No, just the area. But in a "small town" it is not hard to find somebody, especially somebody who upsets a lot of people. Interesting idea, I never thought of that. I wouldn't be holding my breath for a useful response, but it is a small investment of time and money. They have, in lots of ways. Yes, it's difficult to justify the expenditure and effort in the face of uncertain return. They have a job and a car, and always seem to be splashing the cash when out in town. But they are also the sort to not comply just to be awkward. I would need an audit trail showing I had asked them to pay before bringing a claim, anyway. I wondered whether it is better coming from me.my wife, or whether local solicitor's free half-hour sessions still include a letter.

3 month judicial review period? I read about police cautions from several sources, and none of them mentioned such a thing. Maybe £120 - £150. Not sure yet about repair/replacement cost. Not a lot in the grand scheme of things, but more than a month's "disposable" income.

Isn't there also an allocation fee or a hearing fee? There are some devious ***s about; you can never be too sure.

We were not asked at all. Police left an answerphone message the following afternoon saying how they had proceded in the morning after interviewing the attacker. That is an option I am considering. It is the frame, not the lenses that got broken.

No, only have buildings insurance arranged by the residents' management company.

How? I don't suppose the police would supply a copy: they won't even give you a copy of your own statement.

I wonder what reasonable defence there could be, given that the attacker admitted the assault and breaking the glasses, and accepted a police caution.

Thanks, Mike. No she has zero income but is not entitled to benefits.

Hi. My wife's glasses were ripped off her face and broken, in an unprovoked attack. The police say the attacker admitted it, but has been given a caution. How does my wife go about getting compensation from the attacker so that she can pay for replacement glasses?

What is meant to happen when you report this to HMRC? My wife was working in 2012 for a company that provides cleaning services in hotels. They repeatedly processed payroll for less hours than she worked, and ignored all verbal and written complaints. The complaint to HMRC resulted in an email saying to log it online via the Pay & Work Rights Complaint Form on the Direct Gov website. Logging online resulted in a phone call a few days later asking my wife for further information, then nothing since.

Various letters back and forth last year, with Nationwide steadfastly refusing to budge from their pretence that my wife owes them money. (One of their letters even states that a basic bank account is not a facility Nationwide offers - they did not reply when I wrote back pointing out that several such accounts are advertised on their website and their "Preliminary Results Announcement for the year ended 4 April 2011" proclaims: "we also offer a basic bank account to our customers, supporting the Government’s agenda on financial inclusion; during the year we opened 89,000 such accounts." ) We heard nothing for 4 months, then a couple of weeks ago a letter from Nationwide saying "management of your account will now be carried out on our behalf by Frederickson International Limited." Sent Nationwide a reply reminding them the account is in dispute and my wife does not owe them any money. First letter from Frederickson International Ltd came the next day: a demand for payment with a threat of "further action." Replied to that saying I acknowledge no debt, the account is in dispute, and stop harassing me about a non-existent debt. Frederickson International followed up with a Letter Before Action, giving my wife 7 days to pay up or they say they will take immediate legal action and seek to add £30 court fees and £50 solicitor costs to the "debt." Replied again that the account is in dispute and acknowledge no debt, also pointing out that Nationwide are in breach of contract and of statutory duty. Any ideas about this Frederickson outfit? Is it likely Nationwide have witheld the facts from them, or are they another cowboy outfit? And what is likely to happen next?

Good if that is what you want. But not when the customer requests, and the service provider agrees to provide, a basic account with no overdrawing facilities and no card payment facilities. The situation at the moment is that they have reviewed the circumstances of my wife's account twice and (surprise!) concluded both times they are in the right - without addressing things like their repeated errors, breach of contract, or breach of statutary duty to treat the customer fairly. I have not yet sent an SAR as finances are really tight and the £10 is a significant chunk of our disposable income.

OK, have not written yet, but eventually managed to get through on the phone. (0300 790 6034 is answered almost immediately by a recorded "Thank you for calling TV Licensing, your call may be recorded for training and quality purposes." Then it is immediately transferred, usually to an engaged tone but after a couple of dozen attempts I was connected to a ringing tone which was shortly answered.) The operator said he had visibility of both the summons and the valid licence. He disappeared to "ask advice from the court administrator" several times during the call. After trying to get me to pay all the remaining payments on the licence today, then trying to get me to set up a direct debit, he said we need take no more action, do not need to answer the summons or attend the court, and will be sent a letter confirming this sometime around the date of the court hearing. He was not able to give me any reference that I could quote to the court. I also asked if it was a mistake that the summons was to a magistrates court tens of miles away in a different local authority area rather than to the local one; apparently that was deliberate as they aggregate cases from several areas together into one court.

My wife received a court summons for TV licence today. She signed a statement on the doorstep in September, admitting to watching TV programmes without a licence. TVLicensing then sent a letter (see image) saying she would avoid prosecution if she immediately bought a licence, by which time we had already got a licence on the cash payment card scheme for £5.60 per week. We are still paying this, although tight finances mean the payments are on occasion 2 or 3 weeks in arrears then caught up by making a multiple payment. The licence has not been cancelled because of the erratic payments; the payment card account page shows the licence as valid, with an expiry date in the future and payments up to date. As I see it, we have complied with what they said was required to avoid prosecution; they have renegued and brought the case anyway. My thought is to write and respectfully point this out and request they drop the matter from the court process. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Did you end up going to court, or did they rescind the summons after you wrote to them?

