12 minutes ago, Mycathasfleas said:

No disrespect intended, and apologies if I remember incorrectly. This appears similar to a post three weeks ago. 

If this is the post you have in mind it is by a different poster and the situation is not quite the same.

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/463711-managermisconduct-investigation-but-hes-not-independent-or-capable-now-summary-dismissal/#comment-5236688

3 hours ago, DrayHorse20 said:

 During the investigation I discovered thst the boss was not running the charity correctly.

In what way?

Please clarify what help you are seeking here.

Do you want to challenge your own dismissal?

Ok, I understand. Let's see what more knowledgeable colleagues here think, it's not something I've been involved with before, although my first thought is that YW have no legal duty to tell you that might have a leak if you have never asked them to investigate the reason for increased water usage. And if they have no legal duty then you wouldn't have the right to get them to pay any of your increased costs. I can't envisage any circumstance where they would be responsible for paying your plumber's bill. Toilet fittings wear out and need replacing from time to time; it's a home maintenance cost.

I wasn't thinking about the law so much as why you think Yorkshire Water might have a responsibility for knowing you had a small leak. Reredaing your thread I see that it was something  YW informed youabout  last month.  Did they actually tell you specifically that your toilet had a leak? How would they know that? What did they actually say?

Sorry, but I don't understand why Yorkshire Water should be responsible for your toilet flush not seating properly and leaking so slowly it wasn't visible to the naked eye. Could you give more deatils please.

A question for the bailiff experts, if a bailiff comes to the door they will start by asking for John Smith, to which @brownie2024 will reply doesn't live here/don't know him.

To which the bailiff will presumably reply "can you prove to me that you aren't John Smith". 

Do we advise that brownie2024 should show the bailiff photo ID - passport, driving licence - to prove they aren't John Smith, as the quickest way to get rid of the bailiff? 

Hold the ID up from inside the window so bailiff can see it, don't hand it to them.

@brownie2024 If you have not previously experienced DCA or bailiffs vsiting I suggest you do a bit of research online into what baliffs can and can't do.

It's easy to say what a DCA (debt collector) has the power to do - absolutely nothing, as advised several times upthread. A DCA acts for the company who claims you owe them money. Just tell them to foxtrot oscar and if they won't leave your property tell them you will call police 101 and report them for illegal harrassment. You are entitled to film and record them with your phone as a record.

Bailiffs are different and do have some powers but not FORCED entry into your home for civil debts. Bailiffs are acting on behalf of the courts so can only be involved if the case has gone to court and a court judgement has been issued against "John Smith" at your address.

Bailiffs can visit your house but cannot force an entry. That means, for example, they cannot break down doors, use a locksmith, climb through windows. But if they find a door that is open or unlocked they can come in through it. So keep them locked.  That's why we recommend that you have your letter ready to hand to any baliff that turns up and you give it to them through the letterbox or through a window and don't open the door to them in case they barge past you then claim you voluntarily let them in. Once in legally they do have some powers. Look it up.

The DVLA letter is the key evidence so have copies available if any DCA/bailiff comes to the door. Give it to them once  and instruct them not to come back or contact you again. 

Just to confirm, 'john smith' has only used your address and hasn't cloned the registration number of your own car?

13 hours ago, Portoman said:

I just don't like how they have turned out - which is subjective I know - , but I don't think the reason matters as surely there is a right of return whatever the reason and a 14 day cooling off period for products bought online (I am still within this) - but my problem is the company is in the U.S. 

That's why I was asking you about the timeline! 

The Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013 apply to any company selling to UK consumers online even if it is based in the USA. The problem of course is how to enforce the Regulations against a US company with no UK business presence. So in practice I would say a chargeback is the only realistic way of getting your money back. As a matter of interest how much money  are you trying to get back?

EDIT  "...they are saying their prints are made to order, which I don't really believe....".  Even if true is it irrelevant as that doesn't exclude them from your right to cancel and return. Goods are only excluded if they are "made to the consumer's specifications or are clearly personalised". Paragraph 28 (1) (b) of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)     Make sure they know that you are exercising your right under this UK law. They may not care about UK law but it will help your chargeback request.

Portoman, I've added some additonal questions since your reply.

And can you also clarify why you want to return them? Did you just decide you didn't like them when you saw them? Or something else - like being faulty or not as described on website?

When you say "I don't like how they have turned out " what do you mean? Were these tailor-made or personalised items of some sort, made specifically for you and not a standard stock item?

Please give us a timeline. In particular  on what date did you place the order (I'm assuming it was online)?  And on what date did you tell them you wanted to return the prints? How did you tell them - by email?

Is this the company?   

High Quality Canvas Art | Canvas Castle

WWW.CANVAS-CASTLE.COM

---

Canvas Castle creates beautiful canvas art that make your walls dance. We are the cheapest high-quality canvas company in the world, specializing in...

@robieSS it would be helpful to see the wording of the guarantee. Can you upload here please with all details and reference numbers that would identify you or the Ltd company covered up

If it is a combined buildings and contents policy and you submitted one claim under it for all the loss and damage from the  burglary then it is only one claim. One policy, one insured event = one claim.The fact that for internal claim allocation purposes Hastings split the amount paid between different sections is just for their statistical analysis. It doesn't turn it into multiple claims. So for obtaining alternative quotes it is one claim.  The key point is that all the loses arose from one event, the burglary.

