Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Clinically vulnerable and face to face Job Centre appointments, advice appreciated.


Jeff1969
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1102 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

There is no clinicaly vulnerable anymore or extremely clinically vulnerable, according to the government, as anybody in those catagories should have been vaccinated.

Staff feel the same as the OP, especially those with similar health conditions.

 

Staff should currently only be asking people who would benefit from a face to face appointment into the ofice, however the steer from on high, is to bring everybody back into the office. The current priority is 18 - 24 for kickstart.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be able to do a dual claim to ESA, if you meet the elgibility criteria. If not, just report a health condition on UC and they health journey/work capability process should start for you.

Exactly the same thing, but you just stay with UC.

Not much difference other then stamp paid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I would say your are being lied too. Current guidance is based on a ladder approach of current priorities.

 

Top of the ladder is 18 - 24 and then filters down to 25+ caseloads.

 

Our jobcentre is inviting people for a face to face, but then changing it if we get a request for a phone appointment etc. Video calls are now a thing as well, but slow rollout and not too many work coaches want to do them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, it's not your work coach doing this, it comes from ministers and work coaches have to do as directed on a national level.

 

Most work coaches agree that telephone appointments are just as effective as face to face appointment, but the higher ups won't hear of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...