it sounds like your being fobbed off with excuses' and given the runaround,this doesn't sound right.i would take the advice erikapnp has given and put some pressure on these people.

the comment at the bottom always read the fine print,much the same as these charging orders theres no mention of this on any credit card applications. your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loan secured on it. scandalous story

any ppi that was pushed with this,yes write to cohen telling of your intention to counterclaim,check out the cputr regulations too a very useful weapon against such behavior and against any untoward threats anyone makes. you could amend and send them this.amend to suit. ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE Dear Sir/Madam, Your ref: Thank you for your letter of **DATE**, the contents of which are noted. I am disputing the total value of these debts with **BANK** due to unlawful and unreasonable charges. As such, therefore, I consider this account to be in dispute and no further action or payment shall be made until this matter is resolved. As per OFT guidelines Section 2.8k "not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt." Consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS. After taking advice, I am of the opinion that your continued pursuit is in violation of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 40, Protection from harassment Act 1997 section 3 as well as breaching a number of the OFT Collection Guidelines. I reserve the right to report your actions to any such regulatory authorities as I see fit. You have 14 days from receiving this letter to contact me with your intentions to resolve this matter which is now a formal complaint. I hope that you will enter into a sincere dialogue with me about this matter and I am writing this letter to you on the assumption that you would prefer to do this than merely respond with standard letters and leaflets. I would appreciate your due diligence in this matter. I look forward to hearing from you in writing. Yours Faithfully

that may be the case certainly people were being moved off jobseeking benefits just to keep the figures down. its very obvious those with disabilities' are being targeted for dubious reasons'.this is very true. also another theory governments' have a long memory of groups' that have caused them problems in the past.we've seen this in the early eighties and now were seeing it with the disabled today.they feel they need to take them on head to head and "deal with them".

it cannot be denied that keeping a complaints procedure internally and expected to sign for this is unfair/unreasonable.its the standard you'd expect form a sloppy debt collector. he (the independent case examiner) has a dwp email address.the time given before he looks at a case if unheard from the provider is eight weeks. http://www.ind-case-exam.org.uk/en/contact/index.asp#email mention an outside solicitor brought in shook the place. are the people employed by these providers crb checked to work with vulnerable adults?.i suffer from anxiety and its the job centre that triggered another attack.its not disability friendly. i don't know about anyone else but i am not buying what their selling.

these are passed on to add "clout" to get you to start paying the hsbc still owns the debt. if you counterclaim and inform them (cohen) of your intentions to do so it will most likely to be handed back to the hsbc,their hoping for a quick ccj no questions asked so be on your toes to any correspondence received.get it in dispute charges anything. that form shows no apr or payment times or dates check for these and any ppi.it needs the prescribed terms fully.

the whole thing was intimidating and this woman was "hell bent" on shoving me onto this.it looks that the term persecuted wouldn't be a wrong word to describe those on jobseekers disabled or not. the job centre tried to get me to sign a sheet keeping all complaints internally also,ie not delt with in eight weeks contact a unknown "independent case examiner", the whole procedure looks intimidating with "sanction" heavily mentioned.this is both unfair and discriminatory. it creats an impression this is inevitable. its potentially discriminatory to sign a piece of paper that claims i must participate/engage in all activities as directed going on to mention again sanctions.without mentioning what these are,this breaches the equality act and may well breech eu directives too.and this is just at the job centre. this paper should not be given to disabled people (or anyone else) and expect them to sign (i didnt) its happened before equality act breeches at the job centre denied and then claimed as a misunderstanding with the guardian whistleblower coverage. if your covered frank more then twelve months it may be well just asking the gp upfront am i covered by this act,its a heavyweight legally and those that breech it penalties are severe.this may well be that complaints are held internally by jobcentre plus and those employed by them,if the paperwork is signed they can say you breached an agreement to keep it as such.it could potentially undermine any later proceedings.be careful what you sign the message. it should be noted that the independent case examiner has a dwp e mail address.

