It's known as the Class E exemption and the law on CT exemptions says nothing about having to sell the house in order to be made exempt. It's not a discretionary exemption, it's a statutory entitlement in England.

If/when you run out of patience with the CT department at the Council you should raise a formal complaint with the Council. Details will be on their website.

Legal action would be a last resort. TBH I don't know what sort of legal action you would bring but I doubt it's a small claims court claim.

I agree with other posters, do not cancel the DD. That would likely bring you a pile of hassle and legal troubles.

It would depend on what the lease says, how the damage was caused, and what was damaged but most likely your son would be responsible for the damage to.otuer people's flats by a leaking CH system and almost certainly if he lets his bath overflow.

The owners of the damaged flat (or their insurers) would make a claim against your son and if he were legally liable it would usually be insured by his contents insurers under the third party liability section of his contents policy.

Whatever is written it has to come from your daughter. By all means help her write it but she's 21, she has to speak for herself! You can't make representations for her.

@superg Section 30 (3) on my earlier link has the 14 days but look also at the rest of the sections in Part 3 of the regulations about giving notice and returning the goods etc.

Did the packaging have any seals on it? eg creams often have a seal  connecting the lid to the container that breaks when the lid is unscrewed or taken off. Or when the lid is taken off there is a seal stuck to the top of the container preventing you acessing the contents. Likewise packets of tea typically are sealed into an external cardboard box that you have to remove a sealing strip from to open it. If the seals are unbroken you have the right to return them as quoted earlier in thread. It is only if the seals are broken that you do not have the right of return [The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 section 28 (3) (a) ]

A novel approach, not come across that one before. Let us know what happens. My guess is private parking companies never say No to money in whatever form!

32 minutes ago, Billy Williams said:

It's difficult to work out exactly what the letter is (other than a threat!), as at the bottom above the suggestion it is the precursor to a visit from High Court Bailiffs, it states "This case is not subject to high court or bailiff action"?

That sentence is a standard 'disclaimer' DCBL put on letters they send out when they are acting as debt collectors. Because the full name of the company is "Direct Collection Bailiffs Ltd" their name can give the impression they are bailiffs when they are actually only debt collectors and not acting as bailiffs. (Debt collectors are acting for the person who claims they are owed the money, bailiffs are acting for the court.)

I guess someone has rapped their knuckles at some stage - a court or a regulator maybe - and DCBL have been told they mustn't falsely imply they are acting as bailiffs when they aren't. Hence the 'disclaimer'. It doesn't mean the case is going to the High Court for bailiff enforcement.

In any case baliffs can only get involved after you have been to court, lost your case, but haven't paid. You are getting ahead of things, you haven't even had a court summons yet! 

14 minutes ago, Nicky Boy said:

Batteries are now supplied to us with only 30% charge, to reduce risk. (New "regulations" apparently)

It's the 64th Edition of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations for air freight that limits the charge to 30%. (I only know this obscure bit of information because I came across it yesterday when I was posting upthread  )

 lithium-battery-guidance-document.pdf (iata.org)

I guess some courier companies find it easier to adopt the IATA regulations even if they are only carrying by road within the UK.

The requirement isn't in the Royal Mail prohibited goods list.

As you probably know it's the fire risk that is the concern and leads to the prohibitions. Lithium batteries in some circumstances can short circuit and catch fire. Because they are energy-dense they give off a lot of heat when they burn.

A quick search on Royal Mail's site shows that lithium batteries  aren't actually totally prohibited but there are myriad conditions regarding packing which differ depending whether the batteries are enclosed in a product or loose so I'm not surprised if post office staff generally find it easier to say 'prohibited' than to go through the full list of questions about the battery types and packaging, questions probably not fully understood either by the individual customer or the PO counter staff. 

As an example last week I needed to return a pack of 4 Size D alkaline batteries to Amazon that had been sent to me in error. PO staff told me they were prohibited and couldn't be sent by Royal Mail in any circumstances. I can now see from this link that they are not prohibited as they were correctly packed and should have been accepted by the PO. The PO clerk simply didn't know the rules. (Problem solved by Amazon saying 'keep them'!).

Have a look at this page on Royal Mail site, scroll down to Batteries and then individual battery types. Prohibited goods - items you can't send through the post (royalmail.com)

My guess, and it is just a guess, is that businesses are able to certify in some way when sending out new products that these packaging etc rules are being complied with, whereas the average customer sending in a return doesn't have the knowledge to make such a declaration.

OK, that probably explains why LL doesn't want to release you from the guarantee. LL probably thinks that a tenant under a s21 notice might stop paying rent before they move out. 

Is tenant taking advice from housing charities or legal advice on her options? It's not something I know a lot about but there's excellent guidance on the Shelter website.

Section 21 eviction - Shelter England

Once she actually leaves your guarantee terminates and the issue is resolved per para 7 of the Guarantor Agreement.

19 minutes ago, hitman126 said:

The tenant though has revealed that the Landlord served her notice to vacate the property some time ago, as he was seeking to sell the property.

Legislation to ban s21 is going through parliament but AFAIK is some way from actually getting into law so at the moment I think a LL could still use it. 

But your comment "The tenant though has revealed that the Landlord served her notice to vacate the property some time ago, as he was seeking to sell the property." sounds like she has already been served with a s21 notice. Is that correct? How has she responded to this?

18 minutes ago, hitman126 said:

I'll simply use my Windows snipping tool to snip and share the relevant section. 

Or use my low-tech workaround: print out a copy, cover up bits I want to hide with a black felt tip marker, then recopy and upload that  (I'm not very techie!)

Please upload the guarantee document that you signed 5 years ago. Cover up all information that would identify you, your friend or the property.

