I received a parking ticket in a council owned car park for parking outwith a bay. The signage up in the car park says the name the council was formerrly known as which was about 14 years ago, the traffic warden said this can be appealed due to incorrect signage but need someone to clarify if this is the case and if so to point me in the right direction for this. Many thanks in advance

When claiming under harship what they are looking for is: "A complainant is considered to be in financial difficulty when his or her income is insufficient to cover reasonable living expenses and meet financial commitments as they become due." While that's the general principle, there are also specific criteria which count on top; such as needing to withdraw cash from credit cards or having over £500 of charges a year. As Scott asks do you have any arrears in priority debts or any other debt for that matter, as the banks have refused your request you can contact the FOS in respect of this, its not unusual for the banks to refuse your hardship claim but the FOS have a high success rate with hardship claims.

Nice one, make sure you give it a good flush out.

Quite probable, however what gets me is that everyone seems to expect that a victory for the banks is extremely unlikely yet those banks seem hell bent on dragging this on and on even after losing twice. It does seem to most to be a one way road, that the banks will lose but we dont know when. Surely it would make more sense for the banks to have paid up before now than paying all that judicial interest when they run out of options. It is that which stumps me, WHY continue? UNLESS they were to benefit from the case taking so long to reach a conclusion. I agree it may be way off the mark but I cant see any other reason to continue, lets not say they expect to win please. Every single day this goes on the interest they will have to pay back is growing. Are the banks legal costs covered by their insurance?

Well I fully expect the supreme court to uphold the earlier ruling and then for the charges to be deemed unfair. The problem comes deciding what is a fair amount, its at this stage I suspect a deal to be done. Since the waiver has been introduced and until the test case is resolved the Limitation Act is in effect frozen, could there be the same regarding judicial interest WHEN its finally over. I could see claims getting interest up till the test case started only, this could be buying the banks time to pay back whats owed.

The banks deserve whats coming in my opinion, this situation didnt arrive overnight and has taken many years of risk taking and bad management but now we talk about bonus cuts and salary cuts for bankers. What about the years leading up to this when they were collecting kings ransoms in bonusses for supposed great profits, why shouldnt these payments be questioned, the MP,s are at it as well, how long has this been going on for and why shouldnt they be facing criminal proceedings, the layman wouldnt be allowed the same privalege for fraud in their workplace. The banks and their practices have contributed to many thousands of people losing their houses and businessess, and I for one wouldn't lose any sleep over their plight. What goes around comes around and when it does it will be sweet.

Well im not a fan of BG, however if the appliance has a perished seal then (depending on what seal) there may be a serious safety concern which may make the appliance I.D (Immediately Dangerous) As for the seal being obsolete then the question may be put to BG why have I been paying an insurance for however long parts have been obsolete knowing when the boiler does eventually break down you are going to be left in limbo. There have been some limited success stories where customers have had money returned or discounts on their new boiler. BG are very expensive for pretty much all their work and excell when it comes to renewal boilers or systems and you would be wise to get quotes for this as you should save around 50% on average. It wouldnt be unlike them to shall we say make a mistake regarding not only the seal but also the part being obsolete so maybe a second opinion may be needed. What is the name of the boiler and if you can give me an idea regarding which seal I will check for you.

If you laughed at that try reading below without laughing. FSA's objectives market confidence public awareness consumer protection reduction of financial crime Failed in all 4 then.

As I understand it the banks are allowed to change their terms and conditions whilst the waiver is in place as long as they are not to the detriment of their customers. Im sure there have been very little complaints from customers to the FSA in respect of this so its hardly surprising that theres a lack of action from the FSA. IMHO irrespective of how many complaints were made they wouldn't take action, and thats probably why there have been so few complaints. Toothless comes to mind.

Hi ragingcat55, this sort of job should be left to a gas fitter, however its usually fairly straight forward and would involve draining the system down and isolating the F&E tank then cutting out the section of pipework that is choked (99% of times its where it tees in to the heating from the F&E tank) A good gas fitter will trace this out quickly and repipe the section and at a fraction of the costs a powerflush would be. To be fair this dosent treat the full system as a powerflush would, but it would allow an inhibitor to be circulated through the system.

Couldn't agree more. Its a disgrace to our intelligence that this test case is allowed to continue at this speed all in the name of justice.

Your welcome George

Regarding choice of boiler, well thats fitters prefs at the end of the day, the best on the market in my opinion for your system would be Worcester or Viessmann. I dont like Glow worm but have no probs with Vailliant. Hope that helps some.

Thats a giver however the only people who will lose due to limitations are those who HAVENT either filed at court, started a compliant with the FOS or indeed had their complaint registered with their bank as for these people time will stand still in respect of limitations, (thats a giver) I cant imagine that there are so many people out there with significant amount of charges who havent done anything, that is to say to make it that worthwhile for the banks to continue in this manner, it just dosent make sense. Hiya been fed up with the whole bloody thing TBH.

