In some circumstances the tendering process is a contract in and of itself. It's a fairly complicated area of law and you would, as Becky said, need to consult a solicitor in order to have any chance in a successful action. It's not how I would proceed if I were in your shoes though. The costs of the solicitor could outweigh any compensation (without any guarantee costs could be reclaimed) and I'm not even certain that your travel arrangements would be taken into account (your only real loss is that your tender was not considered, it could have been considered and rejected without any cause of action). I also think that it would be very easy for the company to defend because the courts will often reinforce a business' right to make decisions at their own discretion, even if it is unfair. The company could also argue that having had another negative comment about your previous time with them, the directors felt it was best to inform you that you wouldn't be chosen under any circumstances, giving you opportunity to mitigate any costs, which is indicative of reasonable behaviour. I would also be mindful of any publicity it could attract. If I knew a freelancer who tried to bill or sue over giving a tender, I don't think that I would want to deal with them at all.

The majority of consumer protection legislation (CPL) was written in the pre-internet era, which makes the law on downloadable content (DLC) a murky area at best. It's not clear whether DLC could be classed as "goods" because by its very nature, it is intangible and provided as a service. This means retailers, such as Game, will argue the service is not provided by them, but instead by the DLC provider (in this case Microsoft, or sometimes the maker/publisher of the game). Assuming their interpretation is correct, the retailers would be bound by CPL but only when it comes to the tangible products they sell, such as the disc, which must be fit for purpose, of satisfactory quality etc and not the prepaid DLC codes. To my knowledge, the retailer's argument has not been tested in the courts, most likely due to the small sums involved (in your case £3) making any legal action pointless. The government has looked into changing how this works and simplifying the law, but as this is still in its consultation stages, you're probably best off contacting Microsoft as Game have no control over the Xbox Live system. I don't have an Xbox 360 but I've had issues with DLC on Steam and on the PS3. It's usually quickly resolved via email with a copy of the receipt and a scan of the DLC code, so the time and money resolving the issue is unlikely to be prohibitive. Good luck.

Given that the contract is verbal, I don't think that the landlord can enforce a term that wasn't mentioned at the time i.e. she has no right to prohibit sublets and cannot demand payment terms different to those agreed. That being said, I believe the default position is that a deposit is non-refundable so it won't be easy to see any of your money returned. After speaking with CAB, I would contact a solicitor. Try to find one offering a free initial consultation and a fixed price letter before action service to keep costs down. A letter before action is a final demand and is a warning to the landlord that you'll not just roll over and let her keep the funds. Solicitors fees are considerable but can be kept low by doing some of the work yourself, so try not to be cajoled into letting the solicitor take over (unless you want them to) or do any more than you asked. Assuming the letter before action is unsuccessful, I would write to the landlord giving them one last chance to choose between mediation or small claims court. You can find more details about both processes here. You'll have a better chance of success with a solicitor than without one, but there's no guarantee that you'll win, or even if you do win, that the other side will be made to pay the costs. Likewise, if you lose, you could end up with two legals bills (but at very least one) and no deposit returned. All this is predicated on the landlord being in England and Wales. If not then you'll have to seek the advice of someone in the correct jurisdiction. Did you put any of the deposit on your credit card? As for the merits of the case, I think the landlord will argue a non-refundable deposit of £25 per week, per person, is actually quite reasonable.

