Ofcom might apply if the OP is referring to T-mobile in the UK (now part of 'Everyone Everywhere'). However, the OP put "ss#" in their OP, making me wonder if this is the US T-mobile, or if the OP is from the USA, as "social security number" is quite a US concept .... OP can you clarify, please?.

If the OP suffered a significant injury, then they should be entitled to compensation for the damage / loss they suffered. However, I agree with Jogs if the loss / damage was trivial or minor ... They might be entitled in law to seek redress ... But should be asking themselves "should I sue" rather than "how much can I sue for".

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/section/7 Protection from Harassment Act 1997 7 Interpretation of this group of sections. (1)This section applies for the interpretation of sections 1 to 5. (2)References to harassing a person include alarming the person or causing the person distress. (3)A “course of conduct” must involve conduct on at least two occasions. [F1(3A)A person’s conduct on any occasion shall be taken, if aided, abetted, counselled or procured by another— (a)to be conduct on that occasion of the other (as well as conduct of the person whose conduct it is); and (b)to be conduct in relation to which the other’s knowledge and purpose, and what he ought to have known, are the same as they were in relation to what was contemplated or reasonably foreseeable at the time of the aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring.] (4)“Conduct” includes speech. I'm not a lawyer, but my reading of this means that the fact they send different people doesn't stop the police acting ... If this is part of an organised course of conduct. It looks like that loophole was considered .. And closed

I'm fortunate enough to be able to use mine without problems, but I also use their business Internet banking, whose key is even easier - a larger (single) button, with an easy to read display. They don't work by exactly the same method though ... The business model doesn't require a PIN each time. I'd agree with previous posters ... contact them, explaining that they haven't considered adequately the effect on persons with disabilities, or, if they have, haven't offered you that alternative. Mention the business banking key, and the fact it doesn't use an identical technique, and see what they suggest?.

If there is a "cooling-off" period, then cancel with a comment of "when would you like us to try again, once the temporary fault is going to be fixed?"

I am sympathetic to the fact that the 25k is outside of his ability to pay. However, I'm not sympathetic to the idea that because he has been dealt with by a criminal court for his offence, that somehow that should absolve him of any civil liability. What if your family had suffered at the hands of a different drink driver?. Would you not want fair compensation from them, and if the insurers you claimed from were able to go after the drink driver, as the policy doesn't cover drink driving, why would you want your and/or their other policy-holders premiums to go up because they wen't able to recover their losses?. However, bearing that in mind, the civil liability should be reasonable. Ask for a breakdown of the costs, so that you can challenge any artificially inflated costs. My view? He should be liable for those costs / damages which are reasonable, but not for any unreasonable nor inflated costs.

What the law states is what I posted previously .... an advert or price ticket is "an invitation to treat", and on its own doesn't have to be honored. Once an offer of payment of that price is made AND ACCEPTED, the contract is established and the price honoured. Retailers might choose to honour a price ticket in the name of good customer service, especially if it wasn't obviously an error ... but don't have to, unless payment was made and accepted. If I see a £200 camera with a £20 price ticket and take it to a till, they don't have to sell it to me. If the staff say "that is £20 please" and I hand them £20 .... Its mine. If I put £20 On the counter and they don't take it and say "Sorry, that is priced wrongly" ... they don't have to sell it to me.

"Registered medical practitioner" is the key phrase, as this is the phrase The Medical Act protects. If that is how the person describes themselves, then they must be registered with the GMC, not a (allied) Heath care professional (registered with the HPC), or nurse. / midwife (who register with the NMC). It is the doctor's responsibility to provide their GMC number if asked. Where you might face a problem is if atos say they don't have to provide it (morally, I'd say they should, but they may not be legally obligated to), and if they never pass on any request to the doctor, who can then 'plead ignorance' of the request. So, try atos, but have a back-up plan Have you phoned the GMC? Their website does stress the web searchable list isn't infallible, and gives a number to call of 0161 923 6602 ww.gmc-uk.org/Patient_leaflet__Low_res___English_Version__28153330.pdf Are you entitled to a copy of the doctor's original report?. Whilst the GMC's guidance notes on GMC's numbers differentiates between when a doctor "must" do and what they "might consider" .... the guidance says a doctor "might consider" "Unless it is already included in the letterhead, have your GMC reference number typed beneath your name at the bottom of letters and reports that you write." ww.gmc-uk.org/doctors/information_for_doctors/doctors_registration_number.asp apologies ... It won't le me post this with URL's, so the URL's are shortened .... Replace the ww. at the start with 3 w's Mods ... Sorry to circumvent the anti-URL measures, but I hope you can see these are links to the GMC's website, not spamming!

