some pawnbrokers will take cars, but these tend to need to be high end. You will find lenders willing to lend to you, but the issue you will find is that the type of outfit that will lend to you is the type that will do so intending to have the car. If you are unemployed how will you repay the loan?

if it on for 150k, and you had an offer for 140k, that is not silly, it is pretty good. Most savvy buyers will knock 10% off the ticket price. Some areas are selling really well and really quickly, others are stagnant. In some areas it is a buyers market, others a sellers. Price your house properly and stage it correctly (de clutter, refresh decor etc) and it will sell well. Where in the country are you, and what sort of property is it? House, flat? Leasehold, freehold, detached etc. Also what is the surrounding property like? Different properties should be expected to sell in different time frames depending on where they are in the chain.

the court's actions are normal. you may even get an invitation to court sanctioned mediation.

This provision is also essentially included in the supply of goods and services act - in the absence of a contrary intention a contract must be concluded within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time will be a question of fact. And much debate....

kudos to you for listening to your gut, and checking out the company properly. If everyone acted like this when presented with an offer like this then these companies would evaporate. Sadly, many are still taken in.

I don't believe that this is the case, they just can't enforce the agreement until they provide you with a copy of the CCA, assuming a correct request was made. I don't believe that you are entitled to a copy of the DOA; this will normally be in the form of a contract with an attached list of hundreds/thousands of accounts. It will normally be commercially sensitive as it will spell out the details of the debt sale. You should however be notified that a debt has been sold. This is usually by letter.

To be honest, it will depend on on different it really is. If it is obviously mismatched and is unlikely to blend in a short while, then she probably has grounds to complain and the shop should repair the whole lot. You might need to get an independent inspection report to support your claim though. As to the letter, best put up your first draft here and we'll comment.

No. Firstly because those regs have been repealed. They have been replaced by the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008. From the limited information you have supplied I don't think these will apply to an internet transaction. As noted above I think you need to look at the data protection act if the matter relates to the way the business is holding your data.

I think the root of the proposals rests in the law commission report from a few years ago. That is worth a read as a good summary of the current law.

either a full refund (if it completely useless) or the cost of fixing it, of this is possible. I'm assuming the latter is probably most likely.

although after this period of time the burden of proof rests with the buyer - he needs to show that the damage was caused by a manufacturing defect that was present at point of sale. perhaps a google for similar faults would be sufficient - see if other people have had the same problem.

no idea, but gyzmo was right, the OP was failign to distinguish between tier one and tier two rights under the soga. And failing to actually understand the statute. It often helps to read the statute alongside decided case law. The situation is quite clear. the 6 months refers only to the burden of proof for tier two rights (repair, replace, reduction in price) and not tier one (rejection).

What sort of nutter would use a payg dongle to watch tv instead of paying for a licence or to brag about avoiding a licence? that's real weirdness. What does mobile data cost these days? The last spam I had from orange was 500mb for £12. That's barely an episode of Dr Who. If you think you need proof to issue a summons, you're a bit daft. Not saying you'd win, but most folk wouldn't even defend. Many of those that do wouldn't actually lie to a judge when it came to it. And it is a bit tricky to explain why you were bragging about avoiding the licence on a site if you weren't. All I'm giving is ideas of what I'd do if I wanted to crack down on this sort of thing in support of my assertion that the Beeb aren't serious about it. Yet. When they get serious they'll just have a log on or similar - get a licence get a log on for iplayer a la sky player. I don't understand the folk that take pleasure in using a service that the rest of us pay for, whether they need to (under existing law). We pay for the content to be produced. You use it without paying I consider you to be an ********.

Nope.

I didn't get that - you posted the below - was this an extract from the quote? Unless there is anything missing the judge will start from the premise that you are only entitled to be paid for work you have completed, so if you have been paid for stage two but have not completed the works you have defined as being included in stage two, then you'll be paying this. If you wanted it to be otherwise you should not have defined the work in the stages. the % argument is also poor - the judge may look at it and determine that you needed to have done 90% of the work to be paid stages one and two. if you haven't he'll refund the difference. It is only if you beat these two arguments that all the reasons for the delay and the reasonableness or otherwise of these become relevant. Otherwise I suspect that the judge will not be interested because won't be relevant to the main dispute which is essentially have you been paid the right amount for the work you have done under the contract. Nope.

The Supply & Goods Act 1982 Sort of relevant. -Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 Probably not relevant unless the other party is seeking to rely on a term in the contract that you are claiming is unfair. -OFT Guidance on Unfair Terms in Home Improvements Contracts 2005 As above, but I guess that this will be available on the OFT website. Normally these type of things come with the caveat that it is the court's job to decide whether something is unfair or not. -Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 -Guidance on the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. There is no right of action for a consumer under these regs so they are irrelevant. Your claim will be founded on simple contract; you agreed a contract and a price and the other side failed to honour it.