i would look to see if your covered under the equality act,this will add a substantial weight behind any further problems that may be encountered.it only needs to to be more then minor or trivial to be covered. benefits like jobseekers allowance and the people that implement them are a major problem for the disabled,i have had an interview for the work programme and certainly that did not go well,the attitude was set before the advisor met me,i showed proof of my disabilities learning difficulties'/mental health problems but still it persisted,naturally my anxiety went up and i started to ramble. much as pixy mentioned and found the attitude was my benefits would be stopped as they saw fit even though no claim for had been submitted.i have never seen atos or claimed the sickness benefits but over the time was suggested i claim them,even this time are your sure you well enough,what this adviser didn't see only what she wanted too "i am treating you the same as anyone else" however it goes much deeper,the moment i stumble because of this dreadful program lasting two years this kicks in. (3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. taken from the equity act,still this person phoned this provider one of the first words ay disabilities then silence,i mentioned to this advisor the provider went quite this was ignored and still this went on. the danger with frank and any others like myself this while being played down,i was told to "shut up about it" by the shaw trust by an awful woman that hated the out of work .its not surprising that fell through,is the fact that you are very likely to be out of work for many years as the problems encountered through a disability are faced. one side of the work programe mentions "sanction(ed) twelve times,sending a disabled person with depression into that environment.the outcome is predictable.

your not wrong there frank.these are called whizz kids. the right stirring up division in society against those on low benefits though fabrication and misleading unsubstantiated reports causing resentment. its happened before against sections of the population and the ramifications are still being felt today with divisions in communities that have never healed.

its a little strange the work programme,it implies your obligations depend on which benefit you receive those on jobseekers allowance that have a disability and those who have a disability on employment support allowance which appears to offer greater freedoms. jobseekers disabled appear to have more stringent regimes,yet the equality act covers both. basically those on jobseekers are more likely to be discriminated against for being in receipt of jobseekers allowance simply because they claiming this benefit.given both have equal disadvantages in finding work.

whats to be noted to is the five days, cap on launching an appeal from being informed of a sanction.the decision maker isn't qualified in conditions for example phobias/mental health and has only the information often from equally non qualified people in outside companies. the problem with these cases someone just doesn't know whats been said about them.there is an evasiveness that exists until much later in the process of appeals and can be overwhelming to the person involved ie containing untruths.this all falls under the equality act umbrella for most as many of those deemed for these programs are affected. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/

those who have mental health conditions should have "good cause" when it comes to the mandatory work activity.this is stated here. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/688/regulation/7/made it remains to be seen if this will be followed particularly at the early stages given the climate within certain organisations and the appetite for sanctions. if a sanction is applied a robust counter claim can be immediately launched.

you shouldn't have borrowed money from nobody,borrowed means having to be paid back,also this will affect other entitlements.you've done yourself no favors,only served their purposes. its another case of just not wanting to pay,disrupting payments and as i was once told by one of these people "the system can mess you around".thanks for telling me.letters do appear to be being sent out late for appointments. gather all the evidence.the tribunal is independent of them,they are not keen on tribunals and will review the so called new evidence before the proceedings start.it would be worth getting outside help to help matters along such as the cab.its important to keep signing during this stage too.you might want to write a letter to caxton house with all this.keep proof of everything.

what your likely to receive from 1996 is a signature page with reference to the attached terms in this case a small booklet of t&c (you will not get a copy of the original agreement) with reference to access or just mastercard as the access name was dropped that year.however some have received the access version t&c's when they had the later only mastercard name card.

avoid doing anything that might arouse a claim from the dwp that you spoiled your application and face a sanction.submitted job centre applications are prime examples.

unfortunately information on what this scheme entails is impossible to come by without seeing one of the advisers associated with it,much of what has been published refers only to the method of how the private companies are paid. from what i understand the scheme lasts for up to two years and there is a period of so called work activity,in essence all that can be realistically expected is its content will be similar to the former new deal using the same companies its been described as the same old.

its always the same,it was on new deal "why am i being treated like this" get off the dole then the reply.someone is being described as being in training when all that is happening they are being abused and confined all day. unfortunately unemployment is here to stay, i was reading yesterday how harold macmillan lectured mrs thatcher in the summer of 1980 about the course taken. in an 11-page memorandum, Macmillan warned that while her programme of cuts may give a ''sense of exhilaration'' to her supporters, they were heading for industrial collapse and ''dangerous'' levels of unemployment. really this sums the whole situation up.its quite clear that taking all this out on the results is a totally fruitless exercise. as these schemes fail to provide jobs the attention then falls on sanctioning.

