Strangely enough it was an email along the lines of the OP that led me to CAG in the first place...........many thanks to whoever it was who sent it to me :grin::grin::grin:

Always makes an amusing read but has been doing the rounds for many years snopes.com: Bounced Check Complaint skb

Hi thk To be safe I wouldn't sign the letter, who knows what use they may put it to if you do skb

To give you an idea of what is to follow this is a series of posts by a bloke who had to take Picolax (a very powerful osmotic laxative) in preparation for a urrm 'anal procedure' shall we say. He recoiunts his experience in what I have to say is one of the most hilarious dialogues I have ever read on the interweb. His opening post goes like this (for context it was originally posted last summer) Enjoy skb

I came across this on another forum and felt compelled to share skb

We used to have the wonders of Key Results Areas and the Joys of the Three Business Pillars 1) Rapid Responsiveness 2) Passionate Reliability 3) Innovative Efficiency This has now been replaced with the Gyana Mudra where the tips of the upwards pointing fingers symbolise the three guiding principles of our company which are mirrored by the Bhagavad Gita: Gyan - the principle of knowledge and learning Knowledge Karma - the principle of dynamic action and entrepreneurial spirit Action Bhakti - the principle of care, compassion and devotion to a higher purpose Care Knowledge, Action, Care or Kac (Kack) for short Apparently by Harmonising with each other, they aspire to form a circle of perfection, peace and happiness. Oh, an im a research chemist so quite how im supposed to apply this to my job is anyones guess skb

Whilst surfing the net the other day, doing a bit of background reading petrol prices and the like I came across an interesting page from the AA detailing petrol prices from 1896 to 2005 here. Its no help in fighting the cause but does have severla points of interest (note that prices prior to 1971 are given in old money and all arre price per gallon (divide by 4.5 to get price per litre)). A few salient points are: In 1896 petrol was 4p/gallon or just 0.008p per litre. That means (if im doing my maths right) that petrol has increased by 1474900% (1.4 million) in just 112 years. If there were to be a similar increase over the next 112 years then petrol would be 1740382p/L (or £17403/L) in the year 2120 Fuel duty was not introduced until 1909, was then suspended in 1919 (when VED was introduced) and re-introduced in 1928. Petrol doubled in price during the Great War 2p/L to 4p/L but by the start of WWII had dropped back down to 2p/L Petrol was 11p/L in the year I was born but rocketed to 16p/L the following year (45 % increase). Conspiracy theorists might say that I was directly responsible for this. In 1998 83.1% of the cost of fuel was tax compared to 57% today skb

Cheers

Even if that were the case, which it isnt, then what are they doing to prevent the other two thirds. Not a great deal it would seem. Lets have a little look at what they are doing shall we: Increasing the police presence on our roads - NO Clamping down on tailgating - NO Clamping down on reckless driving - NO Clamping down on idiots who dont indicate - NO Clamping down on people who eat a banana whilst sitting, and having been sat, unmoving in a traffic jam for the last 20 minutes - YES (I witnessed this happen in leads on Tuesday) Clamping down on people who drive within the speed limit but at an excessive speed for the conditions - NO Clamping down on box junction infractions - YES Clamping down on mobile phone use - YES/NO (the law has changed but you need someone there to actually spot it being broken and enforce, unless yof course your caught on a camera of some discription) Clamping down on eating behind the wheel - YES/NO (see previous point) Clamping down on the highly dangerous practise of cars/motorcycles using bus lanes - YES Clamping down on blatant disregard of highway code by (some) cyclists - NO Clamping down on blatant disregard of (some) drivers for cyclists - NO Tackling road rage and the causes of road rage - NO Decreasing congestion - NO (unless they can make money out of it). Clamping down on drink driving - YES (at chrimbo time anyway) Clamping down on driving whilst under the influence of hay fever - NO (overtook a guy on the M1 the other week who was weaving all over over the road in a paroxysm of sneezes, presumably hay fever induced) Clamping down on drivers who spend most of their time behind the wheel in la-la land with the fairies - NO I could go on but im starting to bore myself now skb

