I know - but i think a couple of the companies now change their T&Cs to mention the increase as soon as it is announced, so you cannot then just buy a phone and fix your usage so that you can end the contract when the change happens. I have bought one phone in the UK recently, and it was at O2 had it on sale half price - I thought it would be a tenner to unlock but it was £30-£35 and "no warranty". So it was looking like I could only use it in the UK until they agreed it was not satisfactory due to the lock. :D:D Most phones bought outside the UK are unlocked. Also, as its not the network who is supplying the phone the same was as in the UK, about 15-20% of mobiles are available with dual sims (although the highest spec to date is the dual sim Samsung Galaxy Pro).

The handset is his when he gets it. I had also heard stated before what locutus suggested as the reason.

They recently took flack from the ASA on their mobile and broadband pricing claims. http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/5/Telecom-Plus-plc/SHP_ADJ_186418.aspx http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2012/05/asa-uk-ban-utility-warehouse-ad-for-cheapest-broadband-bundle-claim.html

Well Mr KAR 120C, in the past I have ended two contracts early. One with T-mobile when they introduced charging for 0800 calls, which I knew they were about to do, so left the phone calling them for a bit each evening. This meant when the change came in my bill would increase by well over £100 a month on a £30 contract. The contract ended based on the increase in my bill being greater than inflation. The phone was a 3 month old Seimens SL45 costing about £400 which I got to keep. I ended a contract with Three early, as I had checked three postcodes where I would use it most, and they had said two had good coverage, and the third had none, but would drop to 2G so calls could be made. It worked in one of the gardens, and upstairs at one window in one house. The phone could not drop to 2G, as that was blocked in the firmware, so could not work in that entire town. When the Indian girl asked for the phone back, I pointed out we should be in the position before or after the contract, and if she wanted the phone back they would need to refund my line rental (6 months into a 24 month contract at £20 a month with a £300 Nokia E71). She said I would have to keep the phone. So the situation is the seller sold you a phone that was working. If it was not their phone to sell, then your claim would be against the seller. If the phone was theirs to sell, then Vodafone has trashed your phone and your claim is against them. You cannot rely on the contract between the seller and vodafone (which probably does not mention they will trash the phone) as it has nothing to do with you, other than to decide who owned it (rather than to have the phone unlocked for being locked outwith the contractual terms). The bottom line as I mentioned above is how much is the phone worth? First try asking Lee the Vodafone rep in here to see what he says. If it helps, I just had the O2 phone I use in the UK unlocked despite not using O2, based on arguing with them over their second major failure this year that the phone was not a satisfactory product as it was locked to a network they admitted themselves had not provided a satisfactory service. So there is clearly flexibility if you like arguing. Secondly, if the phone is worth under £150 - £200, and you take them to court (not online). It will cost more for them to be represented, so you are likely to win by their failure to defend - but that is obviously not a certainty. You might however win on its merits anyway.

Is a tenner a week leaving you short, in a sense that you cannot meet more important bills? Have you other debts too, as if so we are as well trying to fix them all at once. Debt collectors are required to have a licence to permit them to collect debt, and a condition of that licence could be taken as they must not attempt to get more money than a person can afford to pay. They also like to talk to you on the phone as most of the time, unlike a letter, it cannot be substantiated, so they can just make up threats of what will happen. When they call you need to tell them you don't want to speak to them and require everything in writing. Then hang up. Send them this letter, as there is a good chance it will stop them calling (although they are chancers and it cannot be guaranteed, but you can just hang up on them telling them you have sent them this letter). http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?493-Harassment-by-telephone-response-letter To get back the late payment charges and fees, you need to send them this letter.... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?605-Credit-Store-Card-Letter-Template This should get your charges back, although strangely they will normally keep adding them after you are repaid, so you will probably need to do it again later too. If you get a letter saying you will have someone coming round to visit you, then this only happens at a time you arrange, so you can decline to arrange a time. You can also send this letter to prevent them visiting (although as said previously - they are chancers and they might still try). If they do, smile and close the door. You can even keep a copy of the letter next to the door to pass to them as the door closes. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?410-LETTER-USED-WHEN-A-DCA-THREATENS-A-DOORSTEP-VISIT If you are unsure what a reasonable payment is you can visit a CAB if you do not want to discuss it online. The last thing worth mentioning, is they cannot come into your house, they less authority to ask you for money than your paperboy, but being chancers they will try to lie if you speak to them, so thats why its best everything is in writing. Millions of people are having financial trouble just now, but its not a reason to treat you badly. Any other questions, just ask.

