There's nothing wrong with Ford's. I currently own a 2007 Ford Focus Ghia (2.0 Duratec) and previously owned a Ford Mondeo TDCi. The Focus is very reliable, had absolutely no problems with it in 25000 miles of motoring. Unfortunately you'll hear more negative things on the Internet due to how popular Ford's are, and therefore when something goes wrong, people are straight on the Internet asking for advice. If everybody who owns a problem free Ford came onto the Internet to praise their car, then it would outweigh the negatives by a lot.

I'd say it could potentially be a coincidence that the timing chain tensioner has failed (very well known fault on some of the N47 2.0 litre diesel engines), and this happened right after the oil change occurred as the oil was drained, and upon starting the engine the oil needs to recirculate around the engine, maybe in these few seconds after the engine was started the timing chain/tensioner has very little oil on it and failed. If this is the case, then the pistons inside the engine will strike the valves as the engine timing is lost. Basically, the engine is a write off. You'd need to get the fault correctly diagnosed, and then seek the relevant action through the county court should they refuse to fix the vehicle and you can prove that it was their negligence that caused the problem.

What would you do if I posted you a frivolous demand for £380? You'd ignore it. Do exactly the same here, there's nothing they can do except send you letters with capital letters and red writing.

Write a letter to the dealer and state that you are rejecting the car as it is not fit for purpose nor is it as described (in good working order). Ask for a full refund of all monies paid, and that will be the end of the matter. If they fail to honour a refund, then you'll need to serve them with a "Letter before claim", outlining your dispute, what's gone wrong, how the matter can be rectified, and the consequences should they fail to refund the money. Next, after 14 days have passed and the matter is still ongoing, then you'll need to issue a claim against the dealer. Whilst the court process might look daunting, it's really quite simple to issue a claim, and follow the claim through to the end. If you where to obtain a judgement against the dealer, and they failed to pay the judgement order, then you can obtain a high court writ and instruct high court enforcement officers (if the amount is above £600.00) to collect the debt.

Aren't liability orders issued after a hearing in a magistrates court? For example, debtor receives a summons in the post to appear on a certain date/time to defend the application for a liability order, if they fail to turn up, then the liability order is issued. Therefore in the interests of the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR, the right to a fair trail and no punishment without law is effectively adhered to as the debtor has a chance to defend themselves in a court of law?

Insurance companies will have to pay out on third party claims, regardless of whether the driver was under the influence. His insurance would probably be void in the respect that any claims damage to his vehicle will be rejected. What generally happens is, the insurance company will pay third party claims, and then recover the costs through the county court against the policy holder as they are deemed to be in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. I'm glad he was caught, it's a shame that some people still choose to drink and drive.

£5,000 is far in excess of what you'll be rewarded. I know of a case where a business man was pursued by Lowell Portfolio Ltd for a debt he never had. This judgement is available through a litigation specialist (Esue) should you wish to read it. He was awarded under £3,000 in damages for both incorrect data being recorded on his credit file by Lowell Portfolio Ltd and damages arising under s.3(1) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. His financial reputation was an important part of his career, not to mention the harassment encountered through letters and phone calls from Lowell Portfolio Ltd. What I'm saying is, you need to itemise your losses appropriately, in his particulars of claim the figure claimed was quoted as "above £1,500 but below £3,000". This range gave the judge and opportunity to issue judgment for what he deemed as appropriate losses. Maybe you should consider claiming for between £2,000 and no more than £5,000. What you're effectively showing is that you are not sure what your claim is worth, but have given the judge discretion to consider damages between a set amount. Good luck.

Driving otherwise in accordance with a license is of course, a strict liability offence (as is driving without insurance). It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that they hold the correct driving license for the category of vehicle being driven. The no insurance charge, could be challenged if there was valid insurance in place to allow any driver to use the vehicle, most insurance certificates will state with regards to named or additional drivers; "Those specified below, provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence."

You'll be fine, large retail companies have no interest circulating photos of a small value theft relating to food stolen for personal usage, even if you have been doing it for a while. You must stop shoplifting though, times are tough for many people, you risk ending up with a criminal record for theft, which really would ruin your future employment chances. Not to mention the social stigma attached with people who steal, being banned from stores, it's really not worth it. However, stop worrying about it. You've been caught, the store has dealt with the situation, you'll find they've probably forgotten you exist now, after all shops and security must see many people in the same predicament every week. Ignore any demands for any sums of money, they're completely unenforceable and have no basis in law or reality. Get on with your life.

I've never understood why people get all wound up over bailiffs coming to their home. They only turn up because the debtor has burried their head in the sand and allowed the situation to escalate, the only person to blame is the debtor. In many cases, something like an £80 fine ends up becoming £500, purely because the debtor has remained ignorant, when all they had to do was pay the original amount, or come to some kind of payment arrangements. Even through the various enforcement stages, the debtor ignores the problem and seeks poor advice based on pseudo knowledge of the law. Could you imagine if we lived in a country by where you could simply ignore government fines and criminal matters without any recourse for enforcement measures to collect the money owed? Nobody would pay anything.

I always thought that selling a vehicle that is on hire purchase is asset conversion fraud? As you don't legally own the vehicle until the final payment, further more this could lead to the purchaser of the vehicle having it repossed and left hugely out of pocket.

Nataly, Have you considered litigating against RLP to recover the funds? I'm sure everyone here would be more than happy to help, especially as you could be one of first people to litigate against them!

