Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the dilemma I had then and still have it. The bit that stopped me was the post 2015 comments about them being enforceable now in most instances which I feel hasn’t been answered unless I am missing something. the bonus I guess is not all credit agreements now will be chasing me so less people chasing me down so to speak. this is the problem as there is conflicting messaging out there it is hard to plan a strategic way forward 
    • In 2017 my wife was given PIP and I finally, officially, became her carer. In 2019 she was reviewed and we were told it would be done by phone to make it easier for her as she has mobility issues and anxiety. The review was very simple, Has anything changed? No, ok, we'll stay as you are then. In 2022 a second review, this time by phone again but with an awkward given at the end for 5 years. Today, we got a new review letter (I know wait lists are bad, but I dont think the wait will take til 2027 for a decision). We're a bit confused because it's a letter, not a phone call as before. The form is just questions that ask "has anything changed" Now, since 2017, nothing has changed except we had our home adapted via disability grant. This was noted in the phone calls. So we should really write that nothing has changed in the last 2 years. The adaptations have been mentioned in both previous phone reviews, but not in writing so I guess we should bring it up. But we feel that they want us to explain everything as if it were a new claim again... And are worried if we miss something in the original claim or the phone calls she will risk losing part of the award (a 2 point swing could be really bad) It does just say "has anything changed?" But in dealing with ESA prior to getting PIP, answering the question asked "has your condition worsened or improved" at a review process with a simple "no, I'm still the same" somehow led to ESA ending and needing appeal. So just want a bit of guidance. How much detail is needed? Is minimal ok? Or should we be blunt with the fact nothing has changed, and bullet point the things she struggles with in each section?   I know the obvious thing is to just explain it all,but over 10 years the sheer amount of times the poor woman has had ESA or PIP stopped/refused just because something was missed out in their report, or they felt it meant a new claim should be made, or that they judged her healthy because we missed a tiny thing in our forms. During COVID it finally seemed like it was all just going to be smooth, especially with the phone reviews and the 5 year reward, but here we are. We just want to make sure we have the least chance to trip ourselves up, but making sure we have what is expected if you get me? I wish I still had a copy of the forms from 2017, because I could just verbatim copy them and add in about the adaptation, but (ironically) we lost our photocopies we kept of them when the house was being adapted
    • might of been better to have got them all defaulted 2yrs ago as we carefully explained before then you'd already be 1/3rd there and your current issue would not be one.    
    • No doubt the hotel will have security cameras on the floor you were staying to confirm or deny the allegation??   The only compensation you will probably get, which will be discretionary as a goodwill gesture, will be a credit voucher for the entire hotel group. Very much doubt anything more than that as you have not substantiated, the hotel committed the transgression 
  • 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

MET PCN - awaiting for starbucks to open - 20 minute stay - Southgate Park, Stansted


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 92 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

Great work by NB, Lolerz and LFI.

So on top of the other thousand reasons why MET's claims are pants - any traffic infringements are covered by bye-laws and any "fines" should go to the state, not some private company.

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

For some reason Folkestone and Hythe sem to have got involved wih Stansted airport developments back in 2006 and at the end os their report show maps of Stansted airport as it then was.

https://service.folkestone-hythe.gov.uk/webapp/lydd-airport/CORE DOCS/CD10/CD10.2 (LAAG) Stansted)/STN_interim_masterplan.pdf

Around 2005 Uttlesford Council which is the Council that actually covers Stansted also issued a document and in Appendix 2 they had a Policy 

S 4 which included Stansted airport boundary that was included in their  Proposals map. 

I have so far been unable to find the proposals map.

However in view of Met never using PoFA at the Starbucks/McDonalds car parks it is questionable whether the search to prove where the boundary is worth the time expended.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood LFI.

However, I think the bye-laws element should be tested in defences and/or Witness Statements from now on.  Let's see how MET react, if they ignore the matter or try to argue the area is not covered by bye-laws.

Edited by FTMDave
Typo

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

Agreed,

If they use the word "Keeper" at all in POC's, it should be specifically addressed in the defence, putting them to strict proof of driver identity.

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go the other way Nicky. i would want them to pursue the keeper  since PoFA states that the keeper is liable if the PCN is not paid within 28 days. Only after they explain that they are pursuing the keeper is the time to point out that there is no keeper liability.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey all,

further letters received now and I’m not sure how much longer I can hold out,

obviously the amount is now tripled from the beginning but it’s stressing my mother out a lot

she already has plenty to deal with

I’m concerned I’m just adding to that.

Im sending another round of e-mails out and I’m going to try and reach the Stansted MP too,

but I’m not seeing many silver linings 

 

2024-02-27 DR+.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

hold out? against what...:noidea:

silly dca threat-o-gram

a dca is not a bailiff

and can do NOTHING they have ZERO legal powers on ANY debt.

dx

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

I understand that they're threats and don't carry much weight, but it's more about the stress that it's putting on my family (which i know is their tactic, but theres a reason it works)

Not to get all sob story, but my Dad suffers from Dementia and so my mum already has to deal with that, so the added threat of debt collection agencies reaching the household and threatening the household just throws in a whole new level of confusion and uncertainty that i'd really rather help them avoid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to read other threads and learn a couple of quick legal principles.

Say you & I got into a legal row about something.  I could sue you, and you could sue me.  Your best mate couldn't sue me.  My next-door neighbour couldn't sue you.  The case would have nothing to do with them.

It's the same with DR+ or any other DCA.  They can do nothing.  They have as much power as the orange peel I have just chucked in the bin.

It's excellent that they are sending the letters.  They can do nothing.  It's not that the threats "don't carry much weight", they don't carry any weight, there is no "threatening the household".

Just relax and ignore them.

No, don't relax - read similar threats so you familiarise yourself with the legal process.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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

It's just clicked with me that it is your mum, not you, who is receiving these letters.

Did you get any joy with Starbucks/Euro Garages?  That had been the key to victory after victory until recently when Starbucks started to be less cooperative.

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

Posted (edited)

Heya, yeah it’s my mum, I opted to take it on as I was hoping to avoid more stress. It’s less about me not being able to hold out from the companies, and more about my parents who are receiving the letters and harassment etc.

A lady from Starbucks has been trying to cooperate, but she says “I only have to appeal to them through the same portal as everybody else” so I don’t believe she is having any luck either.

Eurogarages still nothing.

Edited by Help099
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...