Well now, 'Representation is not a term' (from Wikipedia - with acknowledgements) As enacted by the Misrepresentations Act,[3] the statement in question may constitute a representation even if later incorporated into the contract as a term (i.e. a warranty, condition or innominate term). An alternative approach, applied in parallel but in exclusivity to, is to find a collateral contract by interpreting the representation as a promise accompanied by some sort of consideration (see Heilbut, Symons & Co. v Buckleton [1913] A.C. 30 (H.L.)). The collateral contract will have the effect of adding the representation as a term to the contract. If the representation is found to be a term then the normal remedies for breach of contract apply. Criteria for Misrepresentation Misrepresentation is one of several vitiating factors which can affect the validity of a contract. A misrepresentation occurs when one party makes a false statement with the intention of inducing another party to contract. For an action to be successful, some criteria must be met in order to prove a misrepresentation. These include: A false statement of fact has been made, The statement was directed at the suing party and The statement had acted to induce the suing party to contract. Distortion of Fact A representor may make a statement which prima facie is technically true; however this may tell only half the story. If a statement of fact is made but the representor fails to include information which would significantly alter the interpretation of this fact, then a misrepresentation may have occurred. In Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563, Krakowski agreed to enter into a contract to buy a shop premises from Eurolynx as long as a 'strong tenant' had been organised. The contract proceeded on the grounds that such a tenant had been arranged. Unbeknown to Krakowski, Eurolynx had entered into an additional agreement with the tenant to provide funds for the first three months rent to ensure the contract went ahead. When the tenant defaulted on the rent and subsequently vacated the premises, Krakowski found out about the additional agreement and rescinded the contract with Eurolynx. It was held that Eurolynx’s failure to disclose all material facts about the 'strong tenant' was enough to constitute a misrepresentation and the contract could be rescinded on these grounds. Learned Falsity The negotiating stage of a contract can sometimes be a time consuming process. Because of this, new information may arise and circumstances may change. This can result in two particular situations which can result in a misrepresentation if silence is kept. The first is if the representor subsequently discovers that the statement was false, the second being if the statement becomes false at a later time. If a statement is made and it is subsequently made known to the representor that it is in fact false, it would obviously be inequitable to allow the representor to remain silent with the new information. In Lockhart v. Osman [1981] VR 57, an agent had advertised some cattle as being “well suited for breeding purposes”. Later on it was discovered that the stock had been exposed to a contagious disease which affected the reproductive system. It was held that the agent had a duty to take remedial action and correct the representation. The failure by the agent to take such measures resulted in the contract being set aside. Should a statement be made which is true at the time, but subsequently becomes untrue due to a change in circumstances, the representor is obligated to amend the original statement. In With v O’Flanagan [1936] Ch. 575, the plaintiff entered into a contract to purchase O’Flanagan’s medical practice. During negotiations it was said that the practice produced an income of £2000 per year. Before the contract was signed, the practice took a downward turn and lost a significant amount of value. After the contract had been entered into the true nature of the practice was discovered and the plaintiff took action in misrepresentation. In his decision, Lord Wright said "...a representation made as a matter of inducement to enter into a contract is to be treated as a continuing representation."[4]. This means that the representation must be true till the contract is made; creating the obligation mentioned above and accordingly the plaintiff’s petition was successful. Special Relationships Some relationships also provide that silence can form the basis of an actionable misrepresentation. Fiduciary Relationships (POSSIBLY - SWIFT ADVANCES PLC) A fiduciary relationship is one of trust and confidence; it involves one party acting for the benefit of another. For this reason, when entering into a contract, it is important for a fiduciary to disclose all facts which could be considered material even if not expressly asked about[5]. In ''Lowther v Lord Lowther (1806) 13 Ves Jr 95, the plaintiff handed over a picture to an agent for sale. The agent knew of the pictures true worth yet bought it for a considerably lower price. The plaintiff subsequently discovered the pictures true worth and sued to rescind the contract. It was held that the defendant was in a fiduciary relationship with the plaintiff and accordingly assumed an obligation to disclose all material facts. Accordingly the contract could be rescinded. Contracts ‘Uberrimae Fidei’ A contract uberrimae fidei is a contract of ‘utmost good faith’. Similarly to fiduciary relationships, the parties are required to make known all material facts influencing the contract. Contracts uberrimae fidei usually arise when one party has knowledge which the other does not have access to. Contracts which are commonly considered to be of such a nature include contracts of insurance and family agreements. When applying for insurance, the person or entity must disclose all material facts so that the insurer can properly asses the risk involved with the offering of insurance. Since the insurer cannot have access to all information relating to the insured and their situation which could affect the risk involved, it is necessary for this disclosure so that both parties are entering into the contract on equal grounds. Lord Blackburn addressed the issue in Brownlie v Campbell (1880) 5 App Cas 925 when he noted "...the concealment of a material circumstance known to you...avoids the policy."