Unfortunately online sites are not very flexible about this. What I'd di get the best 3 quotes produced by the comparison site then call te insurers (if they don't call you first!) a explain the issue and check they understand it was only one claim .

Your bigger problem may be that they have declined to renew your policy. Have they explained why? Having one burglary claim in a year wouldn't normally result in the insurer refusing to renew, just offering renewal at a higher premium. Have you had  previous claims under your buildings and contents policy in the last 5 years?

Does the no claims bonus clause have a definition of what counts as one claim?

Thanks, glad it's been resolved without you having to take further action. I've updated thread title.

@rapster01uk  Has anything changed overnight on your Iceland bonus card account balance? 

Your earlier posts were all on the day it happened and sometimes if it was a systems glitch it gets corrected overnight.

5 hours ago, WenDeeDoll said:

As VIALIVRE SA has given POW to EPC, does this in theory equate to EPC being the owner of the debt and as such gives EPC the power to take court action against UK citizens in the UK in VIALIVRE's name?

It doesn't give EPC the power to bring a court claim in their own name because they don't own the debt, the debt is still owned by VIALIVRE.  But it does authorise them to bring a court claim in VIALIVRE's name, as VIALIVRE's agent if you like.

[EDIT] Meant to add, EPC also face the difficulty that as far as I can see no-one has ever asked you to pay these 2018 fees prior to EPC's letters in 2023.

I don't believe these alleged debts are direct from the Portuguese government or the car hire company, but from one of the private companies that manage Portuguese toll motorways on behalf of the Portuguese government, in your case VIALIVRE SA A22. Your details will have been given to VIALIVRE by the car hire company. I don't know about Portuguese law but typically car hire companies are not liable for unpaid tolls etc if they identify who the hirer was at the time.

EPC post this document on their website as their authority to act for VIALIVRE SA.  According to it EPC aren't the debt owner but have power of attorney from VIALIVRE to bring court claims in VIALIVRE's name. I'm not aware of any cases where EPC have actually done so but that doesn't mean there haven't been any.

1823408.pdf (epcplc.com)

You are correct that EPC [Euro Parking Collection PLC] is a British company  registered at Companies House and based in London. According to the CH entry it is a subsidiary of a US company so the information about British/Portuguese ownership appears to be incorrect.

1 hour ago, terrence said:

on the 10th of may this year I was given a FPN for littering (dropped a cigarette) .

So just for confirmation please. Do you agree that you accepted a FPN  on 10th May? But then did not pay the penalty amount? How much was the FPN amount? 

Do EDF claim that your father still owes them money for bills more than 28 days old? If so EDF might be able to block any request for a transfer to another supplier.  See Citizens Advice's explanation of this

Switching if you owe your energy supplier money - Citizens Advice

WWW.CITIZENSADVICE.ORG.UK

---

Check if you can switch energy suppliers if you owe your current gas or electricity supplier money and what you can do if your supplier won't let you...

2 hours ago, Nicky Boy said:

The point I'm trying to get opinion on, is the legality of using the DVLA to obtain keeper information in relation to incidents in a foreign country.

We have other caggers who have received demands from EPC for their own cars.

I saw something recently Nicky that said that a group of people who had been chased  by EPC were taking legal action against them on precisely these grounds, that EPC had no legal right to obtain RK information from DVLA in respect of a non-payment of a foreign charge. Unfortunately I was travelling at the time and didn't take note of where I saw it and now can't find it again.  I'll keep an eye open for it, I'm not sure whether any real action was being taken or whether it was all a bit speculative.

I suspect any legal action would not be straightforward as neither the relevant legislation [here]  nor DVLA guidance [here] make any specific reference to whether "reasonable cause" is restricted to events occurring in the UK.

I've no direct experience of this but agree with honeybee that the council should provide the form or draft letter. It's the council that wants it so they are the ones who know what they want it to say! You aren't mind readers, neither are CAB, and neither are we.

4 hours ago, Man in the middle said:

 

But bear in mind, Ethel, his s172 notice does not mention a suspicion of committing any offences involved with his driving. It only mention s170 (Failure to stop/report).

Thanks and understood MitM. I was flagging it for the OP in case it came up further down the line. (I'm in Spain and on a mobile at present and trying to avoid downloads so hadn't read the s172)

Bear in mind in defending this that if the videos show that when the driver came up behind you it would have been possible for you to move safely into the middle/inside lane then you should have done so. 

Deliberately blocking the outside lane could be an offence. Consider whether you can justify your actions to police on the grounds that it was unsafe to move to an inside lane and when you could have safely moved the other drivers dangerous actions prevented you doing so. Would the video evidence support such a defence?

I have a feeling that if HMRC are making a demand for payment, whether for taxes or penalties, they still send you a demand through the post to your home as as well as posting on your SA account. They don't rely on the online account alone.

Presumably they have your current address?

I'm not certain about that but something for you to check.

Although it seems very unlikely that anyone has misused your email address I suggest you change your email password. Always worth doing that if you have the slightest concern.