you certainly cant be back billed if it is their mistake that caused them not to charge you correctly. also under the act of parl, they must read meters better than once every 24mts. so something else is amiss here too. dx

Absolutely fare point. I think HB was been quite subtle and moullding hher language to the context. 'Atos carry out assessments in the prescribed way' rather implies that the prescribed way is fundamentally faulty, and therefore the fault is carried down.

This is not the first time parking co's using anpr have lost a claim for that reason. What is now becoming apparent is the groundswell of opinion against the claimed rights of the parking co's to punish people who break their rules on someone else's land and profit from it rather than the landlord getting back any losses caused by the motorist's actions. The change in the law via teh PoFA has given the parking co's rights but has also put a spotlight on their activities that I am sure is not welcomed by them. As for PE winning most of their cases, well, yes and no. They lose(it seems) any case where a defence rather than just mitigation is offered and they would need to claim they win otherwise the use of the courts as a deterrent (itself unlawful in the very contract law they claim to have on their side) wouldnt work andmore people would put in the effort to fight them.

I insisted and I obtained finally from my employer an email telling me that I was dismissed because my work was not of good quality before this I already made a written grievance for victimisation and asking to be re-instated but I received no reply to it The only evidence that my employer has against me is himself (but unfortunately it is nevertheless a piece of evidence). During the pre-hearing he put his hand on the bible and started to lie by saying that he received a complaint against me without putting forward any documentary evidence of it and by not saying the true about other matters. It would be good for me if I can prove that because the way a customer service works the alleged complaint against me could not have been processed in the way my employer says it was processed. It would good for me also if I can prove that the research company for which I worked has to keep record of all the complaints that it (I can do nothing about the font)

If Egg and BC are the same organisation then only one SAR needed - make it explicit you requitre information on both - if you have account numbers quote them.

Hi, I suggest you go into a LLoyds branch and get them to certify that a copy of the certificate is real and certified as such. That way you can send the copy. This may just be a stalling tactic but with a SAR, you have to jump through their hoops.

Hi HB, You are right, I don't believe it would be right for me to comment on specific companies, but I can say that I have had experience of receiving representation from a great many Solicitors over many years and it is true to say that the vast majority have no specialist knowledge of railway law. A few do and it does make it very much simpler to correspond with someone who will be fully aware of the responsibilities of both parties at the outset and of the relevant legislation. That said, the process of giving a truthful explanation of what occurred, offering an apology and giving an undertaking not to repeat the alleged offence, at the same time as asking whether an out of Court disposal can be achieved, should not be beyond the ability of most reasonably literate and confident individuals. It just takes a little care to stick only to the facts of what happened, leave all emotion aside and be entirely truthful. There is never any obligation on the prosecutor to accept an offer of out of Court disposal and it is certainly not true to say that engaging a Solicitor will always mean that the case does not get to Court. If the offence is considered serious enough it may quite often be the case that a Solicitor can only advise a client to plead guilty and then, on behalf of that client do his/her very best to minimise the penalty by speaking on behalf of that client at Court. For the individual who is completely at a loss to understand what is going on, seeking legal advice is a very good idea. It may be that they will accept that they will have to pay a high cost to use the expertise of that lawyer in order to deal with the case on their behalf and whilst a good criminal law specialist, particularly one who is well-versed in railways legislation might achieve a prompt resolution without Court action, there is never a guarantee that will be the case.