[6]. Another contract considered uberrimae fidei is that of family agreements. In Gordon v Gordon (1821) 3 Swan 400, two brothers had reached an agreement regarding the family estate. The elder brother was under the impression that he was born out of wedlock and thus not their fathers true heir. The agreement was reached on this basis. The elder brother subsequently discovered that this was not the case and that the younger brother had knowledge of this during the negotiation of the settlement. The elder brother sued to set aside the agreement and was successful on the grounds that such a contract was one of uberrimae fidei and the required disclosure had not been executed. Statement of Fact It is a general requirement that for an action in misrepresentation to proceed, that the statement in question be one of present or past fact. This has its grounding in that only facts can be distinguished as being true or untrue at the time they are made. Opinion Statements of opinion are not often seen as sufficient to produce a misrepresentation. Obviously it would be unreasonable to treat opinions in the same manner as truths as opinions can be based purely on personal beliefs with no additional foundation. There are however some exceptions where opinions can give rise to an action in misrepresentation: where an opinion is expressed yet this opinion is not actually held by the representor, where it is implied that the representor has facts on which to base the opinion, or where one party should have known facts on which such an opinion would be based. Intention and the Future Statements which are made in relation to the intention of a party or the occurrence of some event in the future do not constitute misrepresentations should they fail to eventuate. This is because at the time the statements were made they can not be categorised as either true or false. However, similarly to the first point above, an action can be brought if the intention never actually existed. This can be illustrated by the decision in Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch. D. 459, which deals with a statement of intention by the directors of a company to use loaned money to alter company buildings and make purchases to expand the company’s operating options. It was found that the directors actually intended to repay current debts and according it was held by the judges that the contract was voidable. Law Statements of law were, in the past, considered to be free from claims of misrepresentation because it is equally accessible by both parties and is "...as much the business of the plaintiff as of [the defendants] to know what the law [is].". This has since changed and it is now more recognised that statements of law should be treated as akin to statements of fact rather than occupy a special isolation. As stated by Lord Denning "...the distinction between law and fact is very illusory." Statement to the Misled An action in misrepresentation can only be brought by a representee. This means that only those who were an intended party to the representation can sue. This principle can be seen in Peek v Gurney (1873) LR 6 HL 377, where the plaintiff sued the directors of a company for indemnity. The action failed because it was found that the plaintiff was not a representee (an intended party to the representation) and accordingly misrepresentation could not be a protection. It is not required that in order to be a representee, the representation must be received directly. It is sufficient that the representation was made to another party with the intention that it would be made known to a subsequent party and ultimately acted upon by them as a representee. Types of misrepresentation Four types of misrepresentations are identified with different remedies available: Fraudulent misrepresentation (Derry v. Peek) occurs when one makes representation with intent to deceive and with the knowledge that it is false. An action for fraudulent misrepresentation allows for a remedy of damages and rescission. One can also sue for fraudulent misrepresentation in a tort action. Fraudulent misrepresentation is capable of being made recklessly. Negligent misrepresentation at common law occurs when the defendant carelessly makes a representation while having no reasonable basis to believe it to be true. This type of misrepresentation is relatively new and was introduced to allow damages in situations where neither a collateral contract nor fraud is found. It was first seen in the case of Hedley Byrne v Heller [1964] A.C. 465 where the court found that a statement made negligently that was relied upon can be actionable in tort. Lord Denning in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v Mardon [1976] Q.B. 108 however, transported the tort into contract law, stating the rule as: if a man, who has or professes to have special knowledge or skill, makes a representation by virtue thereof to another…with the intention of inducing him to enter into a contract with him, he is under a duty to use reasonable care to see that the representation is correct, and that the advice, information or opinion is reliable. Negligent misrepresentation under Statute, enacted by the Misrepresentation Act 1967. When dealing with a negligent misrepresentation it is most lucrative[16] (joint with fraudulent misrepresentation, Contributory Negligence notwithstanding[17]) for an action to be brought under statute law as the burden of proof that is required passes to the person who made the statement. So it is for the person who made the negligent statement to prove that the statement was either not one of fact but opinion and that "had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract was made that the facts represented were true"[18] - the so-called innocent defence. This creates an inconsistency of law due to the low burden and damages being calculated as extensive as those under fraudulent misrepresentation whereby a "wicked mind" is the basis of action. It is, to use the words of Rix J, "a mighty weapon". Due to academic and judicial criticism in this area, the law is ripe for reform - probably adjusting the measure of damages to that of negligent misrepresentation at common law. Innocent misrepresentation occurs when the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her false statement was true. Prior to Hedley Byrne, all misrepresentations that were not fraudulent were considered to be innocent. This type of representation primarily allows for a remedy of rescission, the purpose of which is put the parties back into a position as if the contract had never taken place. Section 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967, however, allows for damages to be awarded in lieu of rescission if the court deems it equitable to do so. This is judged on both the nature of the innocent misrepresentation and the losses suffered by the claimant from it. Sorry this long, but it (in my opinion) adds 'fuel to the fire', regarding the Fraud Act 2006 and the various DCA'a and sub-prime lenders, who are not acting in accordance with the principle 'would a reasonable person consider their actions honest?'. Best wishes Dougal

