Terms & Conditions

[Kevin D]

Bet that got your attention…. 👿

Day one: claim received.
Day one: decision made, irrespective of evidence.
Day one: clmt notified along with request for evidence.

PI satisfied.

“Justification”?

1) Clmt gets one month to request revision and/or provide evidence.

2) As the LA hasn’t allowed the one month minimum for evidence, it is an official error. Therefore, “any-time” revision is an option.

Utterly immoral and probably unlawful. Just wonder how many LAs will give serious consideration to this…..

And, is the above a result of knowledge of LAs already doing this, or at least very close to it? I couldn’t possibly tell…… 😈

Prediction: Suddenly, 400+ LAs deal with all claims in one day.

Have a nice day…..

[Accura]

Gets my vote!

😆

[Accura]

Gets my vote!

😆

[petedavies]

I think you are talking about a no entitlement decision?

A few have already tried and abandoned it.

Zillions of appeals/revision requests/complaints/angry customers. Not to mention the smattering of evictions because customers, in their blissful ignorance, assumed that the LAs would act properly and reasonably and accepted the statement that they were not entitled at face value!

Great PI but the service s*!#s!

[Kevin D]

Pete,

Um, ALL cases – not just nil entitlements.

Good to see that Accura’s so keen, he’s voted twice for it…. :).

Customer service? I’m sorry, that phrase is causing data corruption. It does not conpute (Ed: co[u:d9bb3fcb8a]m[/u:d9bb3fcb8a]pute, surely?). “Illegal operation”. Or a “stale widget” (IBSers will know that one….).

[Anonymous]

Kevin – we hadn’t even thought of anything like that one!! 😯 Obviously the product of some Machiavellian mind! 😉
Having said that, we are still not thinking about it now either!! 8)

[seanosul]

You could get it past Auditors – RvSB1 springs to mind as still relevant caselaw Im Sure Stainsby has more examples of caselaw on the subject of taking the word of the claimant. You would be doing so until proven otherwise.

[petedavies]

Kevin,

Did not make myself clear – I assume [u:565fd792c7]all[/u:565fd792c7] decisions are for 0 entitlement with the intent of triggering a response? That was certainly the case in the examples I have seen e.g:

[i:565fd792c7]”..you are not entitled because you have not provided evidence of your income.

If, however, you can provide (X, Y & Z) by DD/MM/YY we may be able to revise our decision”[/i:565fd792c7]

If awards are made I think the situation would become rather more problematic.

It is, however, a perfect example of how P.I.s can be corrupted both legally and easily

[Author]

Posts