The address raided was the correct one on the warrant: it was the warrant itself that was incorrect. The police raided the right address that was specified on the warrant but it turned out the people writing the warrant had got the address wrong. So the police were doing everything correct according to the warrant, it was the anonymous people who are never liable for anything who got it wrong. But the police were rude and obstructive about the whole affair and refused to apologise, as they insisted they did everything right according to the warrant. In addition they vandalised property rendering it unusable and making him hundreds of pounds out of pocket, and it made a hugely detrimental effect on the his work performance and family life, given the social stigma attached to the crime in question. He's asked me to write all this myself because he is too scared of being identified on any forum etc. he is a member of. This is also the only reason he has not gone to the press yet, because the police might relaliate. The warrant was indeed wrong, through no fault of the officers seizing the property, but the police were still out of order in the way they acted. I am informed the IPCC have been contacted. They had no need to arrest him specifying the details in front of his wife and 11 year-old daughter when they could have done it in the next room. Also, even though it was a genuine mistake by the police, the arrest and property seizure will stay on record and so whenever he gets a CRB check in future, he will be down as being arrested for making indecent images of children. He has been told that regardless of being innocent, the nature of the accusation means it stays on record forever, with no exceptions. The effect on any future job applications etc. will be hugely damaging.

They probably refused him because he's a Muslim. And I'm not joking.

The police seem immune to everything, including punishment for murdering innocent people on the underground or killing protestors. Also it's a matter of "pubilc policy" that the polce are not liable for any damage caused while acting according to procedure i.e. seizing equipement in accordance with the warrant and doing whatever the hell they like with it, vandalising it, destroying it, or never giving it back to the person who owns it, is perfectly permissible and the victim is not entitled to any compensation. The police are disgusting.

Thing is, if you be honest and go to the interview in London and apply for a visa, they will probably say no and on top of that, ban you from visiting the US for life. The other choice is trying the VWP - either they will catch you and ban you for life, or you will go through with no problem. So it looks like the choice is the latter as you will be no worse off if they catch you than if you'd unsuccessfully applied for a visa. I think it's a bit of a money-making gimmick as I have read on several other forums that people who have actually done time have gone to America and ticked no on the boxes and gone through with no problem. As an aside, how many celebrities do we know of who are known to have been arrested but probably reguarly go to America for TV/film stuff.

Take yourself off the electoral register, then you can guarantee you won't be called to do jury service, but then you can also guarantee you won't be able to vote either.

I don't know off the top of my head about MPs, but I can tell you for certain that police officers and judges are now allowed to sit on juries since the rules were relaxed a few years ago. Absolutely appalaling in my view that police officers can be on juries, will hugely increase the problem of bias and undue pressure on other jurors, they will lean towards a conviction regardless of evidence as the police generally consider anyone brought to trial guilty until proven innocent.

Thanks for your advice, it's worth a shot. Thing is, even if it is removed completely from my record, the fact remains, and will remain for the rest of my life, that I was arrested, period. The Americans couldn't care less what the result of the arrest was, or whether the police/courts found you not guilty, they are happy to go on the actions of one bent copper: an arrest is an arrest and that's all they care about.

Anyone entering the USA who has EVER been arrested, even if the arrest was wrongful and/or there was never any charge or conviction, has to declare it to the American Department of Homeland Security and is automatically ineligible for the Visa waiver programme. I was completely wrongfully arrested by some incompetent lying pigs a few years ago and was released without charge after it was clear that the evidence against me was fabricated. The officers who fabricated the evidence were disciplined. But because of this I now have to declare it to the Americans every time I go to the US for the rest of my life. It is never spent, the 1974 Rehabilitation Act does not apply. Is it reasonable to demand that the filth pay for the cost of my visa? It seems only fair as I was wrongfully and maliciously arrested and as I have to travel there once every few years for business, the cost incurred over my life will probably be several thousand dollars as it costs $131 a time. Does anyone know if there is any legal precedent on this? It seems unfair that the Americans want disclose of arrests that do not result in conviction, but we have to accept that. Therefore surely it should be the responsibility of the police to reimburse people like me who have been victims of their incompetence and are left out of pocket because of it?

The rules have been strengthened hugely in the last few years. Being on holiday is no longer a reason to get out of it, they will still make you do it and you could be fined or prosecuted if you refuse. The reasons are very limited, such as being of very ill health, or taking important exams e.g. university finals. Other plans e.g. holiday, wedding, funeral etc. is generally not considered an acceptable reason, regardless of the expense that may have gone into these plans. Sorry about the loss this will cause to your earnings, it is quite unfair, personally I think the court service should fully recompense anyone on jury service as they have no choice after all. On the plus side, it's a great privilege being able to take part in our judicial process and very few people get chosen for it in their lifetime, so appreciate it and make the most of your experience.