Banks wriggling out of paying PPI claims Paul Sims, Daily Mail 3 August 2009 Reader comments (4) | Guide Families are being forced to the brink of ruin as banks and finance firms refuse to pay out on redundancy insurance policies. Sold policies like Smarties: Banks have been accused of systematic mis-selling of PPI. Competition watchdog pushes for PPI ban Avoid the rip-off by finding a stand-alone policy. They can be 85% cheaper than from lenders. Up to one in six applications are being dismissed because of 'weasel exclusions' in the small print or because the payment protection policies were originally mis-sold, senior industry figures say. Before the recession, the banks and finance firms received up to £ 6bn a year selling the policies, which are supposed to provide cover for repayments on mortgages, loans and credit cards. But as unemployment soars past 2.3m, some are being accused of 'dishonouring' the policies. As a result many customers have been left fighting to save their homes. Vince Cable, the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said: 'This is outrageous and unforgivable behaviour. The same banks that profited from selling the insurance products are now potentially making these families homeless by dishonouring the policies.' The Financial Services Authority has already taken action against 19 firms for mis-selling payment protection insurance. Alliance & Leicester was fined £7m last year. One victim is David Sugden, 45, from Plymouth, who took out a policy with Black Horse, part of Lloyds, in case he lost his job because of a heart condition. In 2006 he was sold a new policy, replacing the old one, for £175 a month. But when he lost his job on the grounds of ill-health he was told that his heart disease was not, in fact, covered by the new policy and that he should have continued with his previous one. 'It wasn't worth the paper it was written on,' said Mr Sugden, who faces having his home repossessed if a court challenge to the bank fails. Ronnie Hutcheon, of Cheshire-based solicitors R James Hutcheon, is representing Mr Sugden. He said: 'The banks and finance firms sold these policies like Smarties. Many people are now finding out they were overcharged for policies that were not fit for purpose.' Payment protection schemes are among the most profitable policies ever devised in the financial industry. Out of £100 paid out in premiums, as little as £15 is returned in payouts. At the height of the lending boom, banks, brokers and lenders sold more than five million policies a year. Margaret Goodman, a 30-year-old mother of two from Cannock, Staffordshire, lost her job in telephone sales in January. She and her husband took out a joint £50,000 loan in January 2007 from broker Central Capital, which was secured on the family home. Mrs Goodman agreed to pay £12,724 plus interest for a payment protection policy. But when she was made redundant she was told it only covered her husband. 'We're now having to sell our home,' she said. Record numbers of complaints about the policies are being submitted to the Financial Ombudsman Service. In 2008-9 they out numbered complaints about bank charges by more than ten to one. Nearly 90% of the complaints are upheld. The British Bankers' Association said yesterday that banks had responded to concerns about payment protection insurance policies and were now providing more detailed advice to customers. It denied there had been systematic mis-selling. Lloyds Banking Group said it had rejected Mr Sugden's claim because of a pre-existing medical condition, but had offered to refund his premiums. Capital Claims said it was disputing Mrs Goodman's claim that it had not treated her fairly or sold a suitable policy. It said it was made clear that the policy did not cover both her and her husband for redundancy.

