Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • be very wary upon what you see being recently posted on here 😎 regarding KIH.... all is not what it seems...  
    • 1st - all my posts on CAG are made not only in reply to the specific issue the topic starter makes but also in a general matter to advise any future readers upon the related subject - here it is kings interhigh online school. KIH lets take this topic apart shall we so readers know the real situation and the real truth...and underline the correct way to deal with KIH. https://tinyurl.com/ycxb4fk7 Kings Interhigh Online School issues - Training and Apprenticeships - Consumer Action Group - but did not ever reply to the last post.  but the user then went around every existing topic here on CAG about KIH pointing to the above topic and the 'want' to make some form of group  promoting some  'class action' against KIH . then on the 2nd march this very topic this msg is in was created. all remarkably similar eh? all appear to be or state..they are in spain... ....as well as the earlier post flaunting their linkedin ID, (same profile picture) that might have slipped through via email before our admin killed it.., trying to give some kind of legitimacy to their 'credentials' of being 'an honest poster'....oh and some kind of 'zen' website using a .co.uk  address (when in spain- bit like the Chinese ebay sallers) they run ... and now we get the father of the bride ...no sorry...father of a child at the uk-based international school in question posting ...pretending to be not the 'other alf... do you really think people are that stupid..... ................... nope you never owed that in the 1st place... wake up you got had and grabbed the phone - oh no they are taking me to court under UK jurisdiction...and fell for every trick in the book that they would never ever put in writing that could be placed in front of a court operating under their stated uk jurisdiction wherever you live. T&C's are always challengeable under UK law this very site would not exist if it were not for the +£Bn's bank charges reclaiming from 2006> and latterly the +£Bn's of PPI reclaiming both directly stated in the banks' T&C's were they claimed they were legally enforceable ...not!! they lost big time... why? a waste of more money if you've not got a court claim....... why not use them for a good outcome...go reclaim that £1000 refundable deposit you got scammed out of . people please research very carefully ...you never know who any of these people are that are posting about kings interhigh and their 'stories' they could even be one of their online tutors or a shill . don't get taken in. dx      
    • @KingsParent thank you for sharing your experience.  I also tried contacting the CEO but didn’t get very far. Do you mind sharing his contact details?  kind regards   
    • Thank you Rocky for the clarifications though they did cause a problem at first since an original windsccreen ticket was  of a different breach some time before. The current windscreen ticket only states that you were parked there for 6 minutes which is just one minute over the minimum time allowed as the Consideration period. There is no further proof that you parked there for any longer than that is there? More photographs for example? Moving on to the Notice to Keeper-it does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. First there is no parking period mentioned on it. there is the time 20.25 stated which coincides with the W/S ticket but a parking period must have a starting and finishing time-just one time is insufficient to qualify as a parking  period as required in Section 9 [2] [a] . Are there any different photos shown on the NTK comapared to the w/s PCN? Not that that would make a difference as far as PoFA goes since the times required by PoFA should be on the NTK but at the moment Met only appear to show that you stayed there for 6 minutes. Another failure to comply with PoFA is at S9([2][e] where their wording should be "the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; ". You can see on your NTK that they misssed off the words in brackets. Met cannot therefore transfer the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable. Then their is the discrepancy with the post code on the NTK  HA4 0EY which differs from the post code on the contract and the Post Office Postcode Finder which both list it as HA4 0FY. As you were not parked in HA4 0EY the breach did not occur. In the same way as if you were caught speeding in the Mall in London, yet you were charged with speeding in Pall mall London [a street nearby] you would be found not guilty since though you were speeding you were not speeding in Pall Mall. I bow to Eric's brother on his reasoning on post 12 re the electric bay abuse  That wording is not listed on their signs nor is there any mention on the contract of any electric charging points at all let alone who can park there or use them. He is quite right too that the entrance sign is merely an invitaion to treat it cannot form a contrct with motorists. Also the contract looks extremely  short no doubt there will be more when we see the full Witness statement. As it stands there is no confirmation from Standard Life [or Lift !] on the contract that Savills are able to act on their behalf. Also most contracts are signed at the end of the contract to prevent either side adding extra points. So their percentage  chance of winning their case would be somewhere between 0.01 and 0.02.    
    • @dx100uk no, haven’t received any correspondence as of yet. Still waiting on a court date but seems to be taking forever. Have noticed an increase in unhappy customers on here
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 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

Benefits an hospital stays


Surfer01
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 412 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

My wife was admitted to hospital in early August and discharged 17 days later.  We both get carer's allowance which changes the amount of pension credit I receive.  DWP was notified and my pension credit was reduced.  It took them 3 weeks to reinstate it.

