Just a word of caution, if you do admit the offence it may be sensible [assuming it is yours and your sons genuine belief] to not obfuscate about what one or the other of you may or may not have known. I'd assume your son agreed that you could drive the car conditional upon you having valid insurance as I'm fairly sure the authority persists and he would have a complete defence should the need arise. RTA 1988 s.143....... your son could be liable to prosecution if he knowingly permitted or caused his vehicle to be used on a road without insurance in place.

You personally? not a clue........ Self employed/sole trader, Paye [director] drawing divi's, Paye employee [other]? In receipt of benefits? Type of benefit [if any]? Investments [shares, land etc]? Good to know you're a high earner though

Haha............ are you on a mission What would you like me to bring?

Depends what the importer/consignee agreed to. International conventions [CMR, Hague Visby etc] are a different animal to domestic carriage. If the original poster on this thread was invited to contract carriage [which by his own account is the case] including ancillary fees its a contract between the carrier and the consignee. Not sure how productive a defence of 'I didn't read the T's & C's' would be. If the consignor supplied the goods on ex works terms its a contract between the carrier and the consignee, if the consignor supplied the goods on FCA terms its a contract between the carrier and the consignee. Not sure why the rights of third parties would apply except perhaps in the event that the heads of sale/purchase were agreed on DDP terms. To be frank, I think £12.00 is a reasonable price. I seem to remember that at one time Fedex charged import clearance and advancement [on deferment] as 2 separate fees but it now appears to have combined the 2 with no charge for the clearance. Its fees are published for ocassional importers and available on its website. I'm all for not paying where no service is provided or where the fee appears penury but in the instance of clearing imports I'm pretty sure you'd have an uphill battle convincing any judge the charge was disproportionate. As I said; if the op felt that strongly about it and had chosen not to pay I can't imagine any business pursuing a £12.00 fee in court.

Not sure there's any need to, the figures speak for themselves and reinforce the position that many [already low income] households will be out of pocket until at least 2018, depending on inflation perhaps even further into the future. Its report is a tad biased and ignores the immediate [3 year] impact of the cuts on struggling families, its sensible enough I suppose to promote a fairytale ending but we tend not to live in fairytale land. The oddity of the proposed changes is the immediate benefit to higher earners

Plenty of authority on contracts of carriage, would guess [without looking at the terms you agreed to] the contract was formed with the airway bill or bill of lading. Whether you understood what you agreed to or the ancillary charge for clearance is another matter entirely, as far as the business is concerned it had your authority to act on your behalf. If the information was witheld from you by the consignor your gripe should be with it not the agent acting on your instruction, perhaps the consignor will reimburse you the fee? Can't say whether the fee is reasonable or not in the circumstances but if you feel that strongly about it don't pay it and move on. Seems commercial suicide to sue for £12.00 so I'd imagine it will send a few begging letters and give up, it certainly can't attack your credit files so there's relatively little it can do to pressurise payment.

Nothing new in the propoganda, whats disappointing is the number of voters who fell for the hype and are now left wondering why they voted themselves out of pocket... doh To be frank, I live in a fairly affluent area. IDS will be pleased to note that we have now increased voluntary [read volunteer] employment to create 5 foodbanks and multiple drop off points within the town where none existed prior to 2010.

...... and its response to number of prosecutions: Dear xxxxxxxxxxx, I'm writing again after I last informed you I was pursuing your request with our Freedom of Information Act Team. After reviewing this internally and consulting with Enforcement, I can confirm that there have been no such circumstances to date where we have prosecuted for offences under Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act. Further; there exist no records of the FSA having prosecuted offences under Section 50 of the Consumer Credit Act I appreciate your patience and hope this information is helpful for you. Yours sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Associate | Customer Contact Centre Financial Conduct Authority | http://www.fca.org.uk Consumer Helpline: 0800 111 6768