My calculation using the correct payments of £379.27/month from the start of the loan to default would give a default sum of £715.66 rather than the £823.09 demanded. A difference of £107.43. Any thoughts on the defence for this one?

Cabot Financial PO Box 241 West Malling Kent ME19 4NA FAO xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 3rd August 2009 Dear Sir, Account In Dispute – I Acknowledge No Debt to your Company ACCOUNT NUMBER: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Thank you for your letter dated 29th July 2009. Cabot Financial has not responded satisfactorily to the points I have raised in previous letters. This account had a balance of zero on 28th March 2008, 3 months before I had any correspondence from Cabot. I have seen nothing from you to prove that you purchased this account before 28th March 2008. I do not believe that you did so and are therefore trying to defraud me. I have not been provided with a true copy of a properly-executed credit card agreement as requested under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This is what I was sent in response to my request: Pages 1 & 2: Letter from Goldfish dated 4th December 2007. Page 3: Terms and Conditions for a Goldfish credit card. This is the first of 3 different sets of terms and conditions that I have received. Page 4: A copy of a Morgan Stanley Confirmation Form. This document refers to the Morgan Stanley Terms and Conditions and especially Condition 16 (Personal Data) . Page 5: This is the back of page 4 and is signed by a member of Goldfish staff with the words "I certify that this a true copy of the original document". Page 6: This is the terms and conditions that apparently complete the 'confirmation form'. They contain the same reference number as in page 4. It is noticeable that the signature confirming that this is the "original document" does not refer to this page. This page does not contain the Condition 16 referred to in Page 4. It appears to be terms and conditions that were in force 3 months prior to the date that the Confirmation form was signed. This is the second of the 3 different sets of terms and conditions. This document makes a reference to condition 7.3 of the terms and conditions. This term does not appear on this sheet or any subsequent sheet. Page 7: This is an "Account Information Statement". It contains details relating to another person - their name, account number and outstanding balance. Pages 8 & 9: This is the third set of terms and conditions. The 2nd page is dated 09/06 and makes a reference to the £12 charge, so these are current terms and conditions, not relevant to the original application form. Condition 15 is headed "Personal Data", not Condition 16 as mentioned in the earlier document. In my opinion, I have not been provided with a true copy of the properly executed credit card agreement and therefore this account remains in dispute. I will remind you that I will only correspond with you in writing and you are not to contact me by telephone under any circumstances. I will accept email to the above address. Yours faithfully, Fred Bassett

You can add this to the end of the defence too:- S.

