BT

Well I opened my on-line BT bill on the 11th of the month and straight away I notice there are changes on the bill. The first was a refund of 6 days payment and recharged at a higher price, I thought that once they had accepted a payment for a service that payment was legal and binding. Says something about BT if they can refund a payment then submit another bill for a new higher price!
Straight away a look up another provider and sign up as I never received any notification from BT that they were putting the price up, either through snail mail or email, I then look up cancelling mid contract and one of the first results gives me this http://consumers.ofcom.org.uk/news/protection-for-consumers-against-mid-contract-price-rises/
It basically says that they should allow customers to move without any penalty mid contract if they increase the prices I sent this and the relevant part, plus the whole link to Libby Barr at BT needless to say I heard feck all, so posted on their facebook page which they took down but contacted me asking for details which they got.
They gave me a reference number and claimed to get back in 48 to 72 hours, we are now 22 hours from the 72 hour mark and still no response. The price increase may be minimal in the terms of BT but they conned me 12 months ago into signing up to BT SPORT to stop the payment of £5 a month they now give it free to broadband users so like I said I feel conned into signing up to an 18 month subscription, in a way their price rise has come as a bit of a blessing in disguise that should allow me to free myself from the clutches of BT, even if the new provider I chose is owned by BT and the only network I can get BROADBAND on is a BT line, that is until Virgin put their network in round here.

Got a fine after meeting with compliance officer and some money to pay back

Well 3 months after the meeting with the compliance officer I get a letter saying I have to pay back a total of £416 including a £50 fine for not informing them of changes. I am a person that gets my statements on-line and never check the amount in the account I just go to the mini bank and put in the amount I want and have always got it, in fact I have never checked the amount in the account since 2008.

Anyway after I got the letter I sent the DWP an email asking them to show how money from a benefit that is not counted as income can suddenly be classed as savings if not used. I got this letter on the 24/5/16, over 3 months after the interview and 6 weeks after they said I would hear from them.
If I hear from their recovery unit in the next few weeks I am going to send the cunts a letter, again asking for them to show in the DLA or PIP rules that a disregarded benefit can be classed as savings if not used and the date on which it became law and that it must specifically relate to those benefits. If anything there is no such ruling that a disregarded benefit is classed as savings if not used, they may try to use the basic savings over £5999.99 incur a reduction of benefit, that means £6000 incurs a £1 a week deduction in benefits.

Meeting with a compliance officer

It's been quite a while since my last post mainly because of flooding, I was without the internet for months but still had to pay for the bloody thing. I went back to the place regularly after the flooding to pick up my mail. One day I picked it up and noticed a letter from the DWP that was the first one I opened when I got back to the temporary accommodation, it was to attend their office for a bloody compliance interview, just a few days later, the wankers.
I could have cancelled but decided to try and make it there for the time on the letter 10am. I walked through the door at 10.02am and was told I had to go upstairs, I was absolutely knackered from getting there so I asked if there was a lift and they said no so I went up the stairs very slowly taking about 10 minutes to climb the 20 steps only for them to tell me it was downstairs I needed to be. I swore saying another fucking fuck up by the DWP and their Nazi's. The person stood there open mouthed and some security guard came up and said something I don't remember what but I had a right go at him before he backed down.
When I eventually got to see the compliance officer a good 25 to 30 minutes had passed and I wasn't in the mood for any shit from them.

He went through some crap them proceeded to say that between certain dates I had more than permitted in the bank. I proceeded to tell him that all I ever read on any crap they sent me was the appointment time or the amount of that years increase as that was always on the first page and any other pages were filed in the bin with the envelope. It was then that my phone wrung and I cancelled the call, at this point he must have suspected I was recording the interview because he turned all nice, like butter wouldn't melt in his mouth. Too late I had been recording before I got in the building for him to act all nice now. 

He proceeded to ask more questions and just got the same answers until I got fed up and shouted I have fucking answered that 3 times all fucking ready at which point he said he was just going to write his statement then read it back to me, he did just that but read it as he wrote it and I pulled him up a few times and made him put in the part about not knowing about the £6000 lower limit and skim reading for appointment dates and times or how much they had increased it that year. After he wrote it he asked me to sign it and I did putting 3 dots before my signature meaning it was signed under duress. I wonder why the DWP haven't got back to me yet maybe they know the three dots and are going to leave me alone, we will just have to wait and see has he said it would be 2 months before I heard and that time has passed. 
Come to think of it the cunt kept my appointment letter, never mind I can just ask for a copy if I need it I know how to ask them for stuff.