Be careful before taking action against anyone for fraud. The burden on the claimant is enormous, much more than for negligence etc., and if you fail in your accusation you will almost certainly be subject an angry retaliating counterclaim from the defendant for defamation, damage to reputation, and all the costs incurred. Basically although the standard civil burden of proof is the balance of probabilities, for fraud it is in reality far closer to the 'beyond reasonable doubt' rule. Consider his side of the story too. He could have simply forgotten to inform the car company about the address, after all you had an acrimonious split and there were probably more important concerns going through both of your minds. This may be negligent on his part but certainly not fraudulent. Alternatively he could have just instinctively put down that address on the agreement, it happens to all of us when we move house, we write the old address by mistake. Be calm in whatever you decide to do, and good luck.

Since my last posting, I received a "final warning" letter, which I ignored. I have now received a "notification of collection proceedings", with threats about bailiff, court orders to freeze bank accounts/taking fine out of earnings etc. I shall also ignore! I now look forward to receving a letter from a fake solicitor.

Thanks, I suggested that to him too. It seems unbelievable that the police are entitle to deliberately vandalise and damage people's property and are not liable for it.

Someone I know was recently arrested for one of the worst crimes imaginable. When I mention that the police had a warrant to seize computers, cameras and pictures, you can guess what I'm referring to. It turned out it was a mistake, he had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with what they were investigating, and he was released without charge - the police were polite and apologetic, and his stuff was returned without further ado. The problem was not with the officers he came across personally, but rather with the anonymous jobsworths working in the hi-tech crime unit who examined his stuff. They completely, and probably deliberately, mistreated his belongings and a lot of them are unusable. They also flat-out refused to make a copy of an important work document for him, which had serious repercussions at work as he was due to present an important dossier but could not do it as his laptop was confiscated by the police. Making a copy of this one Word document would have taken seconds and not been any inconvenience whatsoever. His digital camera SD card is now completely unusable. They have blocked it - you put it in the camera and you can no longer take or delete any pictures. It was a fairly new 16GB memory card. They have physically ripped off a little bit of plastic on the side to achieve this. Also a large part of his hard drive has been permanently 'blocked off' - effectively reducing his memory space by two-thirds. He relies on his laptop for work and has masses of things on there, and he'll now need to buy an external hard drive (or a new laptop) as there's not much room left. Also his mobile phone is unusable, you can no longer get any signal, it is now just on emergency calls only. So he has to buy a new mobile phone. So he has been left possibly hundreds of pounds out of pocket, and the police say they are not responsible and it's tough luck! The police made a genuine mess-up in even going to his house, it was a complete mistaken identity, they were looking for number 38 (....) Street and they went to 38 (....) Road by mistake, causing huge embarrassment and distress to him and his family, given the social stigma of the crime he was accused of. The police are far too protected when they make incompetent mistakes like this. It wasn't even a mistake - the hi-tech unit maliciously broke his equipment and are not paying him a penny. They must surely be made accountable for things like this and those that abuse their powers to seize property should be sacked and publicly disgraced, just like what they seek to do with the people they wrongfully accuse of such appalling crimes.

MC is correct. Under the tort of negligence, it is not sufficient just to say that the other guy must be liable because the flood came from his flat. Although it is quite possible that he has done something negligent, e.g. leave bath running, amongst a million other options, it cannot just be taken for granted and there is always a possibility that it was a genuine, unforeseen incident, in which case the upstairs neighbour has zero liability. As MC says, the law here thankfully still understands that genuine accidents can occur and that it is unfair to punish someone in such an eventuality. Just one of many potential reasons for the flood: the upstairs neighbour's water company was negligent in fitting/fixing pipes, sink, bath etc. If this was the cause of the flood, then the liability would fall with the upstairs neighbour's water company, NOT the neighbour himself, as he could not have reasonably foreseen that there would be a failure, whereas the water company, with their expert knowledge, should have known better. I could go on all days with the different possibilities. You would also have to prove that the neighbour had a duty of care and a proximate relationship with the OP to stand any chance whatsoever of proving negligence. It's far more complicated than simply saying "his flat flooded mine, so it's his fault." --- Sorry, but I think the umpteen thousands of people who've come on here after completely unacceptable behaviour from rip-off insurers taking them for a ride and doing absolutely anything to avoid paying up, will disagree with this. Insurers do try: yes, as hard as they can, to find a petty excuse not to pay up on a genuine claim.

Thanks for that. I am sending off the claim form with all the tickets etc. today and I have included a letter informing them why there is no airline letter due to the airline not being bothered to do one despite us asking them a dozen times or more. I'll see what happens, I hope the insurance pay up, it will be easier!