 

Unfortunately 6 weeks later end of September my wife was admitted back into hospital as the first time she was misdiagnosed and probably discharged too soon.  DWP notified and within 3 weeks they reduced my pension again.  My wife was in hospital for 32 days and discharged on 2nd Nov.  We are still waiting for the benefit to be reinstated and every week when we have phoned in we have been told it is in a queue.

 

Yesterday the person that we spoke to said that because she had been in hospital in August this was link to her stay in hospital in Oct as it was within 3 months of her previous admission.  I have tried searching to verify this information, but no such luck so not sure if they are telling porkies or not?

 

We were under the impression that if the break was longer than 28 days then the clock would start ticking again on the second admission and would not be linked to the previous admission which was more than 28 days?

 

Can anyone please advise as the reduction of over £110 a week is having a big knock on effect on us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest you go back to query this and if they tell you the same thing, ask them to email you the DWP guidance to confirm what they are saying.

 

 

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

Found some Carers Allowance guidance online, which may explain what you we're told. Seems to suggest that there can be loss of entitlement if there is more than one hospital stay within a period.

 

Breaks in care of the severely disabled person
[See DMG Memo 06/20]
60045 A week when a person does not satisfy the “caring condition” is treated as a week in which that  
condition is satisfed, if that person
1. has only temporarily ceased to satisfy the “caring condition” and
2. has satisfed the caring condition for at least 14 weeks in a 26 week period. The 26 week period ends  
with the frst week that person no longer satisfed the caring condition and
3. would have satisfed it for at least 22 weeks in the 26 week period described in DMG 60045 2., but for  
the fact that
3.1 either that person or
3.2 the severely disabled person
was undergoing medical or other treatment, as an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution1
.
1 SS (ICA) Regs, reg 4(2)
60046 The effect of DMG 60045 is that a temporary break or series of temporary breaks in care may be
ignored. Entitlement to CA will continue provided that the temporary breaks do not amount in total to  
more than
1. twelve weeks - where the claimant or the severely disabled person has spent at least eight of those  
weeks undergoing medical or other treatment as an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution or

 

2. four weeks - if the temporary break in care is for any other reason in any period of 26 weeks ending  
with the frst week of the temporary break in care.
60047 Where a break in care
1. is for any reason other than hospital in-patient treatment and
2. lasts for more than four weeks in the 26 week period
no further breaks in care can be ignored in that 26 week period, even if they are in hospital.

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

Thanks not sure I understand it fully, but maybe you can offer so more insight.  Wife and myself are regarded as disabled and both get the carers allowance for one another.  She was in hospital in Aug from 5th until 22nd and then again from 30th Sept to 1st Nov.  She should never have been discharged in Aug which is why she was readmitted urgently on 30th when she almost died. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't fully understand what it says. The last bit seems to say that as the second stay in hospital was within 26 weeks of the first hospital stay, that Carers Allowance cannot ignore the break in care. In other words the Carers Allowance stops being payable from 30th September.

 

Did they tell you that you stopped being eligible for Carers Allowance from 30th September ?

 

Suggest asking for mandatory reconsideration of the decision, which will force them to explain the decision.

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

6 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

Don't fully understand what it says. The last bit seems to say that as the second stay in hospital was within 26 weeks of the first hospital stay, that Carers Allowance cannot ignore the break in care. In other words the Carers Allowance stops being payable from 30th September.

 

Did they tell you that you stopped being eligible for Carers Allowance from 30th September ?

 

Suggest asking for mandatory reconsideration of the decision, which will force them to explain the decision.

 

I have already asked them about reconsideration and I got nowhere as it seems they do not understand the rules fully either as all they tell me is that it will be back paid. 

 

However even so it is now 7 weeks since my wife was discharged from hospital and still no sign of the benefit being reinstated although we are entitled to it and it has been confirmed that it will be reinstated eventually, but no idea when.

 

The rules are very confusing and not exactly clear and are opposite to what we were told previously.  If they had diagnosed my wife correctly the first time instead of discharging her too soon, there probably would be no issue

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Although we both get PIP they also removed the "Severe disability element" for some strange reason.  According to their rep that I spoke with yesterday this should not have been removed and they will be investigating.  It has now been nearly 3 months since they stopped it.  They were very quick to stop the benefits, but extremely slow to reinstate them!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...