Honestly at this stage Ive no idea

My uncle is fast approaching retirement age and he works as a domestic at a hospital in the Newcastle area and recently they've had an alteration of hours/shift pattern so a few people have been moved around. He had worked on the same ward for nearly 10 years and after the reshuffle he was the only person who was never given a fixed-ward. Everyone else either has their original ward or are now split between two set-wards. My uncle wasn't given any set ward, despite the fact people far less experience were including the ward my uncle worked on all this time. Since the chances that took hold a few weeks ago he's been having to go into the office and wait to be dispatched to various parts of the hospital and has mainly been cleaning the toilets and other general ad-hoc cleaning duties and generally treated like a spare part now. He complained about not getting a ward when everyone else has but was given short shrift. Now he has been told that if he wishes to stay in the job he has to relocate to an out-of-town office site where he will be away from his long-term work place and work colleagues. Some of us have suggested that as he approaches retirement age in August that they're doing this to try and encourage him to retire sooner than he would have liked as I know he had intended to work on for a while longer yet and I was just wondering whether or not this had any of the hallmarks of an actionable age discrimination case. He's lost his ward, he's lost having any type of consistent working environment (he's still at the hospital but was never employed as someone who goes here there and everywhere and nobody else is in that position) and now he's being told he'll have to relocate. It all seems unfair to me but of course just because something is unfair doesn't make it actionable, so I'm after advice. Thanks.

I can't remember exactly how much. It was a Barclays credit card, that much I'm sure. It was taken out around the same time as my Egg credit card, which appears on my credit report. To find out how much I'll have to contact Barclays. Will they be able to tell me what the balance was at the time the account was closed/debt sold?

HFO Financial Services say I owe them £1700 after paying a total of £4000. I had been paying through CCCS along with two other smaller debts. Due to personal circumstance I've stopped using CCCS and intended to write directly to HFO to arrange a payment plan. However on Noodle this debt does not appear at all either on open or closed accounts. The debt must have been incurred somewhere around 2003/2004. Precisely what am I paying this for? Is it possible they have been taking payments on statue-barred debt and if so is there any way I would be able to reclaim monies paid in addition to ceasing future payments?

Mum moved out last month from a tenancy that began June 2011. The monthly rent was £750 and she paid £1500 moving in. The small print of the contract states this was one month in advance and one month to "remain a head at all times" and therefore the landlord is denying that this constituted a deposit which would have to be protected by a tenancy deposit scheme. The rent was due on the first of each month. Her last payment was 1st August: £750 She then wrote to the landlord to say she'd be moving out early September. He asked about moving out early so someone who wanted the property could move in but the person in the end dropped out. She moved on the 8th of September. Mum is trying to claim back £550 owed rent (£750 divided by 30 days X 8 days she remained in the property would total £200) but the landlord refuses to respond to letters, texts or phone calls. Firstly can anyone advise what the situation is on the "non-depoit" deposit. Can you take £1500 of someone before they move in and claim it's technically not a deposit to negate you against legal obligations you'd have if it was? Also what's the best course of action to take. The concern is that the landlord will eventually get back to us and claim he's wrote off the remainder due generic repairs. However I've said that she could possibly use against him in such matters is the fact the gas boiler was not serviced once in three years - something a landlord is legally obliged to do annually - add to the fact that the gas fire in the house was 'condemned' during the tenancy - as examples of the landlord not living up to his obligations and that the cost of repairs he's trying to claim can be dismissed as a result of evident signs of neglect of the property over the course of the tenancy. All the monies owed and contracts signed are with an agency who now deny having involvement. They say he (who owns a number of properties) took 'control' of dealing with it during the length of mum's tenancy. The original one expired six months from the start but had just continued. Any advice? Thank you