I don't believe that there is an obligation to re-let, and even if they do there are likely to be costs that he can recover that he will incur in the re-let. What type of tenancy was it, what notice did you give?

Really? I didn't think that this was true. I'd be interested in a citation, if you have one handy. As for the gym contract, you probably are liable for the costs as the gym probably had a minimum term, subject to the recent stuff the OFT has been doing on unfair gym contracts. http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2011/60-11 That said, if you are in Oz, and providing you are staying there, it is unlikely to go anywhere. Not impossible, but extremely, extremely unlikely. The only thing to watch for is if they get a ccj against you in your absence if you want to come back. If this happens they could keep you on the hook for longer than six years.

You may think it matters, a judge is unlikely to. If you quote for a job at 5k, but then it ends up costing you 10k, then you are stuck with the difference; you can't claim an extra 5k. You are only entitled, at best, to be paid for the work that was done, so if you completed stage one, you may claim for that based on the costs you gave the customer. If you did not complete any of the work given in your paperwork for stage two, you will end up refunding him for this. this is only my humble opinion, based on the facts as you have presented them.

It doesn't matter what it actually cost you, it matters what the contract price was. If this is all there is then you are in trouble. You may have a defence if you can persuade the court that you were ready to complete the works pending the wall repairs. You will need to show that you were ready to complete the works within a reasonable time. The fact that the business is shut MIT be a problem here.

not really, one is based on the supply of goods and services act and one is based on the misrep act. the key difference is that they have different remedies and you can't really really have the two claims at the same time.

You can think what you like. Personally, it seems to me that because I am a negative voice here, and am trying to sound a realistic note of caution some folk think that I am dodgy. Also note that I said: "It is also possible that they consider Fuzz's case to be one that Barclays won. Barclays probably see it like that." "Although a financial win would of been preferable in Fuzzbutt's terms, but in the main picture it is the legal win that matters for more people will win because of that" Errr... no. Completely irrelevant for any other cases as it is not precedent setting. The only relevance is for how Barclays see it, or how folk like FOS treat further cases because of it. From the Barclays perspective, they probably think that a whole host of decisions like this is cheaper than paying Computeach. And the fact remains that I either have super powers of precognition or I really do know what I am talking about. You decide. You are welcome to ignore my comments. Or read other comments I have made. Maybe I'm secretly the judge in the case? "If you try and argue stuff that has been decided very definitively in higher courts you'll get nowhere. Likewise, don't take a scatter gun approach and throw everything you have at them. this is often a recipe for disaster with litigants in person tripping themselves up. It is designed to be simple, but it is a court and it is your job to prove your case. On an issue like this, it will be tough. I wish you luck, but I hope you are being careful, there is quite a great deal of scope to hash this up. You'll have a better idea where you stand when you get their defence." "the 'course expired' argument isn't bad, but remember that the main remedy in contract is to be put back into the position you should have been in if the contract had been fulfilled. so make sure you are arguing your case carefully or you'll put up two arguments that defeat each other. Either the replacement course isn't the same or you were misadvised when being sold the course - the salesman did not use reasonable skill and care... As I keep saying - if claiming you need to be careful what exactly you are going to claim, in what way and how you will plead it. This is a complex area, there are a number of irrelevant bits of law being punted around and a bit more research might be needed." "Personally, I think that alot of people do have a claim, and that these claims are almost identical, but that the remedy won't be a full refund, it will be to be put back in the situation they should have been in had the breach of contract not happened. This might be a replacement course, the cost of a replacement course with an identical supplier, and or some compensation on top. " "Their obligation is to provide the same course for the same cost" "No, they need to charge you the same amount for the same product. That is the issue here, whether the product is the same. It doesn't matter if that product costs the finance provider less from another supplier."

"The only thing that they got away with on their part was that they did not have to make a whole or part refund." Exactly. When the dust settles they have a judgment saying they only needed to pay a few hundred quid and they get to keep the other few thousand, and they don't even have to sort out a replacement course. I think that is a 'win'.

FOS have to have regard for the law. This means that they need to take account of any relevant legislation, law, decided cases etc. "the whole fos is a farce, they essentially support the banks in the majority of the cases that they deal with." To be clear, I'm not suggesting that FOS don't make mistakes, but this statement is not supported by the evidence - FOS publish their stats on the percentage of cases they find in favour of the banks and claimants. On average they decide in the claimants favour more often. It is also possible that they consider Fuzz's case to be one that Barclays won. Barclays probably see it like that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117517/Newsagent-Anne-Jeevarajah-jailed-trying-claim-pensioners-156k-lottery-winnings.html. In case of interest.