I should probably also say that I have been with First Call for several years as they are one of the cheapest recovery firms around. I have called them out somewhere in the region of 6 or 7 times and whilst they are not among the quickest (usually around an hour to an hour and a half response time) I have always been happy with the service. One thing that really struck me as odd with this liitle problem was the guy that came out was really friendly and drove me around to 3 or 4 garages until we found one that could do autoelectrical work without having to call out a specialist. This is just not something you would do with a car that had been destroyed in fire. I believe he must have confused me with someone else. Anyway I am happy with the outcome and will continue to use them in the future, provided of course there are no further hiccups skb

Have now received a reply to the letter (as in post 1) I sent to First Call. At first glance I thought, here we go they’re not backing down better polish up my court shoes. But, on closer inspection they have accepted my version of events and complied with everything I asked for i.e. cancellation of invoice and re-instatement of cover. Fair play First Call, I salute your good sense and judgement. Here is a transcribed copy of their letter Another victory aided by the power of CAG:-D:-D skb

Hi Kat I think you need to strike while the iron is hot before he has had a chance to blow the cash that is coming his way. I dont think there is any need to send a preliminary letter as you have already sent him a list of what he owes. I would go straight in now with the LBA. Also as he seems to be rejecting signed for mail I would send it normal post, but do it from your PO as they can give you proof of posting. You will have to pay various court fees to issue a claim, but these can be added to the sum that he owes you and claimed back (you can also claim interest at 8% per annum). You must state this in your LBA, something along the lines of (guide to court fees here. If you hard up or on benefits then you can apply for exemption or remission from fees too). He may not think that you will go ahead with a court claim and will just roll over and accept his terms. I say EDIT him. Once the court papers hit his doormat it may well scare him into paying up pretty sharpish. good luck skb

For an interesting, is somewhat biased, read on Global Sea Levels and predicted risings see here skb

Hi Tiger ebays unpaid item process is here: Unpaid Item Process Did you follow this procedure in your dispute?? If so then ebay should refund the listing fee skb

Agree with Poppy. In the first instance you should contact the opticians, they may have just forgotten to refund your card. If they dig their heels in then it would be time to raise a dispute with your card issuer skb

Hi T4FF Did they say in their offer that by cashing their cheque she agrees to the settlement? If not and they dont respond then I would say she can just send them a cheque of her own for xx amount. Afterall she hasnt agreed to anything by cashing it. skb

The banks of bulgaria...

Theres also nothing stopping you taking photos now of the offending paving stone. Unless of course they have now fixed it, in which case the FIA request will show that it has been repaired and was hence faulty to begin with skb

...and may provide a valuable lesson which could save his life in the future

With adequate signage I would say yes. The burglar would know that they may come to harm, ie get loads of nice little holes in their hands, but accepted the risk anyway.

Ahh, but the difference is the lawfulness of the tax generated. If it is shown that bank charges are unlawful then the profits generated from them are also unlawful. It therefore follows that the government is benefitting directly from an unlawful practice. This is perhaps a compelling reason why they remain tight lipped on the subject. Obviously the high tax on fuel is there to help save the planet and the high tax on booze and fags to save our health. Nothing at all to do with profiteering... Of course the treasury needs to raise revenue which is then spent wisely to the benefit of everyone. I shudder to think what stealth taxes would be put in place if they ever had to make up a shortfall resulting from mis-management and overspending

Yes but banks pay corporation tax on all profits, currently running at 28%. So on the 4.5 billion pound they made on bank charges alone last year they would have paid 1.3 billion in tax, quite a little earner for the state dont you think?

......loved this one as a child:grin: The Ladybird Book of The Policeman

I also wonder, if the banks are forced to pay back all the charges they have levied over the years whether they will be able to claim the tax back they paid on them from HMRC. I'm sure this would not make the Brown & Darling money making [problem] particularly unhappy. skb

Because obviously if you have been hit by one uninsured driver you are so much more likely to be hit by another :grin: