This isn't quite correct, you still had to have an exemption certificate before then. I had one back in the 1970'sI replied to this earlier, but the mods appear to have taken down my useful answer. Type 1s used to have blanket exemption just like the over 60s and under 16s until 2002,
I replied to this earlier, but the mods appear to have taken down my useful answer
Yes but it would have been issued once and that was it. Even so, they have never had the legal right to raise this fine without proving knowing deception. They should make it a blanket exception, repay the money they have wrongfully taken and apologise for their letters threatening people's credit rating.
Yeah there isn't a threat to credit ratings ....not yet anyway (it might come to that if the publicity/wheels set-in-motion do not act quickly enough)
.
You must be further down the line than I am then. Write to them and ask for their legal basis, under the logic in #530.
I am going to write to them on that basis, along with all the other information in this thread. My printer could be very busy LOL
Most definitely show any letter, that threatens a credit rating, to a solicitor. Anyone that issues such, in the absence of a credit agreement being breached, must be taken to task. I still can't believe that any organisation would have the nerve or stupidity to issue such a letter
hi i did what was advised.i never got asked for card for 7 years after my card run out.but they have not waived mine as a misunderstanding.pointed out the acts u stated.they said they said it they didnt think it was a fraudilent act.but still get a charge as it was out of date.The response from your MP will be that the minister cannot act, You have a right to fight this. Tell them about your circumstances and ring repeatedly until you get the result you want.
Pasted from below
No, the rules changed in 2002, but they didn't inform people who used to have blanket exemption before that point. In 2002, the info wasn't available online, so they'd have had to write speculatively to DH to ask if an irrational rule change had occurred. Diagnosis before 2002 would mean they didn't get reminder letters either. Finally, it's illegal for them to raise a charge if the individual didn't knowingly deceive the NHS. Section 122 of the Health Act 1999, or 194 of the NHS Act 2006 (same wording). Stop defending an indefensible, illegal act and stand beside your fellow diabetics. It is depressing that you acquiesced so quickly to this unfair victimisation of other people. Are you really that much of a pushover?
If anyone would like to know how to get around it, simply point out that the pharmacist never asked you for your certificate. My charge was waived as a misunderstanding and I'll now fight for a blanket exemption, such as is enjoyed by those under 16 and over 60. Easily administered in those cases, as it should be in the case of incurable conditions.
Edited due to offensive remark about another poster.
CC.
The response from your MP will be that the minister cannot act, You have a right to fight this. Tell them about your circumstances and ring repeatedly until you get the result you want.
Pasted from below
No, the rules changed in 2002, but they didn't inform people who used to have blanket exemption before that point. In 2002, the info wasn't available online, so they'd have had to write speculatively to DH to ask if an irrational rule change had occurred. Diagnosis before 2002 would mean they didn't get reminder letters either. Finally, it's illegal for them to raise a charge if the individual didn't knowingly deceive the NHS. Section 122 of the Health Act 1999, or 194 of the NHS Act 2006 (same wording). Stop defending an indefensible, illegal act and stand beside your fellow diabetics. It is depressing that you acquiesced so quickly to this unfair victimisation of other people. Are you really that much of a pushover?
If anyone would like to know how to get around it, simply point out that the pharmacist never asked you for your certificate. My charge was waived as a misunderstanding and I'll now fight for a blanket exemption, such as is enjoyed by those under 16 and over 60. Easily administered in those cases, as it should be in the case of incurable conditions.
this people should be trained or told of changes.
Edited due to offensive remark about another poster.
CC.
Some claims are being made on this thread that need to be substantiated. Otherwise people relying on them in good faith could make their situation worse.
"no exemption certificate was required before 2002" - from my own experience this is untrue
"before 2002 an exemption certificate was for life and didn't expire" - does anyone have evidence of this, eg a scan of a pre 2002 card?
"a new certificate is automatically sent out when the old one expires" - not in my experience but does anyone have proof of this?
they have said i am getting the fine for it being out of date.I don't think that anyone can prove that.
I thought that was the situation too, but after many days of searching I found my paper-card from the 1970's and it had a start date, and an end date 5 years later.
If anyone attempts to say that they had a card pre-2002 that was issued once and did not expire, NHS BSA will ask for proof.
Basically, they think that they have us by logic, which is
1. if you tick box E then you are saying that you do have an exemption certificate
2. if you say that you have one that never expired then you have to prove it
but it seems that they accept that no attempt at fraud was being made, so I would say to them that if they accept that, then what is the logical basis for the fine.
In other words, if someone ticked box E but never would have qualified for an exemption certificate, then fraud can be implied. But if someone ticked box E who would have qualified for an exemption certificate, then fraud cannot be implied. If fraud cannot be implied, then there is no logical basis for a fine.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?