I am assuming that the warranty you mentioned is a manufacturer's warranty with Seagate and that you did not purchase an extended warranty (or similar) from Scan at the time. Please say if this is not the case. Assuming that you are a private buyer (i.e. not a business) the contract you have with Scan is subject to the implied terms in the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA). The hard drive has broken down well before you would expect it to through fair wear and tear, which means that your claim will argue the drive was not of satisfactory quality and perhaps not fit for purpose. SOGA does allow you to claim a repair or replacement in these circumstances, but it gets a little more complicated after 6 months have passed since purchase. Before 6 months, the fault is assumed to be present from the day of sale, and the burden of proof is on the seller to prove otherwise. This means that they would need to prove the fault is down to the buyer's misuse, accidental damage etc before rejecting a claim. If the seller cannot do this then the claim must be successful and a repair or replacement issued. However after 6 months, as in your case, the burden is on the buyer to prove that the fault was inherent and is not down to misuse, accidental damage or fair wear and tear etc. When this has been proven the seller must repair or replace the item within a reasonable time but without causing significant inconvenience to the seller. If the buyer cannot prove this, then the seller has no statutory obligation to repair or replace the item. So in order to make your claim, you need to first prove that your hard drive was faulty from the outset. Unfortunately the only way you'll be able to do this is by getting an expert's report on the product, proving that there was a manufacturing defect or design fault. The expert should be someone both the buyer and the seller agree upon, which in most cases, will be the manufacturer itself. This is especially true whilst the item is under warranty, as the report (or opinion) is usually the cheapest option or free (warranties will often charge postage if the item is not faulty, tampered with or damaged) and if successful will result in a swift replacement without further input from buyer or seller. Because you haven't provided an expert's report in the process of returning the item, the seller is within their rights to refuse a repair or replacement until such a report is received, as the fault may have been caused by you. Scan are arranging a report for you via the manufacturer, which is more than the legal bare minimum, so you don't really have any grounds for complaint. This is not the case if they admitted to a manufacturing defect when confirming the item was faulty, in which case they should agree to repair or replace the item now. Merely confirming the hard drive was non-operative is probably not enough, as your use of the drive could still be to blame for any fault. In my experience, sending the hard drive to the manufacturer is almost always the best way to resolve the situation. Other experts will find it almost impossible to prove a defect either way as the majority of faults with a hard drive can be caused by issues with the PSU or a power surge, which they will be unable to check, or caused by dropping the drive (or computer), which again it is almost impossible to ascertain which party is to blame. Generally, it's in the manufacturer's interest to allow the claim even if there is no absolute certainty, as their relationshop with the retailer, end-buyer and reputation are usually more important than a refurb/repair costs (although this may not be a factor in your case, with Scan having dropped Seagate as a supplier). With regards to the manufacturers warranty with Seagate, the time limits are governed by the terms of the warranty, and, where reasonable, can even be shortened after a claim. Your statutory rights with Scan lasts 6 years (5 in Scotland) from date of purchase regardless of how many replacements you receive. This doesn't mean that a product must last 6 years though, although expecting 4-6 years for a hard drive (depending on use) is reasonable, especially in a desktop PC. Finally, providing the specification and condition is equal to or better than the original product, a refurbished item is an acceptable replacement.

I stand by my calculations. From a practicable point of view, I would write a letter to your former employer once last time: Use the following link to calculate your holiday: https://www.gov.uk/calculate-your-holiday-entitlement Take a print out of the calculation (make sure they know it's the gov.uk site). Restate the hours you worked (reference the pay slips). Restate your hourly rate (as per your contract). Calculate the hours worked plus the holiday earned and multiply it by your hourly rate. State the difference between that and the amount you received, thus confirming who owes what to whom. Inform them that given your source of information is a government website, you are confident that their figures are incorrect, and that you won't be reimbursing them any money (other than any difference you calculated) until they have provided you with a satisfactory and complete breakdown of your holiday and pay; or failing that, without going to an employment tribunal (you have 3 months from the day you left to do this). I would also be mindful of how strongly this is worded if you're expecting your former employer to act as a reference.

You appear to have understood the tenancy agreement, requested terms more favourable to you, been offered such terms, then declined on the basis of a reasonable charge. I don't think you'll be able to claim that the terms were in anyway unintelligible, unfair or the bargaining power was unequal and this would pretty much rule out any action with UCTA or UCTCC. I would serve notice now (just in case there is a notice clause), and get advertising for a replacement tenant. I would also ask the agents for any help they can offer as reletting is almost certainly going to be cheaper than paying the rent. Good luck!

I think that you've calculated your holiday allowance incorrectly. Although I don't agree with their figures either. Assuming you were on the statutory minimum holiday of 5.6 weeks a year and you worked 156 hours 44 minutes. 5.6 weeks holiday / 46.4 working = 12.07 approx. // This is the holiday to work percentage. 12.07 * 156.73 hours working = 18.92 hours holiday you earned // This is the statutory minimum, and less than half what you think you had earned. Using these figures you worked 156.73 (hours worked) + 18.92 (hours holiday) = 175.65 in total. Total pay due = 175.65 * £7.21 = £1266.44 So I make it you owe them £22.40. Unless of course they agreed to more than the statutory minimum of holiday, in which case you owe them less (28-32 days holiday) or they owe you (from 33 days holiday per annum).

