Here's a little pressie from the Cabot Fan Club that may help you people....Ken Maynard is going to be sooooo pleased to be reading this and it comes with all our love: Subject matter: In House solicitors - Think MORGANS, they are Cabots in-house solicitors EU Court rules that in-house lawyers are not covered by legal professional privilege Summary On 14 September 2010, the European Court of Justice held that, in the field of competition law, internal company communications with in-house lawyers are not covered by legal professional privilege. Background The judgment follows a dawn raid by officials from the European Commission and the Office of Fair Trading ("OFT") of Akzo Nobel Chemicals and its subsidiary Akcros Chemical in 2003. The European Commission and the OFT have wide-ranging powers under EU and UK competition law to undertake investigations, raid companies' premises and take copies of documents. During this investigation, a disagreement arose in relation to the application of legal professional privilege to two e-mails with Akzo's in-house lawyer. Akzo Nobel and Akcros challenged these decisions before the EU General Court, which were dismissed by the General Court on 17 September 2007. The firms appealed against that judgment to the Court of Justice. - (The appeal was Dismissed ! LOL) That means anyone being sued by Morgans can get via their SA R all communications between the departments Don't you just love the EU? Anyone wants some bed time reading - here ya go.. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/eu/cases/EUECJ/2010/C55007_O.html&query=title+%28+Akzo+%29+and+title+%28+Nobel+%29+and+title+%28+Chemicals+%29&method=boolean xx Ken !!

I am in the building trade, and have come accross this many times before. The problem here is that before any extra work is carried out there should be paperwork with an agreed price. If its in writing, there is no problem. The builder has had to do extra work (which is not his fault) and wants paying for the work. I suppose the only lever he has is not to do anything else till he gets paid for what he has done already. If he has done the work, and its to a good standard he should be paid. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but always get everything down in writing. Additionally, the surveyor might not be at fault either. I have surveyed buildings before, and sometimes the faults are not readily apparent till work is begun. I have fitted windows only to find the lintel has failed and needs replacement. Surveyors are generally quite good, but they don't have crystal balls. IMO if the work needed doing, then it will need to be paid for.

Hi everyone, I have just been browsing the forum and reading all of the great misfortunes about whatever happens. As a DSGi employee I felt it worth while to post a few things which salespersons seem to either have skimmed over or totally ignored to get a sale. And also quick ways around issues. 1) Whateverhappens will not cover water damage in any way. The salesassistant should stress this to you when taking it out. Water damage is anything liquidy on the product. This includes instant replacement as well. 2) Whatever happens as a product is designed to cover most eventualities. I have read a number of persons here who have been unfortunate in their claims. i would advise here to take a note of how long you have had the cover for instance no clams within 30 days of purchase. And until 6 months it is treated as suspicious. 6 months to the termination of the contract anything which appears excessive or ridiculously damaged will be dealt with more diligently as well. The above reasons are generally for fraud issues. 3) Retain all WEH documents. Customers tend to bin the A4 sheet or staff don't get them for you. Ensure you get one. We may send a message through your door for it but the original document is the most important. 4) If you wish to make a claim go directly to store not through the call centres. The simple reason is instore we can assess it and decide there and then how to go forward. And arrange your collection or replacement etc of the product. 5) Remember that WEH has two levels of cover. Ensure you read the correct T&Cs for your own level either club or premium. By not doing so you could put yourself in a position you don't want to be in. 6) Ask the salesperson questions such as what it does not cover. As we can't say any negatives. It will not cover the following though: loss,theft,deliberate damage, misuse or water damage. 7) products I actually feel its worth it on. Apple products. This si down to how apple will very easily cancel out your one year manufacturers warranty. Simple a scratch on the screen for instance will nil and void it. I highly recommend it on apple products. With TVs I recommend it simply due to the cost that they are to repair 9/10 we will issue a new TV which is generally better than what you have. 8) Never accept anything below what you had previously as we explicitly tell you that you will get a new model. 9) For all persons who are currently struggling go into store and go to customer services. Talk to them. As much as we are hated we do try our best and we know when we are at fault and generally in stores we will be sympathetic to you. Especially if we see the issue. 10) Always be courteous/nice to te staff. I have saw one or two persons come in with very weird/suspicious claims who were nice and talkative to the member of staff get it sorted. Anyone who is rude about ti will find it more awkward to get a solution. 11) Do I feel WEH/Instant Replacement is worth the money. Yes. For what ti offers on certain products it certainly is. I would like to remind everyone here that only bad things are ever publicised against us but the positives are never pointed out. We are on watchdog were on most occasions its not our fault ad we do try our best for the customer. 12) And please don't take your frustration out on the sales colleagues. Do you really think we want to stand and defend WEH all day if we know it should be covering you and its not for your claim? No. I don't like it however I have a company line to tow and tow it I will. And thats about it from me.

