Thanks for that, didn't expect a video on something so specific! Definitely makes them look like a waste of time.

Unfortunately no, the car was second hand and it wasn't in the paperwork.

Unfortunately they're those McGard ones with the patterned head, so almost certainly I won't be able to get a replacement key! I guess I will have to get a removal tool and a replacement set then.

Hi all, Yesterday a breakdown firm helped me with a flat tyre (the tyre iron failed, so I couldn't do it myself). They sorted it out, but unfortunately the driver did not return my wheel lock key, and I was in a rush so I forgot to ask before I drove off. Now I'm stuck with the space-saver for now. The breakdown firm say they've asked the driver, and that he definitely doesn't have my key. This happened on the M4, so I'm crossing my fingers that the thing is lying on the hard shoulder where it presumably fell off the wheel nut when I drove away, but if not I'm going to have to pay to have four wheel lock nuts drilled out, and a replacement set. Are the breakdown company to blame for not returning my key, or am I to blame for not asking for it back? It was done through my insurance, if that makes any difference. Thanks for any advice.

That was my understanding too Conniff, thanks. It didn't take long to find the section in the Package Tour Regulations (and the company's own Terms and Conditions!) that cover this area.

Thomson were operating the flight - they and Crystal Ski are both part of TUI Travel. Therefore my understanding is that Crystal were responsible for the package in its entirety. Just to be clear though, we're not interested in being compensated for the delay, but for the cost of the ski hire and lift passes for the sixth day of the holiday, which we had paid for but CS refused to provide, saying it was "impossible" to change the arrangements they had pre-booked with their suppliers before the delay had occurred. Conniff - we received a letter stating that the delay was due to crew sickness, which occurred after the aircraft had landed and been declared serviceable (another crew had to be flown from the UK).

Hi all, just after a little advice re an ongoing spat with the above. We purchased a ski package from them - flights and 6 days of accommodation, ski lessons, hire and lift passes. Our flight diverted to Munich with engine problems, so we arrived a day late. When we asked about getting our lift passes adjusted to account for the fact we arrived a day late (our transfer leaves so late on our last day that the is almost time for a full day's skiing before it leaves) we were fobbed off with reasons of "policy", which were repeated when we challenged our rep and his manager. They said that because it was an unusual event we should claim the cost back from our insurance,and also that their contract with their suppliers precludes them from purchasing individual days of lift passes and ski hire. Our view is it's not an insurance issue at all, that we purchased a whole package from them, so it's their responsibility to provide it. Any actions that they take to recover this cost from their suppliers are no concern of ours, and that in any case, a refund back in the UK won't help us ski in Borovets! Our insurance covers us for inconvenience resulting from delays, but the wording doesn't say anything about costs resulting from delays. Anyone? Am I correct that it's the company's responsibility to provide what we've purchased? Thanks.

Grr, it makes me so cross. Thanks for the reply though.

Are they enforceable? I am sharing a flat with another guy who cannot pay his half of an overdue council tax bill because of a pay screwup at his work. I got a notification today that if it isn't paid by a specific date the account would be summonsed and a £70 "legal fee" would be added. I called the CC today to see if an alternative arrangement can be worked out, like an extension on the due date. I can pay my half of the outstanding but I can't afford to pay it all. I was told that no, it doesn't work like that. If we can't pay by date x, the account will be summonsed after an unspecified time and a £70 "legal fee" would be added, and then alternative arrangements could be discussed. So is this £70 fee enforceable, in light of the fact I've already offered to discuss alternative arrangements? Them simply refusing to do so until the summons is issued because "that's just the way the system works" doesn't sound to me like an argument that would stand up in court. Am I wrong?

I did try to get it with my employer, but I'm a contractor and my contract wording is slightly hazy in this respect. I was waiting for them to get back to me on it when I checked my statement today. I found that my charges have been deducted and then refunded in full, somewhat inexplicably. There was no letter to this effect. Is this likely to be a mistake and something I should query, or rather a "quiet" refunding of charges? Put another way, if I do nothing could I expect a letter from HSBC in six months time demanding £100? In either case, I've essentially "made" £13 out of HSBC now which I should return, but I'm hesitant to do anything that might prompt them to say "whoops, that was a mistake, we'll have that £100 back please." Views, anyone?

Hi everyone. I have a fresh situation with the delightful HSBC. As a result of exceedingly late (almost a month) payment of wages by my employer, I went over my overdraft limit. HSBC want to charge me £100 for this privilege. Now, the charge has not yet been deducted and won't be for another 10 days, so I wrote to them explaining the situation and requesting the charge be rescinded. The reply I got back can be summarised thus: They've given me £13, but are still going to charge me £100 on the 9th. What a joke. Could anyone give me advice on a response to this please? I'd like to do something other than restating my case - so far I have: Could anyone suggest any additions or changes I could make please? This is made rather more awkward by the fact I'm leaving the country in the next couple of months so I won't be around to go through the procedure to recover charges (otherwise I'd threaten to do so in the letter).

I thought it might be useful to update this thread with what happened - or rather didn't - to me in the same situation. On January 15th, ECP sent me a letter threatening to refer me to debt collectors if I did not pay the fine within 28 days. On February 18th, I got a letter from debt collectors, which amongst other things said they had been passed the debt with instructions to seek a judgment against me, it may affect my ability to get credit etc etc. I wrote back the same day saying the debt is disputed, their principal has failed to substantiate their claim, that they should refer back to their client, and any further correspondence from them (the collection agency) may result in a complaint under the Protection From Harassment Act 1997. It is now almost two months later and I have not heard a thing from either the collection agency or ECP. I know it's probably been said here hundreds of times, but why not add another voice - they're completely full of hot air.

I'm in a similar situation. ECP wanted a £70 fine for my car being left in a Co- op car park in Swindon. They sent me a final notice what must be about 28 days ago, because today I got a letter from a company called Controlaccount Credit Management (slightly disappointly, the registration number they quote on their stationary is in fact a real company) asking for payment within five days. They added £25 though, for good measure. It says: Thing is, by my understanding any judgment that would take place would be based on contract law, and as such concerns the driver, not the registered keeper (me). ECP would have to demonstrate that an agreement existed between the driver and ECP to pay the fine if the conditions (e.g. having a ticket, or the maximum period of stay) were not met, so they'd need photography of some sort of the person in the car and even then, demonstrating that they'd seen the signs with the conditions on could be problematic. It seems logical that if they had such evidence, they would furnish you with it prior to passing the account to a debt collection agency, or subsequently going on to court. It'd save them time and probably money - they show you a video and say "we know you were the driver, we have proof, we know you saw the signs, you'd lose in court" and you would probably pay up right away. But they haven't done that. My plan is to ignore them. They have failed to demonstrate that I was the driver of the car and as the registered keeper I am under no legal obligation to identify that person. If the collections company contacts me directly, I will tell them that the debt is disputed and that they should go back to their client. Meantime ignore it.

Bump

I did file, but I messed up the court forms slightly and had to resubmit them. I did so the middle of last week, so it seems rather early for the case to have been filed yet given that I applied for remission on the court fees. My original request was for a refund of £787 but since I made this request I have had 'arrangement fees' totalling £225 for an 'informal overdraft' (which seems to be what they're calling unauthorised overdrafts now) which pushes the total to £1012. This is the figure I put in my court claim, plus interest. I got a letter from HSBC today offering £843. This is in excess of my original offer but would not be a full refund of the arrangement fees. Is it worth pushing for the full amount or should I consider myself lucky I'm getting any of the arrangement fees back at all and accept it as it is?