He also misinterpreted a letter of evidence so it read something different to what it said. We would appeal against the decision as it is wrong (based on the evidence provided) and the conduct of the hearing.

We did not ask for an adjournment as he wasnt receptive to anything I had to say. In hindsight, I probably should have asked. We did not ask for an appeal but were told the hearing was being taped and we could ask for a copy if we wanted to appeal at the beginning of the hearing. (We will be doing this) John

I was in a Small Claims Hearing today with a friend as a Mackenzies Friend and we lost the case. I think we have grounds for an appeal/set aside with what happened in the hearing. 1. The claimant submitted their witness statement to the respondent (my friend) within six days of the hearing as "she was out of the country". She did send a copy to the court in good time and the judge refused to strike out the claim as "we had had ample time to prepare" for the case. 2. The claimant brought along a witness that she had failed to submit a witness statement for. We asked the judge to bar him from giving evidence as we had not prepared for his testimony and the judge refused. He was a key witness and on reflection there were some holes in his arguments but we couldnt spot them at the time to make it count. 3. When my friend started giving evidence the claimant shouted across the courtroom to "Watch what you say". The judge told her to be quiet but it was clearly designed to intimidate and threaten the witness (it worked). There were other more minor things but the question is, do CAGgers think we have a case for appeal/set aside on the above points. Many thanks for your thoughts, John

Reading it, that was my first concern. by EU law no member country can allow prioritisation of their citizens over any others. think the Olympic ticket fiasco. Surely Trading Standards would have to prosecute or order them to amend their signs.

When I went shopping yesterday I saw the following board which states that they will issue parking charge notices for failure to clearly display a DVLA vehicle license disc. Question: Can they do that?

How did you get on?

Response from OFCOM: Thank you for contacting Ofcom. Although we've noted your concerns about a perceived bias in a recent edition of Panorama, this is not a matter in which Ofcom can intervene. While the Ofcom Broadcasting Code does contain rules restricting commercial references and undue prominence to brands in programmes, and also matters relating to impartiality, under the terms of the Communications Act these rules do not apply to BBC services. Such matters are, ultimately, regulated by the BBC Trust, but the BBC has a formal complaints process and complaints should be pursued via that avenue in the first instance BBC Complaints - Homepage So the BBC gets to regulate itself. Anything smells fishy?

I forgot about adding on for sending the letter. Assume 6 hours sorting out new bank account/cards/etc, cancelling payment and sorting it all out @ £9.25/hr plus costs of sending letter and expenses. Could soon add up. Did the excess payment cause any interest/charges to go on. Dispute these also with your bank.

A slightly different story but I had a dispute with Orange. I had two phones on Cashback, sent the Cashback in at the end of the contract as specified, and they creditted £60 to my account. Or didn't. The final bill was £15 which meant that they owed me £45. But by the time they tried to credit it, I had left Orange, and you can't credit closed accounts. Just chase them for money. I had six months of this before it was eventually settled. Orange left a default on my credit history saying I hadn't paid my bill for six months when it was in dispute and my wife and I were turned down for our first mortgage. I went back to the mortgage company and they agreed that we could have the loan if I could get the entry removed. One call to Orange (followed up by a letter) informing them that they were in breach of Data Protection laws and that I was preparing legal action against them saw me put through to a supervisor in the legal team and the entry was removed within 24 hours (and we got our house). I would tell BG that they are breaking the DPA and that you want it corrected immediately or will take legal action.

Surely, this is theft, but I am guessing that they will claim they "misheard". If it was me I would approach my bank and demand an immediate refund. I would then bill Moorcrofts at £9.25/hr plus expenses for the time it has taken to address their c*ck-up/theft.

I have just switched my ADSL from Eclipse (poor customer services, Phorm and others) to ADSL24 (reseller for EntaNET). I was considering UKFSN before I signed up to ADSL24 but they wouldnt accept my MAC code and no-one was answering the phone in Sales (which has got to be a first) so I went with ADSL24 instead. I pay £20/mnth and get 30GB Peak (4pm-10pm IIRC) and 330GB offpeak (all other times) Will let you know how I get on.

If I analysed everything I paid for I doubt I would get value for money on everything but my wife wears out the TV (we wont go there - its a bugbear of mine), I use BBC News Online and my little one likes CBeebies. If I lived on my own I doubt I would have one. It wouldn't be worth it, but as a family, it is. I have other things to fight - such as an ICO complaint about MBNA (still not progressed in eight months!), Central Heating installers who installed a leaking valve and a Car Insurance company which I think, are breaking a verbal promise (thank god for call recording being mandatory, eh?!) The BBC and the monthly £12 "Entertainment" tax is really not a problem to me. I don't like it, but if the alternative is ITV or Five then I can bear it. Not that I am saying the BBC is perfect. Far from it. And the Panorama programme shows that.

Not pay my TV license and lose Top Gear! Seriously, though, my four year old would cry if I took away his 30 minutes of CBeebies.

Shows why I hate the TV (Mock the Week/Top Gear/HIGNFY/Watchdog/Hustle excepted). But I pay my license fee so the BBC is part-owned by me. I am one of the BBC's millions of shareholders. I, and many like me, want the BBC when they make a factual programme, to GET IT RIGHT! It is a national embarassment and needs to stop. As for Internet censorship, I respond to Government consultations when I notice they are there, but IMO until we have a political icon (David Davis maybe?) to rally around that protects our civil liberties, we are left to shouting!

And this one to Ofcom (its an offence under the Broadcasting Code to show due impartiality): I watched the Panorama programme last night and I have not seen a programme that has been so poorly researched and so biased for years. The Panorama programme brand used to be known as a pinnacle of investigative journalism but after last nights episode that reputation cannot be further from the truth. The programme spent too long concentrating on promises and claims made by the Debt Collection Agencies that they are only happy to help, but glossed over the examples of the sofa and the sectionned grandparents when the DCAs showed their true colours. Very few people are aware of their rights when dealing with DCAs and there are thousands of incidents where DCAs have worked hard to deny people their statuatory right. This was ignored by the programme. The programme focused on a couple of debt evaders who could pay but decided against it. Their website was promoted a number of times, and the publicity they got was so good, they paid to be top of the Google rankings this morning to promote their site. Alternative sites like the ConsumerActionGroup, MoneySavingExpert, CCCS and NationalDebtLine weren't mentionned which give real advice and help at negotiating with lenders to settle their debts. I have heard of hundreds of cases where the circumstances changed for families, either in terms in income or health, which meant they were unable to meet the original obligations of their deal. When they went back to the lender, there was no leeway and they were unsympathetic. This wasn't touched and it is worth noting that it is in Government backed guidelines that lenders are sympathetic when lenders circumstances change. It is offence under Section 5 to show impartiality when making a factual programme and this programme mostly concentrated solely on the banks and DCAs. There was little to show the plight of those people who are struggling and is an affront to investigative journalists everywhere.