With these types of letters it seems to be a computer is automated to belt them out every now and again. I guess I must have probably nearing a hundred from flats I rent between lets, however, they are never carded by any doorstepper other than Sheriff's Officers for the council tax.

For a small debt it just seems an overreaction.

Are you swapping sims on the phone? That normally causes the mobile to receive texts for the new settings. Failing that there is a problem with your sim which is making it continually register as a new sim to the mobile.

Did anything come of the threat to write to your landlord? Do you think you may have acted confrontationally/aggressively prompting his acting this way?

If it was a consumer contract - then the jurisdiction is always that of the consumer. What type of contract was it?

When banks have requested proof of ID, normally they are fine with the person visiting a branch with ID to pick up the docs. Just show it - don't let it be copied.

We used them about Easter, and their prices were best and it did go smoothly. £30 Quidco back on a £600 booking too - although its not paid up yet. 10 Apr 12 EasyToBook 91.29 4.56 Tracked 11 May 12 10 Apr 12 EasyToBook 497.80 24.89 Tracked 11 May 12

Go on - splash out - blow the full £2.60!!!!!

T-mobile Business are doing a sim with 500 mins and 3000 mins landline for £112 a year - but with cashback (not redemption) it went to between £1 and £3 per month. The sim works on T-mobile and Orange masts so far better coverage than Three. http://www.t-mobile.co.uk/shop/business/mobile-tariffs/#step2-sim-only (Select £10 - £14 a month as presently 25% off).

Look on the bright side! It's not 2m people face a £200 bill - its 2m people's attention being drawn to being given the chance of downloading only the programmes they actually want to see, and saving £145.50 to spend on your newly freed time.

The police should have records of who attended - having the number from the relevant cop's shoulder would help too. Perhaps you should also complain to the police for the cop offering financial advice without having a licence! :D:D

Ever reaching court is massively unlikely - as the don't have the items, and their evidence is ebay feedback. They also have no entitlement to that person posting the feedback's address. I think you said you refunded the item, so even the person who thought it fake has no longer got it. You just need to ensure you don't incriminate yourself - so editing anything potentially nasty here might make sense as you know their MO of obtaining "evidence" is comments written on the internet. Lastly, as you said - the account was not in your name at the time, and so in theory they should be chasing someone who has nothing to do with it. But replying to them with offers etc, is just massively sticking your neck out. If it happened to me, I wouldn't pay. But I would not make it easy for them either - if you see what I mean.

It wont even pass the first hurdle in court. With the dampness example you listed, it is the person being written to who is responsible for the problem being faced. You are wanting to write to someone who is not causing a problem to fix your problem. You are going to be told to spend your own money on your own fence. But seeing your councillor about the neighbour problem makes sense.