For info; FCA response to enquiries below Thanks for your patience whilst I sought guidance on your enquiry. Does Section 50 of The Consumer Credit Act apply? This is a piece of legislation which defines or covers all Consumer Credit Agreements. Our rules for Consumer Credit Firms have been derived from this legislation, but the Act itself is an Act of Parliament. You’d need to seek legal advice if you need to know more about the legislation, or the extent of which sections, if not all, are applicable. Where to get advice on this Refer to the Citizens Advice Bureau if you need more guidance on whether your daughter can legally take out a Credit Agreement in the UK, as I’m unable to comment for you. You might want to look at their website under Banking, credit and borrowing money, as it states the following: “If you are under 18, it is a criminal offence for anyone to send you material inviting you to borrow money or obtain goods or services on credit or hire purchase. However, if you are over 14 but under 18, you can enter into a credit or hire purchase agreement if an adult acts as your guarantor.” Our rules on providing Credit Agreements I’ve got this looked into for you against what our rules say, and we don't define the meaning of a minor within our handbook. Our rules focus more on Responsible Lending, which can cover a majority of situations. This may include taking into account a person’s legal status, or ability to repay. You can complain If you’ve got a complaint against a firm we authorise, you can complain to them about what’s happened. We’ve outlined a formal complaints process with our rules that consumers can follow if they have a complaint against an authorised firm. This gives you access to the Financial Ombudsman Service, who can say what needs to happen for you to get a fair outcome. Thanks again for your patience whilst I got this looked into for you. I hope this information helps you. How was your experience? To help us improve our service, I’m interested in finding out about your experience with the Contact Centre today. I’ll send you a link to a survey and I’d appreciate it if you could take a few moments to share your feedback.

Its certainly an oddity within the act where a single 'regulatory' body has no inclination to investigate. Its a subject that caught my attention by way of a young relative [at school with no income] agreeing terms for a moped insurance policy at the age of 16. I can accept authorities tell us that contracting in necessity can [in limited circumstances] be enforced v a minor but personal experience shows that there is no requirement to finance insurance where the market offers monthly premiums calculated at daily risk rates with no interest applied. The FCA advise they do not investigate s.50 complaints nor has it ever prosecuted a single entity, it further advises there were no prosecutions during the time of the FSA. TS advise it does not investigate, nor has it ever prosecuted a single case, the police.......... typical response 'civil matter' So it leaves me wondering what protections there are for minors [if any] and is the only penalty an unenforcable contract in the event of default?

I'm not entirely confident the the Fraud Act aligns with the CCA, it [FA 2006] is self regulated in the financial sector which indicates that if it has any bearing on s.50 it would never be prosecuted.

Couldn't think where else to pose the question Any suggestions which body within England and Wales prosecutes s.50 offences and does anyone have access to any reported cases? Relevant section at the following link http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/50

I'd agree...... it would be naive to believe the industry is doing anything but clutching at straws in pressurising parliament to regulate it. It wants [and needs] a change to guidance which would only come about with the intervention of state regulation. PoPLA's final report under London councils was fairly clear in that Beavis would have little to no effect on Gpol appeals regardless of the outcome. You would think that PoPLA which purports to be an ADR facility would publish its terms of reference, the fact that it does not speaks volumes.

Not sure I'd ever consider it or Popla independent, budgets for both are agreed by the ATA [bPA in this instance]. Up to you whether you set the cat amongst the pigeons or let the matter rest.

Email address below which may [or may not] be useful if you want to press the issue with ISPA From: Nicola Mullany

The issues probably a little wider than the letter. London councils being out of pocket, the commercial position would be to offload as many case files as possible at minimal cost. Stalling under the matter of Gpol seems sensible enough [for LC] regardless of the appeal. There seems to be an agreement that all gpol cases post August 2015 and pre October are to be decided by neither London councils or the Ombudsman service.......... if you were owed 180k and had the opportunity as a business to bin everything received in the final weeks of service, would you consider any appeals or throw them all in the same basket which you knew you would never be called on to decide?

Its difficulty appears to be that PoPLA is bound by dft guidance, Beavis shouldn't have any bearing on the issue of genuine pre-estimate of loss at PoPLA as the two [ADR/Tribunal or civil] remedy can never align. From recent comms with ISPA I get the impression the industry is desperately seeking a means to [re]interpret dft guidance.

Bear in mind that any data passed to the FoS can be protected, if the other side have requested the information is not shared with the complainant it won't be............ sometimes its more productive to keep things close to your chest in the early stages. If it proposes a settlement later on you could 'innocently' ask the Ombudsman to pass you any information that may assist you in making the decision whether to accept.

