The problem is the Post Office's untypical and unique status as a private prosecutor which dates back centuries. An entity that can be victim, investigator and prosecutor cannot possibly be free from conflicting interests and bias.

I take it you haven't read much about VW then? Terrible woman. Grade A hypocrite and ran her businesses with unpaid interns who she treated shockingly.

FOS won't have jurisdiction to do anything concerning a court order. The terms of a consent order (and a draft of it) should have been agreed by the parties before the application was made. Did you ever agree a draft order? If the terms were different to what was agreed with you then you should, in the first instance, query it with the other side and suggest they apply for a new consent order accordingly and at their expense. If they refuse you can then apply to the court to vary the order to the originally agreed terms and request that the costs of the application be met by the other party.

I assisted the complainant in a distressing complaint who was seeking compensation for a claims management company who were chasing her for money that they alleged was for an agreement signed by her husband in 2019. But he had in fact passed away in 2016. FOS changed the status of the complainant to the executor of her late husband's estate and although the complaint was upheld, FOS refused to offer compensation on the basis that their rules prevented them from awarding compensation to an estate. But FOS never disclosed to the complainant the effects the status change would have on the outcome of the complaint. We complained to the Independent Assessor (Dame Gillian Guy) who agreed with us and ordered FOS to pay her the compensation themselves. Have you considered sending a Subject Access Request to FOS?

I had a service complaint that was turned down but succeeded when I took it to the Independent Assessor.

You need to dig out (or obtain) the settlement offer and any other paperwork from Black Horse to demonstrate that the bank was dealing solely with you and with no reference to Consumer Refund Service. The date you received the PPI refund is also crucial as according to the FCA register, Consumer Refund Service Ltd were required to cease carrying out claims management activity, effective 17 April 2020. See under 'Winding up of claims management activities' NewRegister REGISTER.FCA.ORG.UK You mentioned that they took a long time dealing with the claim and citing that as the reason you cancelled. If prior to that they didn't keep you informed about the progress of the claim every 6 months they were in breach of their regulatory obligation to do so. See CMCOBS 6.1.9 CMCOB 6 - FCA Handbook WWW.HANDBOOK.FCA.ORG.UK

Hiya I think that's very good. I wouldn't give them any more reasons as to why you dispute the debt at this point though. Obviously don't fill out the I & E form as you have no intention of paying them. Have Allay given you any indication as to what online platform you are supposed to have given your agreement to them on? It's usually bank-refund-checker.co.uk which was heavily promoted on Facebook under 'Angies Advice'. Although the site is offline now an archive of it is still available on the Wayback Machine: ONLINE Hidden Insurance Checker Service WEB.ARCHIVE.ORG Their standard particulars of claim say that customers fill out the form online and then sign it digitally ''with a stylus, touch screen or mouse'' so that your actual signature may differ from the one on the agreement - except as you can see there is no signature field in which to do so! In any event there is no provision in FCA CMCOBS (the regulations which govern the conduct of claims management companies) which allows for agreements to be signed digitally without it being an image of a handwritten signature - see section 2.1.11 (2) CMCOB.pdf Does the bank-refund-checker site look familiar? A lot of people began filling out the form but never submitted (or indeed signed) it but I have reason to believe that the data inputted by the users was captured and retained in real time. FCA actually banned Allay from using the promotion anywhere on the internet effective from 16 August 2019 so if they claim you signed up after that date you've got them cold - see below. Keep us posted on any response. FCA Ban.pdf oops link didn't work - CMCOBS attached. CMCOB.pdf

Without actually seeing it it's difficult to know if what you've got is a letter of claim or just the threat of one. If it includes an income & expenditure form for you to complete and return then it is, If it doesn't then it isn't. If you could let me know I can advise accordingly. For reference here's a recent judgment in a case where Allay lost spectacularly when they were foolish enough to sue someone, which is why I don't think they would risk trying again for such a relatively small amount. Although Allay produced a ''digitally'' signed letter of authority in their evidence bundle, the judge held that the defendant did not in fact sign it - effectively making a finding of fraud. But as you can see even if the defendant had signed, the contract was not valid in any event as Allay could not demonstrate that they provided the defendant with a copy of the contract and the prescribed cancellation form in a durable medium at the point any contract was claimed to have been struck. The distance selling regulations are a nifty piece of legislation as the burden of proof as to whether they have been complied with rests expressly with the seller. aj.pdf

