Hi Andy We did just that having looked at the website we went down thr oute of asking for our £32.00 back leaving just an £8.00 admin fee payable and having given them the bank details and three chases later we did get our £32.00 recredited. I think it is appaling that these types of site operate and that they give out the DVA telephone number for queries! At least getting £32.00 back helps!

went onto the GOV.UK site to renew tax disc queried this when i was charged £165 and not £125, Was told by DVLA that i had used a tax disc renewal service that charges £40.00 for renewing tax disc. Debit on bankstatement came up as taxdisc.direct.co.uk Any one else had experience of this? Registered this with the DVLA as a complaint and also with citizens advice consumer line.

so am i correct in thinking not all the pre action costs will be voided out, just the cots relating to the hearing and the counsels fees for attending?

thanks for this. what does the either application or hearing mean in relation to costs? the costs at this point were £39000 have they been wiped out forever?

Can anyone explain what this means? I'm in an ongoing case and the costs order was made very early on, i now notice that the solictors are now including items for pre action in their costs and thought that these had been wiped out by the order made but now i'm not so sure so if anyonecan explain the above wording i would be very grateful.

Been back this week, feels like i've been sent to Coventry as everyone really hostile. Sat in same office at a childs desk with a VDU that i have to look down on so all of these aspects need looking at. Someone else is doing most of my role and 'm now expected to 'grow' into how they want my role to alter from my role that i was doing before i went off sick. New process to pick up underperforming children in lessons and tackle any issues. I'm not doing any aspect of my previous role as my hours now steadily increase i'm wondering what i can do. Head also wants be to work in classrooms which is not in current job description but answer was that job description states i support pupils and does not specify place that this happens so it can be in class or in the behaviour unit! Any ideas for way forward?

Thanks very much for your response. I work in a school and my job still exists just that the head and my co-colleague appear not to want me to do my old role. I have had a meeting with the head but he appears adament that i won't be doing my old role - no reasons given why. I am going to contact him today to state that i am unhappy with the proposed changes in percentage terms, i have mentored i pupil for no more than 20 hours. I am contracted to work 1332 hours per school year so this equates to 0.015% so an increase to 100% is very substantial and fundamental. Any help is gratefully received.

I have been off sick following a car accident (7 months ago) and am just returning to work. Employers want to alter my Job description to only one element. This element didn;t even take up 1% of my previous role and now its going to be 100% without any discussion or agreement. I am not getting a new Job description they are just focusing me only only one element of my previous JD. Can this be done? I feel i do not have the skills or training to focus on this role 100% which will be counselling emotional children. Any help out there as to what i should do? I want to raise a grievance saying that i do not accept the changes and want my old role back?

no, but they have sent me a part 18 request that has information that could only be obtained from the letters that i believe have been given to the party suing me. Am i correct in thinking that WOP letters need all parties agreement inorder for it to be released? If they have been released then do i have any redress? the part 18 is asking me for the reply that i gave to a specific letter and this reply could help thier case of fraudulent misrepresentation, i now have to decide how to proceed 1) give up the letter 2) say that it relates to privilieged info and i'm not answering te question 3) get some sort of injunction?

I hope someone may be able to help! I have good grounds to believe that a solicitor that i was involved with some years ago when an issue arose between myself and my neighbour which resulted in correspondence that was marked 'without prejudice' between myself and the solicitor has been given either by the solicitor or his client to a 3td party who is now using this priviledged information to issue proceedings for fraudulent misrepresentation against me. I have researched the internet and it appears to say that documents between X solicitor and his client and Y, which are marked without prejudice are privilieged and consent has to be given by both parties for the doucments to be released to a third party or their solicitors (say we call these people W). Is this the case? If X has given to W documents between X and Y without my knowledge or consent and these are then being used by W to issue proceedings against Y is this legal and what can I do? Can i ask for an injunction so documents are not seen in court? Should W's solicitor advised me that they have these documents? Please HELP!!!

i have already raised a grievance concerning my pay which the school let me do on the informal stage but then refused to let it go before the governors on the formal stage as technically grievances can't be raised over pay!

No, I have been off for 5 months and OH have advised employer before i come back to work to lower the desk that i work from. I feel this latest response is aimed at not doing this and by changing my role I won't sepnd as much time on the computer as my previous role. I am also not confident about counselling young people with anger issues or self esteem issues as i have no training in this and i am being expected to do this without training. I do not have a job description and i have queried this as i feel i am working at a different grade to what i am paid at. Employers response has been to get HR to evaluate my role but without the handbook that i work to! Low and behold it came out that i was being paid correctly. HR do not hold a generic despription for my role and based their assessment on a teaching assistants post which is not what i do. The Data Protection Act request that i submitted revealed that HR had generalised and submised what my duties might be in coming to their assesment. My argument is that i have a staff handbook which details my tasks and this should have been used. What are my options?

Having had a car accident i have been off sick with whiplash. I was enduring ongoing contract issues with my employers before my accident. I have been to Occ Health who have advised my employer to lower my desk and provide me with a seating assessment. I waork from a breakfast bar height desk with a chair that i can rest my feet on but i can not touch the ground and my screen is at the wrong height which has been an ongoing for 12 months but is propped up with boxes and books as a best fit option. My employer has written and advised me that to avoid time on the computer they will be redefining my job description to work 1.1 counselling young people with emotional and anger issues and supporting children during lessons. My previous role was data handling working from a computer but i have worked on a 1.1 basis with one child before. My question is can they do this?

I would strike now, if you wait the FSO may make a decison for you! If you set up a meeting now you can explain that a complaint is ongoing (don't forget they will know if they have given the mortgage when they should not have done!) and that you want a sucessfull conclusion which may mean withdrawing the complaint if you can be added to the mortgage and the mortgage is put through on competitive terms!

I would not cancel complaint but what you could do is have a meeting with the mortgage co to explain that although you think the mortgage should never have been given the fact is, is that it has which means that you need them to remortgage in your joint names on favourable terms. A complaint only gives you the potential for negative marketing and publishing of the facts surrounding the mortgage being sold in the first place. The mortgage is not huge compared to the equity that is in the home and sense has to prevail. You have the ablity to make the repayments with the higher income and presumably you can show that you have been helping your Mum anyway with the repayments which should all help. Hope it goes well