Unfortunately, this might not just be a case of "crossed wires" and you're right not to ignore the notice. Under the Road Traffic Act, s170 you are required to give your name and address or report the accident to the police within 24 hours. If the PC did not treat his visit to you as an accident report, which given the circumstances he may well not have done, then you have not complied with the law. When a PC tells you to do something on the day, it really is best to heed their advice. I don't think it's a dire situation though, as everything else you've done shows that you had no intention of avoiding responsibility, unless you refused to give your address to the other driver? It may also help if you explain the accident in a little more detail. I would speak to the insurance company for advice (especially if you have legal cover with them), a lawyer, or even the police to confirm if the charges stand (I'm not sure how to go about this). You also may want to wait for one of the site team to post as it's not an area I'm well versed in. In any event, good luck.

The identities of the other individuals need to be protected, so any footage will be purposefully censored/blurred. This could leave the footage you receive useless, even if the store's original footage is pretty damning. The only way they can deny a formal request is if the data has been destroyed, or passed to the police. Strong arming them could mean they take the latter option, which is why you should really proceed with caution, unless that's what your step son really wants.

You can make a formal request to see the CCTV footage under the Data Protection Act, but not if the footage has been passed over to the police as evidence to a crime. If the store has agreed not to press charges then I would consider yourself lucky and rather than make a formal request, simply ask the manager for a copy to help you discipline your step son (say he is being awkward, denying it etc), and offer to pay the £10 the formal request would cost. If you act grateful, you'd be surprised how amenable these difficult types can become. You also don't know if the store manager is consider pressing charges; anything you do may sway the balance, so you need to be careful. The other option would be to get one of the friends to make the request, assuming you can distinguish between the teens. But it may just come back blurred, so it may not be worth the money or the risk of it escalating the situation. As for the security guard, I don't think that he followed the correct protocol. Correct protocol would have been to call the police, which may not have worked out so well for your step son, although I appreciate that it also may have proven his innocence. It's not something I would focus on as I think the guard thought he was genuinely doing the best thing for the store and your step son. Good luck!

Your sister in law could argue that the bank are taking her subsistence money and make a claim: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?547-Is-your-Bank-taking-your-subsistence-money Just because the error has happened twice recently, doesn't change the fact she needs that money to get by on. The link above fully explains how best to approach this and I would definitely try this before considering legal action against the employer.

You are correct in saying that you can only claim it once, however there can be multiple claimants within the same household, providing there are the equivalent amount of eligible people to be cared for. So the woman you were speaking to could have meant she claims for one of her sons, whilst her husband claims for the other. They would still both have to meet all the eligibility criteria, including the earnings limit (under £100 after tax) and caring requirements (35+ hours). I hope that helps.

Before anything, I would just like to offer my sincere condolences for the loss of your Mum. It must be a very difficult time for you, even more so when the people you go to for help end up billing you on the sly. The Legal Ombudsman service produces some excellent publications on how best to deal with solicitors; an overview of which can be found here. The guides cover things like costs and the complaints procedure and it's always a good place to start. If you look at "An ombudsman's view of good costs service" (available here as a pdf) page 5 states: Initial consultation meeting Some firms offer free initial consultation meetings. It is reasonable for a lawyer to charge an initial consultation fee if they wish to, but they must make any charges and conditions clear to a consumer before the appointment is made. The charge made must be reasonable. The consumer should know where they stand when they walk through the door and not hear of any charge, if there is one, at the consultation. If the solicitor failed to do this then I would politely point them in the direction of the guidance and ask for the invoice to be cancelled. There is even a case study provided in which the Legal Ombudsman sides with the client who wasn't given advance warning of the costs, so I'd be surprised if the solicitor didn't budge. You may also want to have a read through this link if you want to deal with the estate yourselves. In a lot of cases it's a straight forward albeit time consuming process; the Consumer Advice Bureau guidance should at least point you in the right direction. Best of luck.