Following Andy's post above....... this corresponds with CCA 1974 s 159 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/part/X/crossheading/credit-reference-agencies Bear in mind the data controller is the party to any claim for damage, CRA's are pretty much a no go as data processors The way this usually plays out is......... you raise the issue with the processor [Equifax, Experian, Callcredit], it in turn views this as a s.159 complaint and requests a response from its client [swift in this instance], a muppet reading the data at its terminal responds that all is correct, the processor says thanks very much and continues processing, you end up banging your head against a brick wall.

Its difficult to tell, I'm not entirely sure that it won't still want to compromise the case at a reasonable value. If it believed it had a high probability of winning it would have counter claimed. I think if you can get over the initial hurdle of the court agreeing the principle charges, whether by virtue of UTCCR or simple contractual remedy [linked to the PPI] the interest element should fall into place. Try making a WP offer to the other side at corrected quantum, post your revised spreadsheet back on here first though

Yep, the firm had a trainee wasting my time........... somebody forgot to tell her to remove all the tactical notes and comments That was the only extract I felt comfortable publishing on here

This is the only extract of its part 18 I can share........ the rest was written by a 2 year old [with crayons] "The Claimant further claims other relief as is just and apposite, to include the expunging of inaccurate personal data where processed, shared, reported or published in any medium. " 21.Lets not ask. This will only help the Claimant. If he doesn't know what he wants then the court cannot give it. Served on the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxxxx 2015 Dated xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2015 L~./L ~i Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP Two Snowhill Birmingham B4 6WR

Here's the ICO's view -----Original Message----- From: xxxxxxxxxxxxx@wragge-law.com> To: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CC: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@wragge-law.com> Sent: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The email below has been referred to us. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to the ICO in order to fully respond to the query raised. Please provide your xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Yours faithfully Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP DDI: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx M: +xxxxxxxxxxxxx Two Snowhill, Birmingham, B4 6WR Switchboard: +44 (0)870 903 1000 http://www.wragge-law.com Subject: Email from the Information Commissioner's Office to xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 29 June 2015 Case Reference Number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear Sir/Madam The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has received a complaint about your organisation and the way it handles personal information. The ICO is a UK independent regulatory authority reporting directly to the UK Parliament. The Commissioner enforces and oversees the Data Protection Act 1998 (the DPA). Our purpose is to improve information rights practices within organisations. Please see the case summary below for details of the complaint. Please complete the section marked data controller response and return to us in the timescale outlined. Where appropriate we have enclosed copies of supporting documents. Complainant Details xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Complaint Summary xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx When checking his account on the 20 April 2015 the entry had been removed as it had been six years from the date of default. However a month later the entry was showing on his credit report without the default and a different balance. Mr xxxxxxxxxx raised this matter with xxxxxxxxxxx but feels that his concern was not addressed correctly. He says the only thing about the entry that was looked at was the fact it was showing as status ‘in query’ which has since been removed. His actual concern is that the entry is there at all. DPA Principles Involved Principle 4 & 5 Attachments A copy of credit file entry Copies of correspondence between xxxxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxx What we need from you A defaulted account shows on a credit for six years from the date of default. We would ask that xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx concern is revisited and that you provide your version of events and in particular answers to the following concerns: Why this entry still remains on xxxxxxxxxxxxx credit file when the default was recorded over six years ago; Why the balance has now changed from £1629 to £12. We would ask that you confirm your findings to us, along with details of any action taken in respect of this concern by 27 July. Response Timescale By 27 July 2015. Data Controller Response If you have any queries concerning this process, please contact me. For further information about the DPA, please see our website at http://www.ico.org.uk. If you disagree with this decision, or would like to provide us with feedback of any kind, please let me know. Yours sincerely, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Case Officer Information Commissioner’s Office 01625 545 xxx ICO Statement We are often asked for copies of the correspondence we exchange with third parties. We are subject to all of the laws we deal with, including the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000. You can read about these on our website (http://www.ico.org.uk). Please say whether you consider any of the information you send us is confidential. You should also say why. We will only withhold information where there is good reason to do so.

