Thank you.

Beware: Wasn't there something on Watchdog not long ago about those games which encourage kids to buy credits etc...? I could be wrong, I haven't actually opened an account there, but I suggest people check carefully before letting their kids loose on this kind of free game, lol.

The long and short of it is: yes, they are allowed not to have a cooling-off period if it's done face-to-face (different regs if online or over the phone etc...). However, statutory rights apply, can you explain what you mean by "she couldn't get on with the phone"?

Yes please.

I was just thinking... If the bailiffs didn't have good title to the car (and there is a fair chance that they didn't, for many reasons), then they had no right to sell the car, which means you are still the owner/keeper and you could actually get the car off the new owner yourself (would need to get the police involved of course), it would then be up to him/her to chase the bailiffs for a refund and that would cost the bailiffs even more... Tempting.

Make mine a vanilla one, please.

Hello. I can't post pictures or links yet (I need 20 posts apparently, things have changed, used to be 5, doesn't make life easier for newbies ), so will have to do that once I have totted them up, a few questions in the meantime if I may: - If on a double yellow, is it still obligatory for signage describing which restrictions? - If on a pavement which is the continuation of a large carpark and not visibly marked as to which is which, and the double yellow is obviously on the road, does it still qualify as a 01 contravention? - Should the contravention number show on the main ticket? It only says "parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours" on the main ticket, the code only appears on the payment slip part. Thanks for the help, I will post pictures as soon as I can .

Contact Admin with the new name you want for yourself, they're the only ones who can change it.

No. You are entitled to cancel and get a refund. If you choose to accept the goods, then they are under no obligation to compensate you, I suggest you get something in writing before or they'll deny any such conversation. Of course, you can always say you do not want the stuff within 7 working days of receiving them and get a refund, but that might not help you with your situation.

Hi, long-time lurker on this thread. Could you girls and boys have a read here: www dot consumeractiongroup dot co dot uk/forum/showthread.php?280435-**Bailiffs-took-my-car-this-morning-please-advise** (replace dots with , erm, dots, I don't have enough posts to write proper links!) and see if you could help the young lady on there? I think she could do with all the support possible.

Meanwhile: www . guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/oct/22/yvette-cooper-fawcett-society-cuts (remove spaces) So much for "we're all in this together". Some more together in this than others, it seems.

Yes. Ultimately, if they have 2 equal candidates in every aspect, they will choose whoever they want. They can't discriminate on very specific grounds, but this is just choosing someone else, and that's it.

"could" is the operative word here. And they couldn't just fine you, they would have to take you to court and win a case to show that you deliberately and neglectfully allowed your child to miss school. The law has been changed to allow schools to deal with truanting where the parents collude or don't do anything tp prevent it, and some schools are abusing the change in law to try and bully parents. Remind them that for employees, it's only after a week that you need a dr's certificate and its a self-cert before that, so could they please show you where it says in law that you have to provide a medical certificate for a child's absence from school, and it they can't (they can't!), let's have no more of this nonsense.

Internet bot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wonder if Mr I-have-the-higher-moral-ground's employers are aware that he uses his work computer (a "finance" company, it will surprise noone to read), to access this site. Now, wouldn't that be an instance of gross misconduct for most companies, which in some cases, can lead to dismissal? I think maybe someone should go and read his employee's manual and double-check that he himself is not in fact doing something dishonest and not allowed. You never know, with the information unearthed by someone, maybe it is our moral duty to inform his employers. After all, we don't want to be accused of not reporting dishonest behaviour we were aware of.

From what I gather, after all the posturing from other sites they'd be there reporting every moment, they got bored after a couple of days and decided it wasn't worth the time and money after all, getting the point somehow later than you guys did.

It's a bit ironic seeing the addtional info given by this bloke: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=178128 You only need to read his posts to know you should be safely able to ignore the description he's written. LOL

answered my own question: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/member.php?u=9417 Occupation: Consultant/Student Not a lawyer then. Edit: Ooops, sorry, UkAviator, 2 minds, one thought.

I thought PJ had removed his own post, surely, that's self-censorship? and where does it say he's a lawyer anyway?

"demand" the release? The Daily Mail surpasses its own usual levels of stupidity, I see.

Grrrrr. NatWest took more charges. The monthly charge was levied on a friday,so by the time I found out, the loan which was due on the 2nd (sunday) was presented and was showing online as paid on monday. I spoke to a girl about the charge and she said if I put in cash first thing monday am, I would be in before the end of the charging period so I wouldn't incur another £28 monthly charge the month after. Made sense, so I did. 5 days later, I got a letter: the bast...er, swines BOUNCED the loan payment and charged me £38. and since it then take me into the new charging period, no doubt they'll also charge me another £28 now. I could cry. I am convinced they bounced it so they could keep on charging me. I went over limit once before (because of the o/d interest) and they paid it (which is when the monthly charges started rolling), so why bounce it? I may be paranoid, but I am sure the bouncing was triggered by the fact that I paid enough money in so as not to generate a monthly charge. Of course, I know I will never be able to prove it. I am now going to be struggling to catch up on the account because what they have taken in charges more than cover at least 1 loan instalment if not 2. :mad: . . . ___________________

Would it not make sense to just share it then?

Here we go. After hesitating and waiting and hesitating some more, I have finally decided to go after a few rogue charges I got on my Natwest account. As luck would have it, I'm probably going to have to wait 2 years or more to get them back. Depressing. I have been a silent watcher for a long time, so I should be ok, but I'll shout if I get stuck, don't worry!