I'd disagree with contacting the financial ombudsman service, they're not fit for purpose and it would be a waste of time. Personally, in your situation, after being refused a mortgage based on the incorrect information recorded against you be Lowell, I'd draft up a letter before action and instigate legal proceedings in the county court against them. I read a case on "E sue" were Lowell chased a debt which did not belong to the debtor and successfully litigated against them and was awarded £2,869.93 plus costs. There was also another case I read in which a businessman sued Lowell Portfolio for around £5,000 in damages for falsely recording data on his credit file when he never had any debt, he also worked in the financial sector meaning negative credit data could have destroyed his reputation and lost him his job. Start the ball rolling, you've been refused a mortgage based on falsely recorded data, that's pretty serious in my opinion. Once you've litigated against them, and should judgment be forthcoming, then that would be the time to report them to the ICO, FCA, because you'll have a court judgement to strengthen your complaint.

If someone is stealing hundreds of pounds worth of stock from different shops, then some powerless company like RLP isn't going to have any effect on them. Sure, people who steal deserve to be punished, and they deserve to be punished with the full force of the law, but powerless third party private companies should have no place in trying to collect money which isn't due to them. If the retailer considers it has suffered loss through the actions of a shoplifting incident, then it's up to the retailer to litigate through the civil court system to recover any money. We all know security costs as you mentioned are factored into the price of goods and products purchased from the retailer. RLP got destroyed in the Oxford case, and a district judge pulled their claim to peices (whilst only county court judgements have persuasive force in civil law, it still sets a fantastic defence against RLP), which had no basis on law or reality. Punish through the criminal justice system. If damages occurred, then it should be for the RETAILER to litigate, and not some powerless firm that likes to pretend they have some kind of basis in law.

Everybody is entitled to their own opinion on the matter, and whilst I agree with some of the points raised, I disagree on anything relating to RLP. You have made many assumptions about this forum, which are completely your own opinion. However, the majority of people posting here in relation to RLP are your typical opportunist theif, probably with no previous criminal convictions, and people who have never been in trouble with the police before. These people are generally the ones who make a stupid decision to take something that they can't afford or do not want to pay for. We live in a country which everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. It's for the CPS to meet the standard of evidence required to provide a successful prosecution. Most first time offenders, should the amount stolen be of a lower amount, will receive a fixed penalty notice, and will be banned from the retailer. For most people, this is enough for them to never do the same thing again and they learn their lesson, pay the fine, the cost to the tax payer is absolutely minuscule. It would be for the retailer to pursue the individual in the county court should they wish to recover damages. Now then, if no damages have occurred, then why should a moronic firm such as RLP be entitled to any money? The offender has already been dealt with through the courts. The Oxford case in 2012 showed the RLP do not have any basis in law to make these silly charges. RLP is nothing more than a money making scheme and it's got nothing to do with justice or punishment, but simply to make as much profit as possible.

Ignore any DCA and deal directly with Vodafone. There is nothing the debt collection agency can do except print out letters going mad with the red ink and capital letters, they certainly can't charge you.

When you say failed to produce her documents, is this in relation to a HORT1 producer (issued at the road side and gives the subject 7 days to produce their documents for inspection at a police station), or is this in relation to a request made by the police in relation to the speeding offences? The police will contact the address given to them, if she failed to notify them of a change of address, then it's her fault as the police believed any letters were served correctly. I would say she's looking at a driving ban.

Agree. I did some research and it's amazing how similar everything is with both companies. How they're still licensed by the FCA is far beyond me. The more people who complain, the better. Their website and emails look like it was drafted by a 10 year old.

You're worrying over nothing. Like you said, it's spam junk mail, personally I'd send it off to the financial conduct authority and file a complaint. They won't go anywhere near a courtroom, it's a balance that's made up of nothing more than unenforceable charges, no judge would entertain these bunch of fools.

You're Welcome. Defend the claim in full, note the CPR section as quoted above, it might also be worth applying to strike the claim out on that basis. I'm not sure whether it'll be applicable, but you might also be able to claim losses (£18 per hour for litigant in person). I'm sure others will clarify or correct me if I'm wrong.

Agree to disagree, but I'm fairly sure that as long as the land is private (regardless of whether other vehicles can access it), then there is no law that actually states you must display your vehicle registration plates. By private, I mean a road, area of land that is not maintained by the local council, or paid for by the general public, and belongs to either an individual or group of individuals, business, organisation etc etc. Most supermarket carparks I would assume are private, with only an implied right of access for those who wish to use the facilities.

If it was sold contrary to the description, and you've informed the seller of this, and they're refusing to do anything about it, then it might be worth looking at filing a county court claim to recover the costs of any repairs that need doing.

Civil Procedure Rules 1998 state the following: Discontinuance and subsequent proceedings; 38.7 A claimant who discontinues a claim needs the permission of the court to make another claim against the same defendant if – (a) he discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence; and (b) the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim. Hope this helps.

There are no legal requirements to my knowledge that mean you must display vehicle registration plates on private property. I would imagine so long as you're not driving on a public highway, then no law requires you to have number plates displayed. Although most car parks have the ANPR cameras situated at the entrances and exits, so as soon as you've left the property, you'll be on a public highway, and therefore committing an offence. It would seem a lot of effort to go to just to trick the system in place when the majority of parking charge notices are unenforceable.

Some very interesting opinions circulating on this topic, and it's good to see nobody being attacked for having their own opinion. I think the drink drive limit in the UK is very tolerant, as mentioned earlier, have a look at other EU Countries that set their limits very low, almost a zero tolerance approach if you will. I agree with what a poster said here, the statistics obviously show that accidents involving drink driving are very small, however, remember that accidents involving drink driving are generally extremely serious in regards to the injuries caused. I read that on average 3,000 people are killed or seriously injured each year in drink drive collisions, and nearly one in six of all deaths on the road involve drivers who are over the legal alcohol limit (drunk driving being one of the "fatal 5"). I think also people forget that the drink drive limit is somewhat arbitrary, as there remain so many different factors surrounding how alcohol affects each and every person differently.