By the banks actions of appeal on appeal it is fairly obvious they will stop ONLY when there are no further routes to take, they have stalled at every chance they have and will do nothing to speed this whole saga up. If they lose HOL and possibly EC they will fight, stall, and argue whatever amount the OFT say is fair, i wouldnt have believed at the start this would have taken so long and still with no end in sight. Surely with ALL that has been ruled on so far they expect to lose, surely they have been told so by their own legal team its a losing cause and it would be in the banks interest to pay now rather than risk further interest on these claims and that is the part I cant get my head round! Why continue when that exact route will cost so much more in the end, is there a twist to come regarding all of this, it really wouldnt surprise me in the least. I would love this resolved this year with no deals behind closed doors but im waiting for it. The timescales and protection the banks have been given via the waiver have been scandolous, its a public enquiry thats needed to see whats been going on in all of this.

There are obviously times when a powerflush would help a system but there is a clear lack of information being given to customers regarding how to avoid sludging up in the first instance, it seems to me BG are quite knowingly avoiding these issues until its too late, I wonder why.

Im pretty sure there will be a reference to what interest will be due to claimants when this is all done and dusted, court or the FOS you will be settled on that basis. Court claims generally were quicker than the FOS prior to the waiver, now it makes no odds so im of the opinion at this moment there isnt a best route. I believe there is even an argument that by having your complaint registered by your bank this will be just as effective as the courts or the FOS. Your time stands still regarding the Limitation Act so if one action costs you to register (court) and there are other options that are free which one do you choose or are there guaranteed benefits by the way of the courts?

No write to them telling them the amount in question is made up entirely of bank charges and you have no intention of paying it, further more if you are defaulted for this you will take them to court over it. The waiver which is in place works two ways remember. Did you send away for your statements?

I have had a similar situatio with currys and they confirmed it was ok without as they had my purchases on their computer system, they will have yours as they would have taken your details for licence.

Legalpickle I had to use the route of the FOS due to my case history. (long story) however there are times when the FOS may be considered like if people are struggling with the court fees or the possibility of appearing in court would scare people half to death then the FOS may seem the best way forward, also if you dont like the findings of the FOS you can still proceed to court however if a case has been decided in court that you arent happy with then you are almost certain to have no joy through the FOS. There are also bad points regardig the FOS which are as follows. 1/. They will not push the banks for interest unless you state you want it and even then they are more than likely to make an offer excluding this, then if you refuse the offer I have seen them return with a slightly better offer but also with a reply that they cant help any further. 2/. They are so slow, it is quite incredible the pace they move at and whenever I have phoned they have always been waiting on the banks to supply more information, that seems to be the favourite one for them. My case was started with the FOS well over a year before the waiver came in force and I can honestly say the ONLY correspondence I have had from them in that time was to tell me all cases were on hold. It wasnt the quickest route before the waiver and is in my opinion only to be used as an alternative to court.

Will the OFT show how they calculate what would be deemed as a fair amount as im concerned they will just give another CC figure they themselves would take legal action at making the whole issue a joke. This is the part that for me will be the proof in the pudding, lets see if the OFT have any teeth or are simply falling into line. I would love to know how they are going to investigate these charges and to see their reasoning for the figure they eventually arrive at. When theres proof of some costs under £2.50, what would be a fair amount based on that information, would this now be the best time for consumers or forums to write to the OFT to give their views on whats fair whilst reminding them of whats already known.

copy

Its getting nearer, I wonder if I will get my dosh back before my third anniversary (July2006) of starting this claim! 0n a brighter note I was in my local branch on Friday waiting in line to be served when the manager went to walk by me, I managed to attract his attention and reminded him of our last conversation when he said banks had done nothing wrong and people who are charged are charged because they have failed to maintain their account with sufficient funds, and a long speel about how many people dont get charged. In front of around 20 customers I reminded him I was going to get my charges back that the bank had taken from me over the years as they have been found to be in the wrong and when I do I will be closing the account for good. He smiled and walked away but not before I said " So who was right and who was wrong then? " Wont get my money back quicker but it made me feel much better. Smarmy git.

As I see it the banks were glad to repay claims so as to end the claim in F & F, and still would have been glad to have repaid peeps, this was done to avoid any further doors opening should a case be lost in court. Remember it was the OFT who took the banks to court, even though the banks said they were happy to go to court, no way they were happy. They knew the consequences if they were to lose this test case and boy did they put up a fight, by losing the case in the way they have there are many other possibilities of further recompense to consumers which could make the charges amount look insignificant.

Yes he put it across very good, I just happened to switch the radio on at the right time this morning, good plug for CAG.