I'm maybe being a bit thick,

I thought if it ever happened to me I'd know all the elephant in the room questions

but I can't think of anything sensible to ask......

It all started a month or so ago with excruciating stomach pains and loss of appetite [a biggie for me],

then a few days ago it got so bad that I went to the quacks and had bloodtests

within 72 hours was referred to the local hospital,

I'm a funny shade of yellow at the mo so I guess I knew something was going a bit wonky.

should have had the biopsy today but it was cancelled and replaced with a phonecall

and Oramorph + Zomorph 60mg capsules....

.. I suppose the question is,

has anyone had experience of this [Pancreas and Liver] with a relative and how long do I have?

I'm not daft and have googled until I'm blue in the face and nothing really tells you what to expect and when..

..... honestly, I'm 48 and pretty much at peace with everything [might be the morphine tho, lol]

so any life experiences gratefully received.

The cancer nurse was lovely and asked if I had any questions but for the first time in my life I couldn't think of anything sensible

I'd be inclined to draft something to the other party referring to your conversation and its reluctance to make application to set aside the judgment.

If it knows it had no cause v you and seems intent on [mis]using the judgment as leverage on another party it should really be brought to courts notice within the application.......

also, I assume you'll be including within the application a request for an order to recover your costs.

Talktalk doesn't seem to understand free........ here's my 'freebie', apparently I'm just 1 of many thousands clogging up its phone lines to advise it of my utter disgust.

Monthly Charges

Mobile

Part Month

077******** Value (v4) - 1m SIM Only 22 Dec - 31 Dec 1.61 ^

077******** 100MB Free Data Boost 22 Dec - 31 Dec free ^

Total 1.61

Advance

077******** Value (v4) - 1m SIM Only 1 Jan - 31 Jan 5.00

077******** 100MB Free Data Boost 1 Jan - 31 Jan free

Total 5.00

Total New Charges including VAT 6.61

Total Payable including VAT 6.61

Now the admin fee has been waived, this thread has run its course as the issue is resolved

Perhaps a post to remind anyone looking in at a later date to check their heads of [inco] terms when importing goods to the UK.

Thought you'd had a reply [re; tribunal] but it seems to have disappeared

Given the value involved it may be a simpler, quicker and cheaper option to issue a money claim on the sct........ would certainly help if you could evidence the contractual term/s regarding expenses.

No just unlawfull and they know it

That's unhelpful and entirely inaccurate.

"(7)Any charge payable by virtue of this section may be recovered by the universal service provider concerned and in England and Wales and Northern Ireland may be so recovered as a civil debt due to him."

 

 

This would apply to the person that contracted the courier to do the delivery.

 

That would be the sender.

 

Royal Mail choose to try and make the recipient responsible but the legislation does not say this.,

 

It does not grant power to create a civil debt for a service to a third party that they did not request.

 

AND it is a CIVIL debt and therefore normal common law applies.

 

 

Also their terms and conditions are not relevant to the third party.

 

ONLY IF the receiver contracts the company to make the delivery directly do their T+Cs bind them.

 

SO other than a bad interpretation and mis application of statute, do you have any evidence that they can bind a third party to their T+Cs?

That's plainly wrong and very naive........ the consignee contracts the carriage, there's no getting away from incoterms. This has been discussed numerous times on this forum.

 

 

Goods being exported from inside the eu to OUTSIDE THE EU would be subject to EXPORT duties as per eu requirements

 

Not as you said it, UK imposing IMPORT TAXs on eu goods coming into the UK

What export duties are we considering?

Its probably a valid point; the eu doesn't impose export duties, UK exports are zero rated for VAT purposes [VAT MOSS excepted ] so I suppose it will fall to competition and the will of the incumbent government at the time.

Unless anyone is naive enough to believe an exit wouldn't affect their household budget surely we should be asking ourselves whether the eu provides us with access to stable trade.

£/capita is iro £120.00 [gone up a tad with the incumbents fudging the employment/gdp data], do we believe the current government would negotiate down a little over £2.00 per week or do we believe it would be driven by taxation?

hello goodatresearch,

 

Yes the offer to settle is without prejudice.

 

my claim is that I paid for treatment that I did not have to pay for, on the understanding that I would be reimbursed. However, when I made a claim for reimbursement, the defendant changed his story and said that my treatment was private. I have evidence against him proving my case which is why I believe they want to settle. I started the small claims to get my money back after many unsuccessful attempts at reaching an agreement with him.

 

So the letter states that the defendants' solicitors are looking for a resolution to this matter. A second letter says that they are agreeable to settling the claim.

 

They have requested extra time to prepare a defence, which is not a problem. The part I don't understand is that they have requested an order for "costs in the case." How does this impact the settlement? Will I be liable to paying anything?

 

I hope that clarifies things a bit more. Any help is much appreciated.