My first instinct upon reading this was that there had been a change in legislation to permit its happening. If not then I would tell the insurers and their agents to F...O.. Here are my reasons. UNDENIABLE FACTS RTA 88 ?s143? states there is a legal requirement for insurance, which covers all valid claims by third parties. Father has complying contract with insurers. Son is named driver. Son has no contractual agreement with the insurers but drives under his father's contract. There was full consensus between parties in the agreement, and there were no misrepresentation/uberamae fidae issues. REASONS As the contract is between the insurers and the father, then there has been no agreement with the son, and the insurance company cannot rely upon a term in the father's contract to chase money from the son. They paid out as the insurers, and as the law requires. They could not decline to pay out as the son was drinking as he was entirely legally covered. Had the father been drinking and had the accident, as the contracting party then potentially he could be chased under the dubious term. However, the son does not have a contract with insurers at all. Had the term stated the father could be chased for the actions of those he extended the insurance to, then the insurers could also chase the father. Although this would reek of being an unfair term. If the insurers claim that they are entitled damages as a tort/delict - then that is a claim against the son entirely outwith their contract. This would mean an insurance company could claim damages from people they were insuring any time they had to pay out - as the claim would be independent of the contract terms. So effectively it would mean there was no longer TP cover in their policies as they sought to recover from those they insured.

I took a look over the internet regarding this, and it seems the company gets the details of feedback posted, and your full Ebay history over the last 120 days from an internet site called Goofbay. To confirm this, do searches on PB Legal/Palmer Biggs and Goofbay. Might a cynic suggest that as with the ACS Law case, there was no relationship between the copyright holder and the plaintiff. As I recall ACS never won a case in court, and relied on scaring people into making payments. I think I would let more of this be discussed here prior to replying again to them. Well, unless of course you feel indebted to Goofbay users!

I called Moorcroft about six years ago on behalf of a tenant who had massive problems with Bulldog Internet as her initial three months were meant to be free, but they kept charging. Eventually she got the bank to stop payments. A couple of months later the letters started arriving. It was before I had visited here, and I never knew the procedure was to ignore them. I got through to someone who first asked the tenants DoB for confirmation, and I pointed out as no one gives their DoB for an internet contract they were just fishing. He was then full of all kinds of threats about bailiffs, which was weird as there are no bailiffs in Scotland. Anyway I pointed out they would need to win in court prior to doing most of the things they claimed, told him he was a clueless ***** and asked to speak to his manager. The same routine happened - more threats that were mainly impossible and a couple at best unlikely. So asked again to speak to their manager, but was told they were out. So I said I would call back. After going through this routine easily 20-30 times and arguing with everything said, suddenly after giving the reference number the person on the phone said they could not understand my accent and hung up. This happened the next twice too, so on my next call I chatted for a bit first before giving the reference. There was then a silence - after the pause the guy on the other end said:- "It says in the file that we have to tell you we can't understand your accent". Strangely, I read law at a university in the same county as their office! I wouldn't let talent like this bother you! :D:D

It would probably be an unpaid induction/training day, and those expected to attend would have been told an acceptable rate of pay initially, which would then have fallen to minimum wage, and the work a day for free part would push their disillusionment over the edge.

Why did you receive the letter for your friends account? Where did they get your name? Upon whose behalf do the solicitors state they are acting? Also - unless the solicitor or someone acting with the solicitor bought the product from you, how did they get the associated account address, or determine the product was fake? I suspect the £2000 is not for the two letters, but something along the lines of RLP or ACS law if you want to look them up. What is the price of the genuine product, what did you pay for it, what did you sell it for, how many did you have, and how many did you sell?

Funnily, I was just talking about your lot earlier!!! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?357914-New-To-Renting-CCJ-And-Default-checks&p=3909432&viewfull=1#post3909432 Can you copy up the part on the tenancy agreement regarding cleaning if there is one? To me it's sounding likely your LL provided an unsolicited and therefore free cleaning service. Where are you in the UK, as things vary depending on country so its best to get it right at the start. The paying utilities thing is quite common, although there is no reason for it if not mentioned in the tenancy agreement. Given what has happened is common enough for me to have mentioned earlier, and the LL having pulled two unusual strokes - I think it's likely there is an agenda to keep all/part of your deposit. Have you anything to substantiate the flat was cleaned prior to the end of your tenancy?

:D:D:D