It's defence........ worse than my claim I............... 1 Save insofar as the same consists of admissions and save insofar as it is herein expressly admitted or expressed not to be admitted, the Defendant joins issue with the Claimant's Particulars of Claim. This Defence is served without prejudice to the Defendant's contention that parts of the Claim should be struck out for failure to state any grounds capable of success at trial or alternatively dismissed summarily for failure to demonstrate any prospects of success at trial. 2 In this Defence where an allegation is not admitted, it means that the Defendant is unable either to admit or deny the allegation in question and requires it to be proved in accordance with CPR r.16.5(1)(b). 3 The Claimant entered into an agreement with the Defendant on xxxxxxxxxxx (the "Agreement"). 4 The terms and conditions to the Agreement (the "Terms and Conditions") stated that the Defendant will add details of the Agreement with it, as well as ongoing details of the Claimant's account and how the Claimant manages it. Further, they stated that if the Claimant does not repay on time, or in full, the Defendant may tell credit reference agencies, who will record details of the debt. All of this information will be seen by other organisations carrying out later searches. A copy of the Terms and Conditions is attached at pages 1 to 29 of the annex. RESPONSE TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM 5 The Claimant has failed to particularise its claim. CPR part 16.4 requires that the Claimant includes a concise statement of the facts on which the Claimant relies. The Claimant has failed to do so. 6 Due to the Claimant's failure to particularise its claim, the Defendant is unable to ascertain what the Claimant is claiming and on what basis. 7 Without prejudice to paragraphs 5 and 6 above, the Defendant does not admit: 7.1 that it unlawfully processes and shares personal data with credit reference agencies; 7.2 that the information it processes is inaccurate and manipulated; 7.3 that it is breach of contract; 7.4 that it is in breach the Data Protection Act 1998 (the "Act"); 7.5 that it is in breach of ICO guidance on reporting to credit reference agencies; 7.6 that damages including aggravated damages, for misuse of personal data and/or compensation under section 13 of the Act are recoverable; and 7.7 that interest under section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at 7% [sic] a year from 19.05.15 to 10.06.15 on £1000 and at the same rate up to judgment or earlier payment at rate of 0.22% should be awarded. 8 The Claimant is put to strict proof in regard to paragraphs 7.1 to 7.7. 9 The Defendant reserves its position to file an amended Defence. 10 The Defendant reserves its position to file an application to strike out the Claim. Statement of Truth I believe that the facts in this Defence are true and I am authorised to sign this statement of behalf of the Defendant. Signed ... { Print name .............. ~NNrF~R. ~ .,._ ..,`~1L .....~............................................... Date ....~....~. ...~.~r ...................................................... Served this ~~ day of July 2015 by Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP, Two Snowhill, Birmingham B4 6WR, Solicitors for Defendant.

Sometimes it's difficult to know whether its a deliberate abuse or lack of controls. In this instance I thought perhaps that its operating system didn't have the functionality but on speaking to one of the CRA's [after the event] it appears it was more than capable of acting correctly at any time of its choosing. It just didn't understand the effect of its actions prior to taking advice from the firm it instructed in the case. I did involve the ICO in this case purely because the other side needed a push in the right direction, the CRA's weren't particularly great but did just enough to comply with the act. You have to bear in mind their commercial interest is with the creditor and they have little to fear [civil or criminal] in the event of processing inaccurate data. Having said that, Equifax were listed as witness and did offer to provide a statement for trial. The claim itself was filed fairly soon after the event, the other side processed the entry at 19th May, I served [by email] a LBA at 20th May, it responded at 4th June, I issued the claim at 10th June. It filed its defence on the last day, pretty much a bare denial contradicting itself in part, 2 weeks later it served a part 18 which I laughed at [can't go into detail] and served my own which it didn't seem happy with. In the meantime, the ICO had been pressing it for a response, its counsel was passed the file and had to come up with some slightly creative answers......... which didn't go down too well with the commissioner [not least because it had been on copy with all correspondence in the case] Out of the blue I received an email from a contact at Equifax advising that the other side had contacted it confirming there had been an error and all processing should cease. This in turn was followed by a credit to my bank account courtesy of the other side with no notice [written or otherwise]. If you know the Halliday case you can probably guess the value. That's about it barring the usual shouting match via email, claim pretty much settled, money in my account, nothing in correspondence until the WP email above. Have since served/filed the discontinuance and had the other 80 squid settled.