Itrytoplease

Careful there. it's 28 days from the date ON the letter, I recieved mine with a 8 days differance between when i recieved the letter and the date printed ON the letter. basicly giving me just 3 weeks. ---------- Post added 03-07-2017 at 12:05 ---------- you really need written proof from your doctor, mental health team and anyone else who may be involved ie social worker, armed with these i would be inclinde to appeal, though CAB would be better at advising you.

Thank you,

I have 1000 minutes included in my contract, why would i put extra money on my phone to call the police? It is in the public intrest to inform the police as to whats happening, and where, but I for one will never phone them again on 101.

I have/had a reason to phone the police 5 minutes ago, not a 999 call but still important to me so I phoned 101, I haven't got enought credit on my phone? that means they must charge the calls at a premium rate, What a cheek, it seems they will do anything to lower the reported crime rate, either that or they don't want you to report a crime.

What I was after, i think was a council member to tell the TRUTH, this spin crap has ruined Britten, no one admits to mistakes any more, were all human and we all make mistakes. If the council had come out and said "were not sure about our high rise flats, but we will find out ASAP and if work needs to be done it will be done" - not come out with " our hgh rise flats are SAFE"

The council still say's the building is safe (6.0 clock news) so are they wasting our money by removing this cladding? The government say's 95 buidings have been tested (I presume sheffield was on that list) and all 95 FAILED.

HANOVER the council states - We are checking the metal cladding on our tower blocks and it has now been confirmed a single element of the cladding system at Hanover has failed new fire tests. what an understatement, a "single element" - yes IT'S FLAMABLE!. The thousands of pounds it's cost us for the brochers the council put out to inform us "all our tower blocks are safe" very expensive toilet paper. not to mention the E/MAIL they sent out.

67 high rise have been trsted to date, and 67 FAILED - 100% fail rate, and the council say ours are all OK ? we'll see.

Owners of Hotpoint fridge freezers with model number FF175BP or FF175BG have been urged to contact the manufacturer. This is following the Metropolitan Police Service’s statement that a Hotpoint FF175BP fridge freezer has been identified as the initial source of the Grenfell Tower fire. Hotpoint said 64,000 units of the same model were made between 2006 and 2009, when they were discontinued, and that the number in circulation would be lower given the time period involved. The government has ordered an immediate examination of the unit by technical experts to establish the cause of the incident. These fridge freezer models haven’t previously been subject to any product recalls, and this testing will establish whether any further action is required. What to do if you have this Hotpoint fridge freezer Consumers who believe they may own a Hotpoint fridge freezer model number FF175BP (white) or FF175BG (grey) should call Whirlpool Corporation’s freephone hotline on 0800 316 3826 or visit http://www.hotpointservice.co.uk/fridgefreezer to register their details for further updates. http://www.which.co.uk/news/2017/06/do-you-own-the-hotpoint-fridge-freezer-potentially-implicated-in-the-grenfell-fire/#?intcmp=HP.hero.large.2.wcunews.hotpointfridge.jun23

With a lot of research, and a £15.00 spend on the CPAG book "Personal Independence Payment-what you need to know" I won my appeal without actually going to court. I wrote to the court telling them my reasons why i thought their decision was wrong, and they sent a copy to DWP, dispite the face that this was exactlly the same reason as i quoted in the review they decided to reverse their decision, NOT go to court and to pay me the correct ammount. It's taken 12 weeks of hard work, but the end result was worth it. - thanks to you all. ---------- Post added 22-06-2017 at 16:52 ---------- ps The book wasn't much help as it didn't contain the actual rules to quote. in fact i'd say it was a waste of £15.00. (your's for a tenner - lol)

There only treated differently with regards to mobility, if your mobility gets worse after the age of 65 they put it down to fair wear and tear.

Scoville scale Naga Viper: 1,382,118 SHU Briefly the world’s hottest chilli in 2011, the Viper is a hybrid of other super-hots, including the Bhut Jolokia and the Trinidad Moruga Scorpion. Adrian Sherratt for the Guardian