I seem to be the only one taking the "don't throw the granny under the bus" approach. I honestly think that if you present the case as a fraud by the granny then your friend will definitely lose the roof over his head. The DWP will treat the situation as out and out fraud and will ignore any legitimate defence your friend and his granny could bring to retain the payments. Read the following link from the DWP: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/technical-guidance/rr2-a-guide-to-housing-benefit/housing-benefit/ You'll see that it confirms the points I made earlier about "close relations" and the other requirements for a rental agreement on a commercial basis. It also states that whilst you cannot claim HB if you or your partner previously owned the dwelling which you now rent, there is an exception if you could not continue to live in the property without the transfer of ownership. Assuming that your friend had defaulted on the mortgage repayments, this exception could apply and should be easy to prove using old paperwork. Even if your friend never received a default notice, he could still argue that the mortgage was in excess of his income at the time (both the payments and his income should be demonstrable) which led to him requiring his grandparents help. You can also go on to show the events in his personal life had an adverse affect on his ability to live in the property, namely the rogue girlfriend leaving (which can perhaps be supported by her removal from the electoral register or council tax reduction). At the moment I think that your friend has a strong case to retain the HB payments as the biggest issue (the ownership of the house) can be addressed by the solicitor. If the solicitor can confirm the grandparents are the equitable owners of the house, and your friend and his former-partner have the land registry title in name only, then I think the charges can be defended. Again, I would recommend that your friend goes to the solicitor involved with the conveyance for legal advice.

I'm certain others will have input, but it's the weekend and late, so you may have to wait a little while for assistance. From memory, I think that grandparents are not considered a "close relative" and therefore are eligible to rent their property to their grandchild on housing benefit. It will still need to be on a commercial basis (i.e. at the market rate) and there will have to be a legally binding rental agreement in place too. Assuming both of these criteria are met, I would ask the bank to confirm when the mortgage was settled (or transferred in favour of) the grandparents and/or disclose whatever paperwork is available from the solicitor regarding the conveyance. I wouldn't immediately try to lumber the blame on the grandparents, because if your friend claims they fraudulently filled out the paperwork, they may end up facing similar proceedings and be forced to sell the house anyway. If asked directly I would mention that they assisted with the claims as it was obviously a difficult period for your friend. I would also strongly recommend your friend speaks with the solicitor who is chasing the rogue girlfriends as his/her version of events is more likely to hold weight with the DWP. If I have time tomorrow I will look for more on the "close relatives" legislation and see if I can dig up a similar case involving delayed title changes with the land registry. It's not all doom and gloom for your friend, so tell him to chin up; help will soon be on the way.

They have lied to you the whole purpose of the DSR is to let you examine the goods. The following can be found on the OFT's website: Packaging The purpose of the DSRs is to allow customers to examine goods they have ordered as they would in a shop. If that requires opening the packaging and trying out the goods, then they have not breached their duty to take reasonable care of the goods. In these circumstances, you cannot insist that customers return the goods as new or in their original packaging. You may ask customers to take care when they open the package or return goods with the original packaging, but you cannot insist on this. The DSRs do not provide for goods to be returned in a fit state for resale. You should think carefully about your packaging and how easy it is to open and put back together so that the integrity of the product can be maintained to enable resale. You may also find the Citizen's Advice Bureau website of use. I would contact them again, confirm that you have been misled about your rights under the DSR, point them to the OFT's website linked above which show's the true state of play and insist on a full refund, including the cost of the return carriage (unless their terms clearly state that returns are at the consumer's cost or words to that effect). Let them know that if they refuse a refund, you will be contacting CAB and trading standards on the basis they've breached their statutory duties. Good luck!

How the courts would apportion the blame and how the insurance companies will apportion the blame are two very different things. Assuming the costs are mostly covered by the excess, the OP's insurer is highly likely to accept full liability. It's not going to be financially viable for them to battle it out in the courts or commercially viable for them to enter into a long and protracted argument with the other insurer over the contributory negligence of parking a car illegally. You just need to consider jpd070's insight to know that you are fighting an uphill battle. BankFodder's suggestion that the illegally parked van could be held partly to blame is backed up by the courts. Hannam v Mann (1984) RTR 252 found that the owner of an illegally parked car was one quarter to blame for an accident. The judge considered that the accident could have been avoided had the car not been parked illegally (in this case, unlit and too close to a junction) but still found the driver to be three quarters to blame, which in my opinion is the absolute best-case outcome you could aim for. You also need to consider any unloading exemptions for double yellow lines. The van could have been parked legally making you completely, instead of just largely, to blame.