"matched" means that the vacancy is identical to the information supplied on the jobseekers agreement,a little window appears on the screen and is ticked as a match,however i have seen this ticked as matching when it is not.it all depends on the person.always keep proof of applying for these submitted vacancies'. they will use the slightest against you,true or false,being forwarded to the provider means you legal rights are being signed away,equally its a breach of the equality act for disabled people as the action of A is detrimental to B the person by its business practices which B is a disadvantaged person.

the jobs that your at risk of sanction are the ones that you are submitted for,brought up by the adviser and a print off of the details,these are the ones you have to watch.always apply and keep proof you did. papers exe your ok,if you didn't give the job centre any mention of this then you should be ok too,but there is always a risk if you've been given an interview and say didn't turn up but chances are your ok,jobs that are hard to get to means there is only a certain amount that can realistically apply,lots of people apply for anything just to keep to the agreement numbers required this can be passed of as broadening job search even if there no chance of success.keep to the agreement 100% with records as they are using anything as a chance to sanction. the only other time any job applied for is checked if your on a government programme and a folder is kept of your applications,this happened on the former new deal where the provider would literally check up on someone did they attend/get the job on every occasion even trough the papers . i dont want this to sound as tips on playing the system but its good advice that will keep out of the spotlight and importantly keep your money during a difficult time.

if this job title was not on the jobseekers agreement then that stands in good stead too.but always appeal if necessary.

whoever told you that gave misleading advice and a potential sanction is looming,they shouldn't have said that. appeal turned down sounds interesting so you attended a tribunal and your claim was dismissed?. sadly that's a typical response from these people,if the sanction has been imposed all you can do is appeal against that decision giving your reasons.you should have been given a job centre application at the time the submission was made and kept proof of either handing it in or posting. its a devious way of sanctioning people through initial lack of knowledge and this has been going on for many years. people have applied kept proof and still received these letters' its heavily weighed against the person applying and its up to the applicant to keep proof of applying (must always) but recently they will use the slightest they can against someone to avoid paying them.

your right it should mention that's the case,it "should" stop the submission for irregular hour starts that wastes everyones time. that's disability based but could possibly be if that's the case.

if one was signed in the first place,if no agreement was signed then no copy can be a true copy hence "if any" in the 74 act nor can one be simply invented. usually what happens or did is that they send a copy of their latest for reference stating that they cannot find the original,in most pre 07 cases there wasn't any cca thus without the prescribed terms its unenforceable. a letter follows stating they wont be pursuing the outstanding amount and it will remain unsatisfied on your credit reference for six years'. its not unknown for some creditors to send agreements claiming to be true copies when they are not,sometimes glaringly so with discrepancies.equally they pile on all sorts of unreasonable charges so it can be disputed on this also,usually the infamous "substantial effort i have made trying to contact you" which everyone one gets if they did contact or not.

you are at risk of a sanction,however you did attend and the events that lead to having to go home feeling unwell,you need to put all this down as evidence and perhaps back the claim up with a doctors letter. avoid mentioning "I did not make any great effort to return" but instead i felt to unwell to return.many people have fallen foul of this including those that did apply hence always keep proof of applying. it may be equally that what has been discovered by pixy here that the company did not supply a list of who or who didn't attend as practice so it may be worth contacting the company to find out if this was the case also .instead people appear to be randomly selected to receive such letters and phishing for sanctions. always appeal against any decision made against you.and keep proof of previous jobs applied for as evidence that may be needed at any future tribunal.

good luck with it,take along all other evidence that jobs have been applied for also to the appeal,the papers that the dwp supply before often contain untruths and other weight through unjustified comments.