Forgot your password?
Posted July 8, 2010
Posted July 6, 2010
It was the Minister who ordered them to have all the reinstatements completed by the end of September.
The Tribunals and thopse cases are not covered by the order or the work being done by the ExpoTeam they, like us, are still waiting to hear whether the outstanding Tribunal cases are even Lead Cases because the Tribunal hasn't even handed down their decision on that issue yet.
Posted July 4, 2010
Realistically, nobody has any idea what the outcome will be. What is clear is that the DWP have threatened to take the case to the Higher Tribunal if they loose but in the current climate, who knows what they will do.
Additionally, the DWP have already lost this part of their case at previous Upper Tribunals when Judge Mesher ruled that the date of eligibility was the date the benefit was originally awarded, not the reinstatement date which for the majority of us that's 18 October 2007. So the bit that's currently missing has been awarded at the Upper Tribunal. Hopefully, the DWP will realise that this element of any appeal will be a no-brainer for the Judge - existing case law will apply - and the missing bit will be reinstated.
BUT, if it does go to the Upper Tribunal, we have no idea which case will go there, the current claimants may decide not to take that part of the fight further and there may be others who have to make the case there.
Bottom line - nobody knows for sure, personally I think it will be reinstated but that can only happen if the DWP roll over on this or they get beaten in Court and don't appeal. I wouldn't count on the money being in the bank anytime soon.
in South West (Aquitaine, Midi-Pyrénées)
in The Complete France Post Bag
Posted July 3, 2010
Sorry CdL, you don't know that was instinct, you have no idea what was in his mind, he cheated, end of really.
About time FIFA bought in penalty goals for situations like that which may stop some of the cheats acting so instinctively, like when an opposition player brushes their leg they 'instinctively' fall over or the guy in another game who went down holding his head like he'd been hit by the assassins bullet when the replays showed he wasn't touched - there should be an instant replay and the referee should immediately red card the diver for his 'instinctive' cheating, cheating is cheating and until they get rid of dinosaurs like Sepp Blatter who seems to like the money without the responsibility for making the game clean, the cheats will continue to prosper.
They're dealing with racism well, now let's see them really clean up the game!
[quote user="Mr Coeur de Lion"] That player made a great sacrifice as he will certainly be banned from the semi final, and probably the final too. But he has got his country through. [/quote]
Great to think that a football player who is just a cheat makes 'a great sacrifice' - he was dirty throughout the game and he just cheated to stop another team actually winning, seems to encapsulate the whole ethos of the overpaid and arrogant divers, cheats and 'simulators'. The guy should be banned for 2 years!
Posted July 2, 2010
Sorry to cut across this thread other than to say that John has got this right with the exception of the divorce thingy, J and I both have the drive and dream we had when we arrived despite some horrendous things happening since but they have been dealt with.
John, have you/Di received my pms of the past few days? I don't have you email address for some reason (and mine has changed) and need to send Di a message.
Posted June 29, 2010
I have a new email address, I'll send it to you through here.
Posted June 28, 2010
None at all, initially the two Judge's Clerk told me about 3 weeks. However, since then there have been a large number of supplementary submissions, threats from the DWP to take it to the Higher Tribunal - like, we won't - and from what I remember, the case has been called in by the Chairman of the Judge's panel because of its complexity.
Basically, your guess is as good as anybody's but it's worth remembering that whilst others may benefit from the decision in this case, there are two claimants and their families/carers actively involved in these cases and it's them that are really fighting this on behalf of the rest of us.
Oh, and we still don't know whether these will be lead cases but that's becoming increasingly academic cos if the DWP loose, I think they'll roll over despite all the muscle flexing!