Have you got your costs sorted? I've got a bookmarked example of a costs application for an LIP here you could follow and adapt...Only include the cases if they're applicable to yours Costs For Set Aside Application Case No xxx xx Court xxx April 2008 Rate Claimed Litigant in Person rate of £9.25 / hour Travelling Costs HMRC Approved Mileage Rate of 40p / mile 1) Time spent identifying and understanding relevant legislation. Time spent identifying and understanding relevant case law. Time spent preparing affidavit and skeleton argument. 18 hours £166.50 2) Time spent communicating with Respondant and swearing affadavit 2 hours £ 18.50 3) Loss of day’s wages for attending court on xxx April 2008 £ 80.00 4) Travelling costs for return journey to court 2 x 20 miles £ 16.00 Total £281.00 Notes Before undertaking this myself I approached a solicitor to handle this. I was given an estimate of 3 to 6 hours at £170/hour to prepare the Application (£510-£1020) plus extra for attending the court. I respectfully request that the court give consideration to awarding these costs on the indemnity basis or, in the alternative, on the standard basis as I believe, in any case, that they have been proportionately and reasonably incurred and/or are of a proportionate and reasonable amount. In support of this request, I would also like to refer the court’s attention to the authority of the High Court in the case of:- Hammonds (a firm) v Pro-Fit USA Ltd [2007] EWHC 1998 (Ch) In this case, Mr Justice Warren confirmed that it was usual for an indemnity award to be made:- 27 So far as disputed debts are concerned, the practice of the court is not to allow the insolvency regime to be used as a method of debt collection where there is a bona fide and substantial dispute as to the debt. Save in exceptional cases, the court will dismiss a petition based on such a debt (usually with an indemnity costs order against the petitioner).

Well done.and also thanks to 42man for looking in. Well you do seem to got the hang of all this. The only thing to do is research . however i am sure you will be fine. ANY QUESTIONS SHOUT. I hope the sun is out where ever you are lilly white

You have still not told us what you have been charged with so it is difficult to give you case specific advice. SRPO is right, IF you have been charged with the strict liability offence, you do not have a defence - only mitigation. You need to make clear what the charge on the Summons actually says. Whilst you are entitled to change your plea, I wouldn't do it the way you are suggesting You get the maximum credit for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity If you plead 'not guilty' the case will be set down for trial and the TOC witness (inspector) will be warned to attend. that increases the costs incurred by the TOC and if you are then found guilty, you might be ordered to pay higher costs. I would ask for an adjournment, you might not get it although that's unlikely because there will be evidence of correspondence on file, and you will not have entered a plea on that basis

High Court Enforcement Officers are NOT on the list. This is because the list is ONLY for CERTIFICATED BAILIFFS enforcing unpaid council tax, parking charge notices, child support agency arrears and unpaid rent.

Thread moved to RBS forum.

I think its referring to section 2(1) e of the Unfair terms in contracts regulations. S.

INSURANCE BROKER Name & Registered Office: PREMIER WRITERS LIMITED WHITCLIFFE HOUSE 58 WHITCLIFFE ROAD CLECKHEATON WEST YORKSHIRE BD19 3BY Company No. 01581947 My advise would be to send a letter to STERLING claiming part of the PPI back , or even give them a ring to start with, they are quite approachable. Explane you paid of the loan early and you beleive that you were entiteled to a part refund, even though you believe you were missold it in the first place. You also mention that there is a recording of your conversation reqarding the PPI. S A R them and ask for copies of the telephone recordings and all the information they hold on you. Sterling Insurance Group Ambassador House Paradise Road Richmond on Thames Surrey TW9 1SQ Tel 0845 271 1500 0870 224 0818 Regards Lynn