During the 'big freeze', our flight was heavily delayed, this made us unable to complete the final hour-long journey home from the local train station as the last bus had left (no taxis due to frozen roads + impassable without a bus or a 4x4), so we had to stay in a hotel. So we are claiming for the expense of the night in the hotel. The travel insurer (Flexicover) requests on the claim form that we send them a letter from the airline confirming that we were on the plane and that the plane was indeed delayed. We have been trying to get Easyjet to give us this simple letter for a month now and they have incompetently failed to provide us with one, despite us asking them numerous times. We have the boarding passes and the email booking confirmation, so do you think the travel insurance will be OK with that if I include a cover letter that explains that we have been non-stop trying to get Easyjet to send us this letter and have not bothered to do, out of our control? Thanks for any help!

Disabled parking spaces don't even have any legal standing in these car parks, so it was irrelevant whether a blue badge was on display or not; anyone at all can park in them, it's just out of courtesy for the disabled that they don't. Ignore everything.

My other half was the one who opened the letter and she is more of the type who believes these things and will pay, no questions asked. I was a bit naughty, I knew that car park was there and I had no intention whatsoever of using Lidl (btw, out of courtesy for genuine shoppers I wouldn't have used it if it had been busy but it was a practically empty car park); I was only in the area for a meeting nearby and knew of the car park and of the PPCs and their unenforceable invoices, and didn't feel like using the council pay and display one. I have a friend who got an invoice from that very car park a few months back but I failed in my efforts to convince him he didn't need to pay it! My task is just to convince my fiancée that there will be no debt collectors, no bailiffs, no court action and no criminal (ha!) record!

Thanks! Will do

I got my first ever PPC "ticket" the other day! I had parked in a free Lidl car park. The time limit was 1 hr 30 mins and I stayed for 2 hrs 10 mins. I duly got the "PCN" in the post the other day as they had got me by CCTV. The normal stuff is there, like offering me a reduced fee if I pay within 14 days, and then referring it to a debt collection agency etc. if I don't pay within 28 days. I think I'm fairly clued up on PPCs and the unenfoceability of their "tickets", but just wanted to check for sure that I am safe to just ignore all correspondence and not enter into any correspondence with them? Thanks.

That's interesting, majorclanger, thanks for bringing that up. Shame it is not good news for the OP though. It seems quite unfair though. I think the onus should be on the insurance company to ask, and if they don't then that's their problem. Like if you are buying a used car, the onus is on the potential buyer to ask, not on the seller to disclose, and if they find a fault that they hadn't bothered to ask about then tough luck. As for home insurance, it should depend what the conviction is. For example if the OP's friend has a conviction for, say, fraud, or some offence under the Theft Act that involves dishonesty, then it would be understandable if an insurance company refused to insure someone because of that. But if they had a conviction for, say, dangerous/careless driving, it can fairly easily be argued that the conviction has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with them insuring their home. The Law Commission regularly publishes interesting and sensible proposals for changes in the law that are worth seriously considering, but sadly most of the time they are completely ignored by parliament and our criminal justice system!

It seems fairly simple. If they didn't ask him about a criminal record, that's their problem. If they asked him and he declared it and they still sold him the policy, that's also their problem. If they asked him and he lied then they have every reason not to pay up. I would check the Ts & Cs though to check if it says anything in the smallprint. Basically if they didn't ask him about it and it was not in any terms and conditions that he had to voluntarily declare it, then he did NOT have to tell them about it. Sounds like they're trying to squirm out of paying to be honest. Keep pressing them.

Hi there, I have been needing to contact Easyjet for a few weeks now to obtain an insurance letter for my travel insurance company, after I was forced to spend a night in a hotel as I couldn't complete my journey home due to my Geneva-Bristol plane being very late on the 8th January in those extreme weather conditions we had. I went to the contact bit on the website and got as far as "I wish to obtain an insurance letter", but I want it sent to a different address from the one that was used when the flight was paid for; and to do this they explicitly tell you to phone them...but they don't give you a number! I have tried 01582 700036 numerous times. It does not work. It rings and rings and rings for all eternity, and no-one answers. I've tried the 0871 number and I waited on hold for an hour before giving up as I have a life to lead. Is this the norm or was I just unlucky and should try again? Just wondering if anyone has found a new number that gets answered? Thanks.

BBC News - OFT watchdog says Ryanair payment policy is 'puerile' Now they've been completely slammed by the OFT. I hope lots of stories like this will lead to their downfall.

You did not need to pay anything in the first place, it is a [problem] and a completely unenforceable invoice, not a fine. Do NOT pay anything else and IGNORE all correspondence from them. They will send some threatening letters designed to scare you into paying, but they will give up. You only have pay a parking fine if it's issued in a council car park (or on the street by a council parking attendant/traffic warden), NEVER in a private car park. The parking company has no appeals procedure, they routinely reject any appeals, probably without reading them, and then continue to harrass people. Do not pay up, the best way to hurt them is to completely ignore them. Now that you know this, tell everyone you know and advise anyone you know who has received a "PCN" in a non-council car park to ignore absolutely everything, never enter into contact with the company, and not to pay up. Unfortunately it is unlikely you will see your £40 again but don't give them any more.