POLICE HARRASMENT

Tonight I answered the door because I thought my son had gone out without his keys only it wasn't him it was the police they wanted to come in and speak to me about an incident that happened weeks ago so I told the officer no and shut the door. The officer did not leave he kept knocking on the door and going to the communal flats entrance and pressing the buzzer, I just let the dogs bark because if I went to the door  again I would have killed him.
I consider the continuous knocking at the door  and ringing of the communal buzzer to be harassment because has soon as I declined the officers actions which was if he could come in so I asked what for then when he said I refused him entry because as soon as you let them in they have the power to arrest you, I know the dirty tricks they use and would advise anyone who opens the door to a police officer who asks if they can come in to ask why and what they want.
The think he had come about was something that happened about 6 weeks ago, and as soon as I closed the door on him he should have left not continually knock and ring the communal buzzer for 15 to 20 minutes in an attempt to get me back to the door.
As far as I remember the incident involved an altercation with another resident and dogs, the person made out I assaulted them, but that was after they made a remark about a disability so I have a counter claim of a disability hate crime been committed against me.
Along with the alleged assault was the point of not picking up after the dogs, one which will strongly be contested if it is pushed and the best of the lot is that they gave a list of streets that dogs must be kept on a lead and none of the areas I take the dogs is listed so I will ask any court to point out the streets on the list that relate to where I take the dogs and state that any area not on the list is not included and as a point of law cannot then be said to include surrounding areas, and if they then try and say such I will prosecute them the closest they get to the streets they are walked is around 200 to 300 meters from my home as none of the streets around my home are on the list, I know people will say dogs should be on a lead but it is like finding a loophole and using it and I believe I have found such a loophole that the council cannot get out of.

It will take amendments to by laws to put it right and until then I walk the dogs how I see fit.
I only made one mistake in that I didn't get the officers name and number but may put in a complaint against the police as by OFFICER OR OFFICERS UNKNOWN because once I refused them access they shouldn't have continued to knock at the door or ring the communal buzzer, knowing I wasn't going to answer the door.

Before I finish I will say I take medication that if provoked by anybody I do react and only today I had a go at someone who mentioned dogs on leads I got right in his face before he backed down. I nearly went to the door after 10 minutes or so and hit the officer but felt that knackered that I didn't otherwise there would have been an officer down.

FOI sanctions for not applying for enough jobs

In a twist of fate the DWP are reluctant to say how many jobs a claimant has to apply for so as not to be referred for a sanction. They decided to reply by saying the following

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request dated 19 August 2015. I apologise for the delay in replying to you. You asked:   
Could you please provide me with the minimum number of jobs a claimant has to apply for in a 7 day period to avoid the risk of been referred for a sanction. 
It may be helpful if I explain the role of the Freedom of Information Act. The Act provides a right of access to recorded information held by a public authority like DWP (subject to certain exemptions). The Act does not provide that a public authority must create new information to answer questions; nor does it provide that a public authority give advice, opinion or explanation in relation to issues/policies under question.  
In cases where a customer does ask a question, rather than request recorded information, we do our utmost to provide the recorded information that best answers the question. Once the public authority has provided the recorded information or confirmed that no such recorded information is held, it has met its obligations under the Act. Interpretation of any information provided is left to the requestor. 
We have understood your question to relate to Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA) claimants to whom the Jobseekers Act 1995 and Jobseekers Allowance Regulations 1996 apply. As there is no legal requirement for JSA claimants to apply for a minimum number of jobs each week, no legislation or national guidance stating otherwise exists. However, to be helpful you may find the following explanation useful about the entitlement condition for JSA claimants to actively seek work. This has however been provided outside our obligations under the Freedom of Information regime. 
In order to qualify for JSA, a person must be actively seeking work in each week of their claim. This means they are generally expected to do all they reasonably can each week to give them the best prospects of securing employment. The actions that it would be reasonable for the claimant to take will be personalised and tailored to the individual and will be specified on their JSA Claimant Commitment. 
Evidence shows that claimants who engage in active, effective and persistent jobsearch activity are more likely to find work quickly compared to those that don’t. Therefore, the expectation is that for most JSA claimants, looking for work will be a full time job in itself. Claimants are expected to spend several hours each day
looking for work, taking into account any restrictions applied to their availability. However, there is no `set’ time that a person must be engaged in looking for work whilst claiming JSA, rather it is a legal requirement for them to do all that is reasonable for them to do each week. 
If you have any queries about this letter please contact us quoting the reference number above.    Yours sincerely,   
DWP Central FoI Team  


They are clearly trying to say they are not an advice service, when they use so many varied reasons for applying a sanction, one of their excuses is not applying for enough jobs, all that was wanted was a clear guideline on how many jobs a person has to apply for between each signing on period, be it one a day or one per week.
The advisers clearly seem to think that it can vary from day to day and may refer a claimant for a sanction because they only applied for one job per week, while another adviser may refer a claimant for a sanction because they applied for five or ten jobs per week and simply say they are not doing enough to find work. I would have gone further on the request and asked then what details they refer to a decision maker with regards to a sanction referral, do they just put not applying for enough jobs when they refer it to a decision maker or do they actually say the claimant has applied for X number of jobs, something I think they do is the not applying for enough jobs and leave out any figures.