PART 6Provisions relating to age Exceptions to section 83 where entitlement exists or claim made before relevant age 25. Section 83(1) of the Act (persons of pensionable age) does not apply where C has reached the relevant age if C — (a)was entitled to an award of either or both components on the day preceding the day on which C reached the relevant age; or (b)made a claim for personal independence payment before reaching the relevant age and that claim was not determined before C reached that age but an award of either or both components would be made in respect of C but for section 83(1) of the Act. Claim for personal independence payment after an interval and after reaching the relevant age [B]26.—(1) Where C has reached the relevant age and makes a new claim in the circumstances set out in regulation 15 the following exceptions apply. (2) The exceptions referred to in paragraph (1) are — (a)section 83(1) of the Act (persons of pensionable age) does not apply; (b)the reference to ‘2 years’ in regulation 15(1)(b) is to be read as ‘1 year’; ©where C is assessed as having severely limited ability to carry out mobility activities for the purposes of the new claim – (i)C is entitled to the enhanced rate of the mobility component only if C was entitled to that rate of that component under the previous award; and (ii)where C is not entitled to the enhanced rate of that component because of paragraph (i), C is entitled to the standard rate of that component provided that C was entitled to that rate of that component under the previous award; and (d)where C is assessed as having limited ability to carry out mobility activities for the purposes of the new claim, C is entitled to the standard rate of the mobility component only if C was entitled to that component, at either rate, under the previous award. Revision and supersession of an award after the person has reached the relevant age 27.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), section 83(1) of the Act (persons of pensionable age) does not apply where — (a)C has reached the relevant age and is entitled to an award (“the original award”) of either or both components pursuant to an exception in regulation 25 or 26; and (b)that award falls to be revised or superseded. (2) Where the original award includes an award of the mobility component and is superseded for a relevant change of circumstance which occurred after C reached the relevant age, the restrictions in paragraph (3) apply in relation to the supersession. (3) The restrictions referred to in paragraph (2) are — (a)where the original mobility component award is for the standard rate then, regardless of whether the award would otherwise have been for the enhanced rate, the Secretary of State - (i)may only make an award for the standard rate of that component; and (ii)may only make such an award where entitlement results from substantially the same condition or conditions for which the mobility component in the original award was made. (b)where the original mobility component award is for the enhanced rate, the Secretary of State may only award that rate of that component where entitlement results from substantially the same condition or conditions for which the mobility award was made. (4) Where the original award does not include an award of the mobility component but C had a previous award of that component, for the purpose of this regulation entitlement under that previous award is to be treated as if it were under the original award provided that the entitlement under the previous award ceased no more than 1 year prior to the date on which the supersession takes or would take effect.[/b] C = Claimant

There Was ...... The UN Inquiry into the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in the UK Published Monday, March 6, 2017 This Commons Library briefing paper provides information on the inquiry by the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into the impact of Government policies on the rights of disabled people since 2010. The UN Committee inquiry At the end of August 2015, it was revealed in the national press that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was to conduct an inquiry into the impact of the UK Government’s policies on the rights of disabled people. The inquiry was conducted under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to which the UK has been a signatory since 2007. The Optional Protocol allows the UN Committee to investigate a State Party if they have received reliable evidence of ‘grave and systematic violations of the Convention’. The UK is the first country to be investigated by the UN in relation to this Convention. The Committee's findings The Committee's report, published on 6 October 2016, found that Government reforms*had led to ‘grave and systematic’ violations of the rights of disabled people. The report emphasises*the impact of changes to Housing Benefit entitlement, eligibility criteria for Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and social care, and the closure*of the Independent Living Fund. The Government's response The Government published a robust response alongside the publication of the Committee’s report, stating that it “strongly disagrees” with the findings. What next? Like other UN human rights conventions, the CRPD does not contain any mechanism that allows the Committee to enforce its recommendations. As the Government’s response to the report rejected all the recommendations made, there are no more official steps in the process. This report was Just ignored. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7367

Does anyone have this man's number please, I think the brushes/bushes have gone in my scooter, either way it will not move though the lights horn etc work. Thanks ---------- Post added 30-05-2017 at 16:45 ---------- Up date - I asked "Parkgate" to call round, fixed the problem in less than an hour and never charged me a thing, Just the call out charge of £35.00 I can't fault them.

I was told last week that they "don't do that any more" with regards fitting a ramp in my house

Sorry to hear that, It's a long time to wait, but, on the bright side if you win it will all be back dated (I believe) ---------- Post added 30-04-2017 at 10:38 ---------- There was a time when you could do these appeals on your own and have a good chance of winning, but nowadays you need a pro. to help put your side across.

If the car is tax exempt, as it will be, you will not be able to use the car for your own needs.

And we paid our national insurance, about £1.10s in the mid sixty's, equivalent to about 7 gallons of petrol in todays money.

I believe the tories are the only party that can deal with brexit and would have had my vote, except for this "hit the pensioners policy" by getting rid of the triple lock.

Pensions are not a "Means" tested benefit, rich and poor can claim it.

I've never tried to tell people how to vote before, but if your a pensioner be prepared to have your pension cut for the next 5 years. Once again MAY has refused to guarantee the "Triple Lock" which can only mean one thing - pensions going DOWN.

No triple lock - No vote, In five years she can bring us to our knees before we have the chance to get her out.

Keep look, you may find one on the NHS while waiting for the appointment. - just a thought. ---------- Post added 22-04-2017 at 19:14 ---------- What about Charles Clifford ?

I have fittd a battery alarm to mine, though a wired system would be better. I find it quite ammazing that people just leave these expensive aids outside shops, pubs etc without any security - The theft of mobility scooters is on the rise.