Posted June 27, 2010
HMG taken to ECJ, put on notice of proceedings May 2005, therefore legally should have put all claims in abayence which they failed to do
October 2007, HMG loose at ECJ on DLA, AA and CA but mobility element is excluded
3000 plus people then lodge requests for reinstatement
HMG come up with a new set of criteria and claim that as the law was ok until it wasn't ok, it was ok so therefore still not p[ayable
MHG then loose at 4 major Upper Tribunals but still refuse to reinstate
Massed complaints on compliance to the ECJ and to the Independant Case Examiner - decision by ICE still outstanding, awaiting decision from the 3/4 March Tribunals
ECJ take out infringement proceedings against HMG and eventually the Minister, Jonathan Shaw, changes the HMG tack and they agree that their new rules were rubbish and start to reinstate people, all to be reinstated by the end of September 2010
Across this, 4 test cases (representing over 300 claimants, it later transpired that these were NOT test cases) go to the Lower Tribunal on 3/4 March 2010, parts of which are overwritten by the Minister's decision
BUT, the Judges have to decide what the date of qualification is, HMG say it's October 2007 (ECJ date) but a Higher Tribunal Judge has already said it's the date that the benefit was first awarded, so those people who were disallowed say in October 2005 have not had their benefit backdated to that date, only to October 2007, which is the date HMG is currently using
And the mobility element was referred back to the ECJ as the result of a previous Upper Tribunal decision by Judge Mesher and it's likely that will be won by the claimants.
Think that's about it, 2.5 years of the campaign broken down into a few lines !!!!!
Posted June 26, 2010
Gay couple, went through civil ceremony in the Uk a few years ago thinking of moving to France. One is several years older than the other.
Does anybody know for sure wether the dependancy rules for E forms applies to gay couples who are civil partners?
Brilliant, another one sorted out!!!
As you say, part 2 is underway, just waiting for a decision from the Tribunal held on 3 March!
Posted June 11, 2010
in Other Topics
When did he say anything that could be anti-British in general, do you have any source for that apart from the Daily Mail and Telegraph?
I saw that Cameron was also criticised for not supporting BP more fully (in the 'Tory' press of all places) and 'siding' with Obama, how could he not but criticise BP for being so tardy and 'support' Obama by not supporting BP - another twisted British media concept.
From what I've seen and read, Obama's having a go at a British named and based multi-national company which is world-wide in it's operation, not 'UK plc' and the Brit that runs the company who seems incapable of being discrete or diplomatic and surely has been a PR disaster for BP. Interesting that the Chairman, not the Chief Exec, has been invited to the White House next Wednesday. And remember that Obama has already lambasted the government structures that lead to the contract being drawn up with BP for the deep sea drilling, he even called the relationship 'corrupt'.
Whether the company that was running the oil rig was American or not, a Brit company contracted them and obviously has the legal responsibility for what happened which is why they're there trying - ineffectively tho for many understandable technical reasons - to sort it out. If what has been said this morning is true, BP have been economical with the truth about the amount of oil that has been leaking and from what a family member of one of those killed on the rig has said, they were cutting financial/operating corners there all the time. It has to be seen yet whether the financial/operating cuts were the result of pressure from BP.
From what I can see, much of the anti-Brit sentiment seems to be in the minds of the UK press/media who seem to be whipping up yet another 'crisis' when there isn't one there at all on the back of some poor poll ratings for Obama on this issue, looking for any sort of link to divert people away from laying the blame for this where it lays, in poor contractual obligations whilst the contracts were being drawn up because it was beleived this could never happen so it wasn't included in the contract - like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island couldn't happen!
in French Legal Issues
Posted June 10, 2010
I've just taken over as Treasurer for something similar. The books were all made up to date, income and expenditure accounts, petty cash etc, hard cash in hand, all reconciled, all on disk and in paper form. I met with the outgoing treasurer for a hand over of the books and it went through swimmingly and we're a 1901 small organisation, no membership fees tho (commune funded) and with assets of under €5000.
I can't see what the problem is here, when I took over as Treasurer of something with membership fees, I just went to the bank with the outgoing Treasurer to have my name added to the account, made sure the books were up to date and then handed over to my successor in a similar manner.
For an organisation of your size there is no need for an independant audit, just make the books up, sort out your cash balances and hand everything over to your successor or the president.
Posted June 9, 2010
And the word is more reinstatements through today!
Right, now we sort out the other bits that HMG are still being silly about!
Posted June 8, 2010
Posted June 7, 2010
Posted June 6, 2010
[quote user="Pommier"]Just checked our CPAM account on this as my husband is covered 100% ALD. He pays the full €22 to the GP but it's refunded in full (but less the franchises and participations forfaitaire which means that there's never a refund of the full €22)[/quote]
That's what happens with me also, I pay the generalist and then get reimbursed, less the forfait. And forfait on the drugs I take are offset against my reimbursement on the drug 'bill'.
I don't pay anything when I go to the hospital to see my specialist nor do I pay anything if I have a domestic blood test.