The DWP or JC+ should clearly have it in their rules that a person agrees to apply for a minimum of X job(s) per week and this should be information that can be freely given out to anybody who asks, but it appears the DWP are using the NOT AN INFORMATION SERVICE card to avoid giving out any official, or unofficial, directions of how many jobs a claimant has to apply for. It is my opinion they are lower than a rattlesnakes balls.

Pulling products and contracts

Tesco are pulling products off shelves their latest is Carlsberg lager they are soon going to be left with very few if any branded products. They have pulled products like schweppes, Ribena, just what is this organisation up too? It is my opinion that they will eventually get rid of just about every brand product and go down the ALDI/LIDL route, stocking the shelves with mainly own brand products from their value to the speciality range. They will try and squeeze the brand suppliers out of business, just like they did to local shops.

If the customers let them do this and brand names disappear from shelves then that will be it for the brand names and eventually Tesco, if they are allowed to get away with it, they are hoping to get the product from the makers at cost, or less,  if they don't comply then they are, IMHO, refusing to stock them.
They are effectively holding suppliers to ransom, telling them how much they want and how much they will pay then charging the customers top price, it is time the supermarkets were made to display how much they paid the manufacturer per unit, be it a can or tin, the only way suppliers can compete with demands from supermarkets is to pay the producers less per unit, just like they've done with milk, they pay less but expect the customer to pay the same or more. It's the same with other supermarkets with their 3 for £10 offers they still cost £10, take the cost of mince as an example the first time I bought it you 800g now you get 600g, that's 25% less for the same price and it's the same with all 3 for £10 offers meat cut thinner and less weight but the same number of items in the box but they weigh less.

Once one supermarket does it the others follow, it's the customers who hold the power when shopping not the supermarket, think about it for a minute, if you don't shop there they don't make the money and stuff is reduced because they cannot sell it.
The one thing that any supermarket hates is to see a potential customer go into the store and leave without making a purchase! They wiped out most of the local stores now they want to wipe out the branded product makers, well maybe not wipe them out, but hit them so hard they have no option but to get out by selling to the supermarkets at a low price, then after a while you see a store full of own brand products that creep up in price until they are charging the price that the brand product supplier wanted to charge in the first place. It's called wiping out the competition, they either submit and take the loss or go bust and the supermarket steps in and buys it for virtually nothing and uses the recipe to improve their own products. Once they have removed the competition they go on to increase the prices has they now hold the monopoly they have in all effect removed the premium brand suppliers and can steadily raise their own brand prices and the losers in all this are the low paid and benefit claimants who cannot afford the increased prices.

Scams pulled by supermarkets

I have just come back from shopping and noticed a special offer on a cleaning product, the product was FLASH MULTI SURFACE CONCENTRATED CLEANER 400ml the original price was £2.05, but reduced to 96p.
There was two fragrances on the shelf CRISP LEMON and BLOSSOM & BREEZE I put the blossom & breeze into my basket and continued on round the corner where it was noticed that only the LEMON was 96p all the others were reduced to £1.17, 21p more and the original price for the other fragrances were marked at a full price of £2.49 (£1.17 reduced price).
I have known supermarkets reduce one product while at the same time increasing the same product because it is in a different container, or having the same product on sale at two different prices in the same store, how they do that when they use a bar-code is beyond me.
I wonder how many people just saw the 96p and thought they had the option of two fragrances when on closer inspection of the label it stated CRISP LEMON was the only fragrance on offer at 96p and all the others were 21p dearer. How many didn't even check the receipt after paying for the BLOSSOM & BREEZE fragrance, thinking they would be paying 96p but in fact paid £1.17.
Maybe this was a one off by an employee who just wanted to get the product on the shelf, but in my opinion it was a deliberate ploy to mislead the customer into thinking both the fragrances were on offer at 96p as the customer normally only sees the price not that it relates to just one fragrance.
I emailed the CEO of Morrison's to tell him exactly what I thought, lets see if he replies personally of sends it down the chain for one of his customer service staff to deal with.