Yes tick box D but don't complete the I & E form. Where it asks for documents regarding the debt ask for everything and anything you can think of. Allay will claim that you filled out and signed a 'free PPI check' ad on facebook which then somehow morphs into claims management contract if any PPI was found. They will claim that the 'digital' signature on the LOAs will differ from your normal wet signature because it was written using a mouse, stylus or touchscreen. Your main defence would be that they didn't comply with distance selling regulations by failing to supply you with a copy of the agreement and prescribed cancellation terms in a durable medium at the point of sale. Had they have done you would have known that they had held you into entering a contract and been able to cancel within 14 days. It's unlikely that Allay would risk taking you to court for £800. As far as I know they haven't attempted to take anyone to court since they lost one last year.

I'm sure it must have been an innocent typo which I'm sure will be corrected.

Personally I think you're wasting your time. It's rare for the small claims court to provide written judgments. In any event what you're seeking isn't the function of the small claims court and I doubt they would consider it.

Indeed and I'm not sure how England reaching the quarter finals was a good day for the 'Britis' either. I doubt Wales and Scotland see it that way.

Really?

So the title of this thread is ''The government wants to put your lifetime medical records onto a database for research or to sell', but the banner on the forum home page promoting the thread says ''Are you happy that your personal medical details are sold to industry''. Is the latter click bait, left wing propaganda or just BS?

You do realise you quoted me in post 32 right? I'll post as I see fit.

Yep, he got it wrong too.

@honeybee13 "It's been a bad couple of days for the Cabinet Office, two lost court cases over the FoI 'suppression unit' and Gove and Cummings hiring mates illegally. Judge slams Michael Gove’s office as openDemocracy wins transparency court case WWW.OPENDEMOCRACY.NET Exclusive: UK government accused of ‘profound lack of transparency’ as openDemocracy wins legal victory over ‘Orwellian’ Freedom of Information... Covid contract for firm run by Cummings friends was unlawful, judge rules | Coronavirus | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Judge says contract given to firm run by friends of Boris Johnson’s former chief adviser was awarded illegally" Funny how the Guardian can say that the judge said it awarded ''illegally'' when they go on the quote the judge actually saying it was ''unlawful''. Tut tut.

Just seen this but I think this will almost certainly be exempted under section 12 . In my view the request is far too broad for FOS to be able to respond to with without exceeeding the £450 cost limit on compliance. In other words searching for, retrieving and collating the information would be too expensive and an authority can refuse the entire request on that basis.. You need to narrow the scope of the request significantly.

A stay is different to a set-aside but yes, once the court has considered the set-aside application it will issue an order to both parties with its decision, whatever that is. Be prepared that it's always possible the court may decide to hold a hearing to consider the application for which you will be given the opportunity to attend and contest the application.

Like?

That's one way of putting it, but is it ok to break public health laws because the offenders think the cause is virtuous?

It's 21st March for everyone and you can complete it before and indeed after that date.

It's because of the 2nd EU Payment Services Directive which came into effect in March last year which requires companies who deal with online payments, accounts etc to authenticate the customer using their mobile phone to reduce fraud. I live in a rural area with no mobile signal and it became impossible to function without being able to receive one-time security codes by text to open & access banking and investments accounts so I had to change my network to one that had wifi calling. It's a fact of life that mobiles have become a means of identification. Obviously a lot of older people don't have mobiles which is a problem for them and ironically you can't even open a SAGA savings account without a mobile number.

I just want to echo this. Without wanting to sound patronising to the OP, a lot of people think that Judicial Reviews are just a case of a judge reviewing a few papers. In fact JRs are serious, complex & big-bucks litigation that a litigant in person couldn't hope to navigate and the adverse legal costs a claimant would face if they lose would start at the mid tens of thousands.

Just draft it including all the grounds I've mentioned. If you want to post it up I'm happy to review it. I'm not sure how you first got invloved with them but the SAR response did say it could have been through Bank Refund Checker, which Allay promoted on Facebook etc. If so it would be worth mentioning that the FCA banned them from these promotions and the ban was effective from 16 August 2019 through to 7 February 2020.