Hi, The amount of debt, though big, is not insurmountable. As you suffer from a mental illness you need to read and be aware of the MALG guidelines http://www.moneyadvicetrust.org/content.asp?cid=54 Your creditors need to be told you are suffering and reminded to act on this guidance as you are vulnerable. As regards your job, your empoyers need very strong grounds to dismiss you for medical reasons. What do you do for a living? Do you have a contract? You've done brilliantly well to manage this for eight years without missing any payments - well done. It sounds to me like you need to start trying to negotiate with the creditors now asking them to freeze all interest and charges. Before you do this complete an Income / Expenditure sheet being very honest (sometimes it helps to post it up here with NO personal details) so we can comment. This, though not a legal requirement as only a court can demand you do one, can be a strong negotiating tool when asking for charges to be stopped etc.... That's probably enough to get you started. Get those bits done, then post back re which letters to send. Keep remembering, and I know it's hard when you suffer from depression, but on the positive side you have managed for 8 years - that is a MASSIVE achievement. If you can do that, you can certainly work through the next bit with the aid of those on here to help get you back into a better position.

Hi Bazaar My case is, I suspect a lost cause, I was trying to help Angel and others who will follow to find out the rules about disclosure. And also how to bring it to the judge's attention that they are deliberately obstructing by not disclosing.

Possible i spose - thanks for the letter thing - keep me posted how you get on - I think you're about a week or so ahead of me on the SAR.

If it helps, here is a copy of the letter I sent in reply: Dear Sir/Madam Re: Credit Card Account Number: Data Protection Act 1998 - Subject Access Request I thank you for the information that you sent me in response to my recent Data Subject Access Request, received and signed for by your company on 29/10/2010. However, you have not fully complied with my lawful request pursuant to Section 7 of the Data Protection Act 1998, and as a result the disclosure of personal information is incomplete. For the purpose of S.7 DPA 1998, I have a legal right to ALL personally identifiable information that you hold on me that is not subject to specific exemptions under the act. I have spoken with the Information Commissioners Office directly, who has confirmed that the above is correct. As the ICO is the regulatory body that ensures compliance of the act, I suggest that their interpretation of the DPA 1998 is correct and not yours. Unless you disagree, in which case I welcome your authoritative comments, which I will gladly pass on to the ICO. Furthermore, please find below an excerpt from the ICO website, which I believe should clarify things for you completely: You are entitled to be told if any personal information is held about you and if it is, to be given: a copy of the information in permanent form; an explanation of any technical or complicated terms; any information the organisation has about where they got your information from; a description of the information, the purposes for processing the information and who the organisation is sharing the information with; and the logic involved in any automated decisions (if you have specifically asked for this). Your attention is drawn to the first bulleted item, which for your benefit I have underlined; this cannot be interpreted in any way other than: if your company possesses a document or data file with my name on it, on computer or in a manual filing system, then you are bound by law to provide me with a copy of it!. Unless, of course, there is a specific exemption. Failure to comply with my request in full will result in me taking the matter up further with the ICO and beyond that, if necessary and appropriate, to seek enforcement and potential compensation via the courts. I trust this now elucidates the matter with you and I respectfully request your assistance and compliance in completing my original request; for which you still have 15 of the statutory 40 days remaining. For your benefit, I enclose a copy of my original DSAR. Yours faithfully,

Ok, McGuffick was a claims company taking RBS to court to gain an order of unenforcability, RBS could if they had wanted satisified the s78 request priot to proceedings but decided not to so they could obtain a legally binding definition of what exactly enfocement is in relation to non-conforming with a s77-s78 request. A judge decided that everything bar obtaining an actual judgement was NOT enforcement, therefore if no s77-s78 response has been given they can still sell the debt, chase you and mark your credit file. The only thing they cant do is obtain a judgement against you. The templates are out of date in regards the recent rulings of McGuffick and more importantly the Carey vs HSBC ruling, therefore caution needs to be exercised in using them and advice saught on individual threads prior to sending. Apologies for mis-spellings, I'm writing this on a netbook with a small screen and smaller fonts S.

There is no requirement to be in receipt of benefits for the purposes of a Crisis Loan; if successful in an "alignment to wages" Crisis loan claim, the awarded amount should be sufficient to pay for living expenses up until the date the payment of wages is expected. Crisis loans - who can apply