 

Thanks

It wouldn't be unusual for the other side to request an extension to file defence whilst negotiations are ongoing, nor would it be unusual for it to browbeat a LiP into a relatively low compromise or acceding to a demand with the threat of application for costs.

Without sight of the content of its correspondence I can only guess that it seeks your agreement for an extension absent which it will make application for same requesting costs in the case.

Posts 8 & 10 should provide you with ample information regarding 'costs in the case'

I'd think whatever you send it will reject, I personally wouldn't waste the price of a stamp on responding but........ that's me

If you do feel inclined to reply [and assuming it is relying on pofa, it'll be buried somewhere in the ntk] you could remind it that its out of time and it would be sensible to cancel the charge.

My preference would be in for trade agreements but out for article 45........ I suppose the question is whether you can have your cake and eat it

I think its code 35 for non display of a disc

Hopefully someone versed in your situation will be along later to assist

No point in going to the independent assessor, they are just as bad as the adjudicators.

 

I stopped paying my IVA over a year ago out of the £2790 I paid into the IVA only £158 has been paid towards my debts.

Seems about right for nominee fees, usually around the £2k mark + 15-20% of realisations

If you entered into an IVA and it failed because you declined to service at the agreed rate then it seems highly unlikely the FOS would find in your favour

What you shamefully do is typical of your party, you pick on just one part of a whole package. This is just one small part of a large package of measures that will see workers better off in real terms but you don't want to mention the other parts.

 

.

I think what you meant to say is the posts were shamefully picking away at the vile and disgusting attitude of the current incumbents to the poorest in UK society.

Nice one, they have done the deal and China will invest in our nuclear power generation and other things. Lets get the money in.

.......and get our kids to repay it five fold over the next generation

I'm also not understanding the references to 'poor'.

 

Is it suggested that because mum and dad don't have much money their child isn't capable of achievement ??

Not sure anyone has suggested that?

The key is funding and the way that funding is allocated. Currently there is a pupil premium for the disadvantaged, this does not necessarily mean 'poor' although the bulk of the expenditure is for those who qualify for free school meals, higher premiums are also available for fostered, adopted, those moving from local authority care, PRU's to mainstream etc etc

As I said; Grammar schools are constantly looking for ways to shift the benefit of the available budget.

To expand on Conniffs point, which is the greater crime - spending a little more on those who will benefit from it or wasting a childs potential - but especially those from poorer families.

 

But do realise that the extra amount spent would quite probably not be large, and all should benefit, including those less academically adept.

 

 

Unclebulgarias point that better quality tuition at teh very early stages is a key point in a childs education, which is why extra investment (not just paying for tuition) by the families and education system in the early period will pay off immeasurably.

The education budget is finite, there is no spending a little extra here or there to satisfy a minority. In the instance of 16-19 year olds real term spend has reduced year on year post 2010, no ringfencing applicable to that particular age group.

Grammar schools historically robbed Peter to pay Paul....... protected budgets for years 7-11 [1st to 5th form in old money] would be used to offset the cost of operating sixth form classes with low pupil numbers. With the introduction of the pupil premium for the disadvantaged it has had to look for ways to shift the local budget in its favour.

I thinks its great to have aspirations but should that be at the expense of the disadvantaged?

How would a supporter of selective [Grammar] education suggest it be funded?

Do we return to right wing values of underfunding the majority to support the minority or do we continue with the fairer allocation of resources?

British Parking Association refuse to pay London Councils POPLA bill

 

 

http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/british-parking-association-refuse-to.html?m=1

Oh dear........ I understand the scrutineer has a solution - it is now actively advertising for an assessor to assess the assessors [old and new]

Well London Councils still have money to burn on paper, printing and postage. I have just received a letter through the post exactly the same as the email in post 4.

 

 

It still wants its 180k........ would it risk breach of contract by not responding to those appeals still within its control?

Simplest thing to do is ignore the shysters

Anything from it reduced to writing or was this all agreed over the phone? It probably continued to encumber the account with interest and/or charges during the repayment period.

If nothing in writing I'd go with the SAR and hope that whoever you spoke to recorded the terms of the repayment plan and it shows up on any notes. Don't telephone it, if it knows what info you are looking for you can pretty much guarantee it will be redacted from any data request.

Oh and, RBS is a shower and I can't imagine you'll ever get this resolved with telephone calls.

What were the stated terms of the repayment plan?

Hi Ford

Yep, I did question this with the FCA and whilst it agreed it had the authority to enforce the provision it does not seem to have the will to do so.

Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Section 50 CCA makes it an offence to send a circular (with a view to gain) to a minor inviting the minor to borrow money (among other credit related issues).

We have had the power to impose FSMA enforcement powers for breaches of the CCA since 1 April 2014.

The other relevant point is that the Illegal Money Lending Team also undertake prosecutions in relation to the CCA.

Yours sincerely,

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Associate | Customer Contact Centre

Financial Conduct Authority | www.fca.org.uk

Consumer Helpline: 0800 111 6768