keep to one thread please. i'll get this merged with you original one. dx

It's not always the case though, and from my extensive experience, I'd say it's 50-50. I think buzby was saying "put up or shut up" to me. As long as the id added up, you're in the right. The fraudulent transaction comment of the OP's would have been what Paypal said, which is what they say on most occasions in my experience, but they don't - to use your terminology - put up or shut up! As the OP has said, the id matched. That means the most likely case scenario is the only fraud was the buyer insisting on the chargeback. In my extensive experience with Paypal it's a 50-50 on the buyer or seller. Normally it's whoever contacts them first. Apology accepted . Not bad for a newbie. I don't see the relevance of "Unfortunately the buyer did not contact me prior to the transfer of his funds to my Paypal account. Obviously I was not expecting anyone to pay for the vehicle until they had seen it, I was expecting cash on sale but this was not the case unfortunately for me." What do you mean by "forward to DVLA. User agreement states buyer protection 'Proof of transaction'. " Also, whilst 21 days would be nice, you can't lodge a complaint with the FOS till either a deadlock letter is received or 8 weeks have gone by with no response. Don't forget to put the letter on a letterhead with your address - not telephone numbers - and send SPECIAL Delivery only, i.e. NOT recorded delivery! Here's my recommended letter [fill in all the gaps before sending]: Paypal, Whittaker House, Whittaker Avenue, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 1EH 3rd August 2009 Dear Sirs, I write further to my Paypal alleged negative balance for account xxxxx@xxxx.xxxx in respect of disputed transaction PP-xxxxx-xxxxx. On 29th January 2009 I sold my vehicle on eBay with the eBay transaction ID: xxxxxxx for the sum of £....:... which came to £482.80 after transaction fees and deductions. I sold it to xxxxxxxxxxx whose Paypal account is xxxx@xxxxx.xxx On 31st January 2009 the buyer collected the vehicle. All ID was in order. The registration documents were signed by the buyer and I forwarded them to DVLA. The buyer collected the vehicle on the 31st January 2009. The registration documents were signed by the buyer and I forwarded confirmation to DVLA. On 28th May 2009 - some 4 months later - I received an e-mail from yourselves stating that the buyer had requested a chargeback. The buyer allegedly claimed that he did not authorize the transaction. I requested manual contact information from eBay on 31st May 2009. On numerous occasions I attempted to contact with the buyer, with no success. I received no communication from the buyer prior to the chargeback and Paypal have blatantly refused to consider my side of the story, and the option that the buyer may have been the fraudulent party in this transaction. The decision was made unilaterally without any consideration for my position. Paypal have left me in a negative balance and with no vehicle and proceeded to have debt collection agents harass me. Not only have I been defrauded by the buyer, but Paypal have acted unfairly. I have reported this obvious fraud by the buyer to the Metropolitan Police and received the crime reference number: xxxxxxxxx. From 1st August 2009 the Metropolitan Police have been waiting for information from you regarding this case. I therefore demand that you immediately cooperate with the Metropolitan Police and do not try to allege ridiculous reasons for not doing so such as Data Protection - as you have done to others - as when it comes to alleged frauds you are legally allowed to cooperate with enforcement agencies such as the Police, and Data Protection allows this. I further demand that you cease from any attempted debt collection activities whilst this matter is in dispute. In addition I expect that within 8 weeks you will reset my Paypal account balance to nil. As the account is in dispute, any attempted debt collection activities are in material breach of the Office of Fair Trading's Debt Collection Guidance and the Code of Conduct for the Credit Services Association [the membership body for most debt collection agencies], and as such should any debt collection activities be attempted by you or your third party agents whilst this matter is in dispute complaints will be lodged with the OFT & CSA and could result in enforcement action as well as possibly court proceedings for compensation for harrassment under the Administration of Justice Act 1970. Should you not settle this matter satisfactorily within 8 weeks, I will be left with no choice but to lodge a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service. This will result in Paypal paying £500 case fee, besides for any compensation that may be awarded. I insist that all responses must be in writing. Any e-mail correspondence will be refused. Sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