Allowing cashpoint withdrawals when there are insufficient funds in an account that was specifically set up without the ability to go overdrawn is a mistake by the bank, not by the customer. They surreptitiously put one of those on my wife's account without asking or even telling her.

Thanks for the reply, and the link. The only letters my wife has had from them (as far as I know) are a couple of the "you are overdrawn without our agreement, charges have been applied, additional charges will cause the balance to continually increase if it is not resolved" type - one in late December and another in early January. The January one shows they had invented another hundred pounds worth of overdrawing during that fortnight even though she had not used the account during that time. There has been no sign of the letter the branch manager promised in November (when we discovered the situation and made the complaint in person that I mentioned in my opening post), and there has clearly been no resolution since they are still claiming there to be a negative balance to which they are adding interest and charges. I seem to recall they are supposed to resolve complaints within eight weeks. Would you suggest mentioning BCOBS when chasing up this complaint, or leaving that for a later round? The harassment I mentioned is frequent phone calls on both her mobile and our landline, often in quick succession.

Does anybody have any views or advice how to play this, as my wife is being majorly harassed by these buffoons? In particular, isn't it against BCOBS to force an overdraft when the product requested was a basic bank account, and to charge £15 a time to use a cashpoint machine? Anything specific I need to request in the SAR, apart from the text of the complaint the branch manager submitted on my wife's behalf but refused to show us?

In August or September 2011 I accompanied my wife to a Nationwide Branch to open a basic bank account. The specific requirement I outlined to the salesman was:- * an account for her wages to be paid into. * a cashpoint card to draw money out. * no facility to go overdrawn and incur charges. The salesman listened, asked all sorts of irrelevant questions, then said the account asked for was called a "Flex" account and opened it for her. It all worked fine for her until November, when the day she was paid the cashpoint machine refused to give her any of her money. Nationwide claimed she was overdrawn and had incurred over £200 worth of bank charges. The staff were adamant that there is a charge of £20.00 per month for this "unauthorised overdraft" they have placed onto the account without my wife's permission, plus a charge of £15.00 for each cashpoint withdrawal while the account is "over its overdraft limit" plus interest at some unspecified percentage. After much argument, the manager allowed her to withdraw some of her wages and agreed to have the charges refunded, but refused to refund the negative balance the bank had applied to the account without my wife's permission. He agreed to lodge a complaint with head office for her but refused point blank to show us the text of the complaint he submitted on our behalf. He promised to ring back in a few days and follow up with a letter. He phoned when we were out and left a voicemail, my wife phoned back when he was out and left a message, no letter ever arrived. Charges continue to be applied to the account, even though she is no longer using it because she lost her job at the beginning of December and currently has no income. Being generous, I would say Nationwide are seeking unjust enrichment on the back of repeated mistakes.

Sorry about that. In my browser, clicking on the small image opens a life-sized image in a new tab. It has the first paragraph, then contradicts it by telling me to pay direct to them (obviously they have no hope in hell as I acknowledge no debt to them). Then it says the concessionary arrangement is subject to review of my financial circumstances and they'll contact me at the appropriate time to undertake this review. Looks like I got a different template letter. Except that I do not acknowledge their previous letter dated xx/xx/2009, since First Direct have never contacted me themselves to say they were assigning the account to CL Finance. No. Not entirely sure on this. My payments to anything tend to be late rather than missed completely. I was unemployed for over a year following redundancy in 2009, and my wife has recently been unemployed for several months. My finances are still shot from that, with hundreds of pounds of arrears on my mortgage and utility bills. I tend to end up missing some creditors one month and different ones the next.

Is it worth taking the time to reply to them at this stage?

Thank you, ims21 and cerberusalert. Does anybody have any suggestions for a reply to this letter? My thoughts are to state that I do not acknowledge any debt to their client, and that there are absolutely no circumstances under which I will pay any costs incurred by their client or themselves in taking frivolous and vexatious court action in regard to a First Direct account that is being repaid to First Direct (via Metroplitan Collection Services).

Received a letter from "Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors" stating that CL Finance have instructed them to "prepare court papers." It doesn't quite look kosher:- 1. adverts for an online payment portal. 2. a statement that I can stop the action by paying NOW (in capitals, and also untrue as I don't have the money). 3. they look forward to hearing from me by the stated deadline; no deadline stated. I have never written to or spoken to CL Finance. I have paid £1.00 per month to First Direct via MCS most months since I agreed to do so in late 2007. CL Finance have never attempted to "review" this arrangement. Is this genuine, what is the best way to proceed?

Silence from Link since the phone calls in February until today. Now I received letters from "Elmwood Park" offering a 25% discount if I repay over 48 months, the discount to be removed as soon as any payment is missed. At the foot of the letter, it states "Elmwood Park is a trading style of Link Financial Outsourcing Limited." I notice other caggers have received these in the last few months (mine is like this one except there is a barcode above my name and address). I may be missing something, but I see no advantage in replying. Any thoughts, anybody?

....