My understanding is that their advert / website remains only "an offer to treat" until the contract is established. So, pressing "submit order" on their site means you have offered to pay Y amount for x goods or services, not that they have accepted it (what exactly does the website say at each stage?). So, IF you'd submitted the order but they'd not accepted it and not taken payment, they can refuse the order unless you pay the higher price. However, in your case things have progressed further : a) you have a confirmation e-mail (but does it confirm they have RECEIVED your order, or ACCEPTED your order), and, more crucially, they have taken your payment (hard for them to claim the order has only been received, not accepted). I don't believe (but I'm not a lawyer, usual caveats, etc.) they can charge you the £1200 difference. Do their T's and C's contain any relevant clauses? Even if there is a clause in there, it'd still have to not breach any statutory rights, nor be an unfair contract term. With those caveats my understanding is that if they cancel the booking and you have to book elsewhere for the same package at a higher cost, then you could look to BA for the difference in cost, as you had a contract with BA to supply goods/services x at cost Y, established by you seeing it advertised, you placing the order and them accepting your payment. Are there any relevant clauses in their T's and C's?

It was a parking ticket (or whatever they were called before PCN's). It was in Croydon - so it may not have been by Croydon Council (given your comment), but it WAS a parking ticket, in Croydon, 20+ years ago.

Deja Vu ..... By about 20 years. My mother received a PCN from Croydon, based on tracing her car through DVLA, some 20+ years ago. Since my Mum lent her car to both my sister and I ; Mum asked us who had got a ticket in Croydon, and who had neither paid it nor told her about it. We both denied it, and on checking with the council : they quoted her car's Reg. Mark, but a different make and model. When she pointed out the make and model were wrong, she was told "well, the details on the ticket aren't very clear, maybe its a different Reg."! Nice to know that some things haven't changed, even with all the new technology. BazzaS.

I'm not wanting to get defensive of this doctor, but can you imagine a different family posting a similar situation but for theirs: a) sadly their baby died, but after an awful week (awful for the baby and family), and b) the family posts to say that "no one sought our views on if he should be kept alive when he was so desperately ill". I'd imagine that if it was clear any baby would survive that this type of conversation wouldn't be brought up. If it was clear a baby was going to die then I doubt it'd be discussed, though they'd say "if he has a heart attack we won't be trying to resuscitate him as he is too ill" - the fact they did say this last phrase shows they were making decisions on any limitations on treatment ; is it possible they were "asking for your views" rather than "asking for you to make the decision"? If they were asking for your views, is this such a bad thing? (though perhaps the issue is how you perceived it was asked). Again, all the best, BazzaS.

First and foremost - Best wishes to your baby and yourselves. Next, IF, (and it is a big 'if') there has been negligence, what outcome(s) are you aiming for?, such as: 1) An explanation of what happened / how it happened / what they might change or improve to prevent it recurring. Tied in with thisis that sometimes patients / families can feel that the doctors aren't telling them everything, and sometimes people litigate to find out "the truth", 2) Financial compensation for any support your baby needs for adjustments needed to compensate for any damage / loss of ability caused by any negligence, 3) To "punish" any wrongdoing / wrongdoer, 4) To have your concerns "heard", if you feel they haven't been listened to so far, and any other outcomes you are looking for. Not all of these outcomes are best / most quickly obtained by litigation ; you might want to look at other avenues first, with litigation held "in reserve" for if you find it is needed or your only way forward. What happened and what to expect for the future are best answered by doctors - and the most informed doctors about your baby at the moment are the team looking after him. So, do you feel they are telling you everything, and that the changes from "your baby is fine" to "your baby is very ill" was because things changed (they can change quickly) - because if you think they are deliberately hiding information then you might not want to go down the path I'd suggest if you DO have confidence that they are now being open and honest : arrange a meeting with the consultant in charge of your baby's care, to ask the questions you want answered, and explain what your questions and concerns are. Since you have mentioned MSSA, one line of questioning might be to ask if any bugs likely to be the cause of the sepsis were grown from any of the culture samples taken, or any MSSA from any of the samples taken. If you don't feel able to discuss things direct or want to talk it through with someone first, consider talking to PALS (Patient Advice Liaison Service for Derby Hospitals) - they are on 0800 783 7691 or pals@derbyhospitals.nhs.uk. Although PALS teams are employed by the Trust, they offer confidential advice. (Details found by using Google, as I suspect I'm not allowed to post URL's) At least one of the links I tried on google gave a "page not found" page on that trust's website .... If you get this, just put "PALS" into the search box on that trust's webpage. To summarise : litigation would be a "long road" to take, and one you can always take later if needed. First steps I'd suggest is to work out what "outcomes" you want from any complaint / enquiry, and consider getting PALS to help you achieve those : you might then find litigation isn't needed, or if it is, you may already have a better idea of what you want to achieve through litigation. again, best wishes to you and your baby. BazzaS