored "de minimis",. got fixated on a sign and awarded unreasonable behaviour costs.  A totally bizarre judgement.
    • You mean your witness statement 
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 828 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I know this is probably the wrong board, but it will probably be more appreciated here rather than elsewhere.

 

I'm currently watching a live stream of the Djokovich trial in Oz.

 

It's quite funny because Djokovich's legal team don't appear to have paginated their bundle correctly, which is causing the three federal court judges some inconvenience...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the thread's fine here, MiE. :)  We did mention Djokovic on the Mutating virus thread as well.

 

It seems it's fairly unusual for court proceedings in Oz to be this easy to view but I think it was the right thing to do. Now we just have to wait for a decision.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Appeal dismissed, with costs. ETA: The judges' decision was unanimous. This means Djokovic could be deported and banned for three years from Australia.

 

Now we're waiting to see if Djokovic's legal team discuss whether they want to apply for any orders.

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this was all very odd.

 

One of the exemptions from vaccination was a positive Covid test within a time period. To have a positive Covid test and to then take part in various public events, then visit other countries, before arriving in Australia. 

 

Perhaps if the Djokovic team had worked more closely with Aussie federal Government at every stage, then this whole saga could have been avoided ?  

 

Shame that the current champion, a 9 time winner, is not able to defend.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 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

But

1. he apparently did not meet the detail of the exemption requirements (time wise) according to attached

2. He did not meet the requirements (aka wasn't infected hence had no exemption) when he applied to play in November - it occurred/'appeared' later

3. Any discrepancies regarding any claimed infection should automatically negate it (it should be watertight)

 

 

 

WWW.NEWS.COM.AU

Court documents have revealed Novak Djokovic tested positive to Covid-19 in mid-December, just over two weeks before he travelled to Australia.

 

 

 

Seems to me he didnt meet the requirements when his application was made.

Could be he didnt have to prove anything at that stage - but how did he know he would 'achieve' that infected exception?

Edited by tobyjugg2

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

..

 

and was that exemption a proper medically certifies exemption - or some dodgy self swab which changed status .. as it seems to be reported

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed I thought the court case concentrated more on technicalities and possible flaws in the reasoning rather than whether Djokovic met the conditions. Maybe not a legal reason, but he doesn't seem to worry about keeping to the rules about self-isolating and seems to have been economical with the truth over travel in the two weeks before the tournament.

 

As you say, there are doubts about the test and someone has also asked what he planned to do in the event he didn't manage to test positive a couple of weeks before he travelled.

  • I agree 1

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

“The following has now been clarified as a category for which you may be eligible for a temporary medical exemption: Recent PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (after 31 July 2021) where a vaccination can be deferred until six months after the infection,” TA said in a letter to players and their teams.

 

The same document also made it clear that any applications for a medical exemption needed to be sent “no later than Friday 10 December 2021” — six days before Djokovic tested positive — meaning a positive Covid test would have come too late for TA’s exemption guidelines.

Djokovic missed exemption cut-off by six days

 

Let alone that he quite clearly seemed to juggle the actual date of knowledge of his alleged infection to allow him to masklessly mix with youngsters and others

 

 

Anyway all other issues aside, lets ask the first question first:

He applied for his visa without  required exemptions at the time, and without any intention whatsoever of being vaccinatated (not that he had time)

- why? and how did he think he was going to be allowed access?

 

Notes:

* I don't know, but Its probably a simple tick box of 'do you meet requirements and can you supply evidence' on the original application

* There was clearly some issues with this known as the Aus tennis association said they had confirmed a prior infection (within stated limits/requirements) could or did allow an exemption

(technicality - also included statement that infection exemption meant vaccination could be deferred form 6 months - not refused)

 

 

Edited by tobyjugg2
  • Thanks 1

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Djokovic may not be able to defend his French Open title this year, according to the sports minister. I thought one of their ministers, can't remember who, might have said otherwise during the problems in Australia but this doesn't sound unreasonable.

 

WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM

France rules all athletes will have to be vaccinated for sports events while French MP Stanislas Guerini says Novak Djokovic’s behaviour is...

 

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if Downing Street are turning their garden into a tennis court.

 

The Downing Street open.  Anyone for Pimms ?  :)

 

It appears there will always be at least 10% in every country who won't be vaccinated, either through choice or for medical reasons. 

 

Mandating vaccinations with only limited exemptions is understandable policy, but will cause issues in many different ways due to the number of people involved.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 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

France says no exemptions - quite rightly given their policies

See the pics of No-Val at the airport with his mask just over his mouth and chin? - demonstrating what a bad influence he would be for any nation seeking to roll out a vaccination program and mask wearing ?

 

 

Yep 10% likely to refuse vaccination

If they survive, it could be seen to at least partially make their point from a purely self centered point of view - the other aspect of course is protecting others

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...