The starting point for issues about guaranteeship is what the deed of guarantee says.

If you succeed in terminating your guarantee is there a risk the landlord will issue a s21 notice to evict your friend? Although that would seem a remarkably short-sighted thing to do when they have a tenant who apparently has been a good tenant for years, always paid rent on time, presumably has looked after the property and complies with all terms of the tenancy. Is your tenant finacially  'stable', in employment and able to afford the rent in the future?

21 minutes ago, heathertippex said:

conditional offer - paid but licence details not received by HMCTS 

[my bold]

So it looks like they are not, as you first thought, saying you should have sent in the physical licence, but that you didn't provide your driving licence details. Could that mean you did fill in the licence number but made an error and gave an incorrect number, maybe just one wrong digit?

So what is the answer to @Man in the middle question? Did you plead Guilty or Not Guilty to the SJPN?

@heathertippex

The post you have just made [Post #8] is a reposting of Post #6 that you made yesterday so it doesn't answer the question asked by Man in the middle in Post #7 regarding how you pleaded to the SJPN.

Thanks MitM.

So for the OP if you need to refer to relevant law that made the change it was in section 94 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 which was brought into force on 30 November 2022 by the snappily named Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Commencement No. 4 and Transitional Provisions) and Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (Commencement No. 1) Regulations 2022

This may be a dumb question  @heathertippex but are you absolutely certain you gave your driving licence number with all the details correct when you replied to the Conditional offer for a FPN?

For  FPN this page on gov.uk confirms what has been said, you don't (normally) need to send your licence, just the licence number.

Penalty points (endorsements): Returning your driving licence for endorsement - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

This solicitor's site confirms the law changed from 1 December 2022, no need to send in physical licence, although it doesn't say what the specific regulations were that made the change.

Stephen Oldham Solicitors | Post in your driving licence when you accept a fixed penalty for speeding (thedrivingsolicitor.co.uk)

2 hours ago, Hogie said:

Would it be worth trying to find out what details Land Registry currently have shown on their files? 

That's easy to do online and only costs £3, although as noted the LR entry may not be fully up to date.

But if only to satisfy your curiousity you can download a copy of the Title Register for your property here (you don't need the separate Title Plan). The Restriction K should be noted on it.

Search for land and property information - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

If it's the first time you have used the Land Registry to get a copy of a Title Register you will need to set up a Land Registry account first (free).

Did you say earlier in the thread that Marker Study haven't actually sent an engineer to inspect your vehicle but decided what repairs would cost just by looking at a photo? If that's the case when you write to them I'd add that if they wish to send their own engineer to inspect it they can do so, and how that should be arranged, and that if you do not hear from them within 'x' days you will assume they do not wish to inspect themselves.

And Nexus's proposal to extend the grace period isn't addressing the real issue at all, which is that being in the DriveThru queue isn't parking at all and 'grace periods' are irrelevant. I've no doubt that if it went to court the judge would throw it out as not being parking.

The site owner of the retail park (not identifed but apparently not McDonalds) is as much to blame for designing the site so that it's impossible to distinguish between people entering to park and people entering to go to the drive thru. They'd probably argue that people might go the drive thru then park to eat, but that's their fault for not making the drive thru route separate from the car park.

11 minutes ago, eightiesman said:

If I'm awarded damages, she's flat-broke & just wouldn't have the means to pay.

But she has already reported the accident to her insurers according to Post #1 so she wouldn't have to pay personally. She would pass your claim to her insurers to be dealt with under the third party liability section of her policy.

That's good news, now all you need is the money back!

It's also good that they are not telling you to bugger off they don't want you as a customer any more, which happens to some people.

6 hours ago, MOSS 41 said:

but they say not a breach as because they held my data from 15 yrs ago when I was an appointee for my daughter , and as such that 15 yr ago info given was consent to use my data 

You need to do more research on that assertion by insurers, talk to ICO and look at their website.

Three potential issues come to mind

1. When you give an organisation permission to use your data you consent to it being used for specified purposes. You don't agree that they can use it for any purpose they want to for all time. So did consent given 15 years ago include what they did use it for later? They surely aren't suggesting that your consent given 15 years ago entitled them to attach your details to another lady's claim in 2018?

2. Since you gave consent 15 years ago data protection law has changed. In particular there was a new law in 2018, the Data Protection Act 2018, also referred to as 'GDPR'. I have a feeling that companies had to get new permissions when the 2018 Act came into force but I'm not sure of the details. Something else for you to investigate with ICO.

3. Did they have a business reason to retain your details for 15 years? One of the general principles is that businesses aren't supposed to retain people's data for longer than they need to. Possibly they did, I haven't read back over the whole thread. But again, something else for you to investigate with ICO.

Thanks for clarifying.  Did you say the DDs were paid though?  That's a better position than some have found themselves in.

You have been fortunate compared to most posters who had the same problem because usually people report that their whole account has been frozen and their DDs etc aren't paid, and they can't access it at all, and they can end up defaulting on mortgage payments etc.  Looks like it's only the £5k transaction that triggered the fraud alert that has been 'frozen' (by being removed from your account) and you can operate the rest of the account, DDs are being paid. Have I understood that correctly?

You are doing everything that we usually recommend when banks freeze an account because something that happened triggered a fraud or money-laundering alert.

-- Speak to the fraud department, the bank counter/call centre staff will know nothing. Make sure a real human being is dealing with it, the original alert and freezing is usually triggered by AI.

-- Be polite and provide everything they ask for asap.

Looks like you are doing all of that so all you can do now is be patient. And act on recommendation upthread about always having a backup account with another bank. If it were to happen again all your accounts with Barclays could be completely frozen.