its free if you change address you can do it online before sending off for your points http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/NeedANewOrUpdatedLicence/DG_4022088

remove your balance from the letter;) ms barnard seems to be trying a new tact. instead of the miss conception passed on to her by ms swallow that they have a further 30 days. by updates they mean further letters saying that they are still trying to retrieve from archives.:D:D BUT I bet a pound to a penny the next update will include. "to resolve to our mutual benefit we are delighted to offer a once in a lifetime wonderfull offer of 50% f&f. or the latest con of bid to buy back your account:rolleyes: either way STILL not stopping collection on a disputed debt wait for either fantastic offer and forward it to OFT. SAM

I believe it should read: (2) Interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of payment of the Charge to date in the sum of £46.29 and at the daily rate of £0.046 until judgment or sooner payment. x20

we ll just have to wait for people to happen upon the thread but keeping the posts active will put u at the top of the pile, making it easier for people to see. if there is anything really urgent there is the red triangle at the bottom left of the post which will alert the site team should it be required.

Reading this through, I think that the 'you' in red is ambiguous (is it the user or the retailer?). I would suggest replacing it with "the end user is entitled to obtain at no further cost". Just my 2 pennyworth

This is too late for Fred, as he accepted the caution, but I note with interest the following from the description of the offence of criminal damage. Criminal Damage: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service If the barrier lifted easi ly without force, then I personally wouldn't expect damage to occur. Hence had it been me, therefore, there wouldn't be Mens rea. If I had to use force, then it could be said (I believe) that I had been reckless, as force can break things. But without force, I, and possibly other "reasonable" people, might not have expected damage. If I remember correctly, Fred in the video carefully lifts the barrier first to see if it raised easily. Surely that would count against recklessness... Also, I wonder whether Fred had "Lawful Excuse". The advice on that concentrates on people who damage car clamps removing them. And it says that Lawful Excuse does not apply when someone knowingly parks somewhere where they know that clamping is likely to occur. Since Fred had no reason to expect that the carpark would be shut and the intercom unmanned, could it be that he had lawful excuse to take actions to get his car out of the park? http://www.webtribe.net/~shg/Criminal%20Damage%20Act%201971%20(1971%20c%2048).htm Certainly I wouldn't want to leave my car stuck in a college car park over the weekend, there would be considerable risk of vandalism. And I would honestly believe that lightly lifting the barrier would be a reasonable measure to protect my car.

You've had some super advice here Highfly.....They have the cheek and temerity to issue a statutory demand for a debt which seems to be statute barred. If it was me in your shoes and had gone through the same situation, I would have used a defence similar to this one - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/164580-capquest-sd-please-help.html Did you get your affadavit sworn in at the court ok ? Did you send off for copies of your agreement ? Also you have to submit your costs to the court 24 hours before the hearing.....get a sheet of paper and title it litigant in person costs and add your costs for your time, travel, postage, etc.....you might find this interesting too (an indemnity award) - http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/156970-omg-connaught-first-credit-6.html

Hi Shelbob, You say that you are working in a residential home is that as a Nursing Assistant/ Health Care Assistant? You say you have taken a year out of studying what for? as you say you have completed your hairdressing course. If you want to do your nursing get a job in a hospital as a Nursing Assistant/Health Care Assistant and you should get the chances to do NVQ training. This will all give you a great insight into the world of nursing and help you get a place to do your training. Bank work will mean that you will work where ever you are needed. You may find it better to find your feet working in one area for a while. You can still work bank shifts when you start your training to top up the finances! Wish you lots of luck. Nursing is a great career and can take you all over the world. I have been doing it for many years now and my daughter has just got a place to do her Adult nursing after working as a Health Care Assistant for the last year on a Stroke Rehabilitation ward in a General Hospital. I haven't put her off after all these years!!! Good Luck Night Owl

Then the bleeding solicitor should get off his butt & help Fred pro bono