I would strongly recommend that you delete these posts, summarise their content in your own words, or wait until the information is formally sent to you. Communication between your employer and his solicitor will always be considered confidential. Wrongfully disclosing confidential information on a publicly available forum is almost certainly a gross misconduct offence and probably all the excuse they need to terminate your employment.

One more point is that it is your employer disputing the £25k+ sum. You are only disputing the amount they have been deducting from your salary, which will be well under the limit for a tribunal. I would definitely explore that option further, especially in light of the decision Conniff outlined.

According to the definition in The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 “unsolicited” means, in relation to goods sent or services supplied to any person, that they are sent or supplied without any prior request made by or on behalf of the recipient. You made a request to receive the item. You received the item. The error was in the payment processing. I don't think that you'll be able to argue it was unsolicited. I would write to them, refuse both the item and their offer to organise payment. Tell them they have two weeks to arrange for collection, after which time you'll be keeping the item. You may get lucky, but I don't think there are any legal grounds enabling you to keep the item. So if they kick up a fuss it's best to return it (at their expense) or pay up.

Unfortunately the eBay and PayPal terms of service are skewed significantly in favour of the buyer. You really have to be proactive about disputes and not being contactable makes this impossible. I would forward a copy of the delivery receipt to eBay with a full explanation of the circumstances and hope that they reopen the dispute. I would mention that you need confirmation from the seller that the signature on the receipt is not theirs (or a member of their household) so that you can raise a dispute with the courier. It may also help if you let eBay know that the buyer has refused to cooperate. Assuming you sent the package insured, which at £200 I would have hoped so, contacting the courier is a good idea as they may be able to get further with eBay. Failing that I would report the buyer to the police and go through the process all over again with a crime reference number to hand. They police may not actually help, but the CRN provides some leverage. It's also worth looking at the profile of the buyer to see if you can find anything to suggest this happened to other sellers.

In that case I would contact the Warranty Group direct. Either use their all enquiries helpline (linked to below) or you could try one of their corporate contacts (linked to from the same page) if the general enquiries line gets you nowhere. http://uk.thewg.com/company-overview/contactUs/index.html Good luck.

According to the Comet website the extended warranties were all underwritten by a third party: Have you tried that number?

Before you do anything, double check that the Fedex invoice references the correct delivery details, the correct item and prices etc. If something is out of place it's likely a fraudulent attempt (by a fraudster, not Fedex) to get you to pay unnecessary fees. If you're still uncertain you may wish to verify it with Fedex direct; if you do contact them, go via their homepage (http://www.fedex.com/gb/ukservices/), not the details on the letter/email which could be fake. Assuming the notice is genuine, the fees demanded are most likely import duty/VAT. My best guess is that you used the Amazon UK Marketplace, but contracted with a US based seller. Amazon UK took your money as a payment processor, not supplier, with the laptop actually being supplied by the US merchant, which is why import duty/VAT is applicable. Check your receipt to see if this seems correct or if there's any mention of a third party (person or company). Unfortunately, if you are the importer, you are legally obliged to pay any import/VAT due and will have most likely agreed to this in the terms of the sale and/or agreed to reimburse Fedex when the delivery was signed for. I completely agree that Amazon and/or the actual seller should have advised you of these additional costs before the sale. If they didn't their customer service is atrocious, but probably not atrocious enough to be illegal. It's definitely worthwhile contacting Amazon and the seller with a complaint and you should be able to contact the seller for a refund (likely excluding postage) if it's soon enough (usually within 7 business days). You may also be able to negotiate a contribution towards the import duty/VAT fees from the seller as you'll both have to weigh up the disadvantages and costs involved of returning the laptop. Good luck.

A little more background on the transaction would be helpful. Did you make the purchase through Amazon Marketplace?