This may be a silly question, but I assume your son did make it clear to the recovery man that it was a rear wheel drive automatic? I find it a little bit hard to believe that the RAC towed it at speeds up to and over 50 mph. (Is that even legal?) I assume your son must have been in the RAC cab with the driver to know the speeds. Didn't he say anything? (Not that this necessarily absolves the RAC driver of any blame).

Is this in London? If yes, there is a blanket ban on pavement parking unless there is signage permitting it. (Actually a bit more complicated than that, but that's the essence). If elsewhere*, you seem to me to be pretty clearly outside that parking bay (if it is a parking bay). What do the signs say? * Looks like it might be in the south-west, not London?

From your OP it sounds as if the new manager only learned that your family member needed adjustments when the old manager told him. Is that right? Surely your family member would have raised the need for adjustments at interview? (Sorry - I don't know how this sort of scenario is meant to be handled by the employer. Sounds a bit like the new manager has been lumbered...)

You want to fire someone with an "unblemished" (your word) employment record?

The bank has already rejected them as over six months. My wife's dividend cheques can be presented for up to 12 months (says so on the face of the cheque) and then have to be reissued. Having looked at the National Rail T&Cs and the TOC's passenger charter, I'm reasonably confident they can be reissued, despite an initial rejection from customer services (I suspect they don't know they can be reissued).

Just looked at National Rail T&Cs of travel and TOC's passenger charter - nothing to indicate that they can't reissue an expired cheque where they've already agreed to pay compensation for delay by issuing the original cheque. Think I'll challenge them as to where it says they can't reissue the cheque.

Yeah. I suspect it's voluntary not legally enforceable.

(My own fault - I know!) I've just found two delay repay cheques (each for just £13) that I never presented to my bank. They're both nearly two years old. I've contacted the TOC in question and asked them to reissue them (possibly for a fee) but they've refused to do so on the grounds that the cheques are over six months old. Is this correct? My wife has had several expired dividend cheques reissued in the past upon payment of a fee. Is the delay repay compensation simply an ex gratia payment, not creating any legal liability? I'm not too bothered as if they charged the same fee as for my wife's dividend cheques, I'd only be a couple of quid up, but I'm curious to know if the TOC is correct. Thanks

Interesting thread about a car where the odometer spontaneously "lost" ~ 10,000 miles while in the owner's possession. Also possible additional problem recording mileage at MoT (post #9). https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=6004189

Are you suggesting that a high profile role and professional status would mean it's not in the public interest to prosecute you? If I were you I would stop and think about that - more likely to backfire on you...

You can want what you like but you're not entitled to anything. Why do you want to see a GP you've previously made an unsuccessful complaint about? Can you please explain that? If you are so certain your unsuccessful complaint was "justified", why did you not carry it further with the CCG and/or GMC? And why wait for 12 months to make a complaint? What? Is there something more behind all this? EDIT: If I were the GP I can perfectly understand them not wanting you as a patient if you've previously complained about them. Think about it.

What have you got to complain about? You saw a GP didn't you? Why on earth would you want to complain about not being seen by a GP you've previously unsuccessfully complained about?

Can't really help I'm afraid. BF thinks I know about cars because of an exchange we had on another thread, but I don't (apart from common sense!) What I would say is: 1. I presume you will want to retain ownership until you've got the judgment paid 2. Then you want to make sure you are no longer the registered keeper. Look on your V5C and it should tell you what to do if the car is returned to trade (I assume this is how this should be interpreted). In any event make sure DVLA know you are no longer the registered keeper. Might be an idea to call them for advice - though I understand they can be hard to get on the 'phone. 3. Not sure how ownership formally transfers eg is documentation needed? Note the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner of the vehicle - in fact the V5C says it is not evidence of ownership. 4. Also not sure about how the insurance works. If you are no longer registered keeper, does that mean you are no longer responsible for insurance? Or do you need to transfer ownership first? You could try asking DVLA about this too. 5. There is a DVLA board on here where you could ask for clarification on these questions. As I say I'm no expert so I wouldn't describe the above as "advice", but it may be a starting point for you. I'm sure other posters are in a better position to give advice you can rely on - don't rely on me!

OP - Hope you got this resolved during the last week. If not, I would only add that HCEOs should be able to take an electronic debit card payment (not credit card) which I presume is as good as cash.

I'm not sure the lease company should automatically pay it(?). What do your lease T&Cs say about parking fines? (Sorry for late reply).

As above. GP appointment for explanation and ring CCG.

You're banging your head against a brick wall - they can change your contract without your agreement. Good luck - you'll need it!

Irrespective of what the allowance was called, were you paid the correct amount of money since TUPE? If "Yes" I don't see what you can do. And your employer can change your T&Cs unilaterally, provided they follow the correct procedure. (Adding to my confusion because you haven't explained, were you working shifts for the shift allowance? And did you undertake extra duties for the Responsibility allowance? I suppose it doesn't matter, as they can just cease paying it, whatever "it" is.)

Are you complaining that your employer wants to take away an allowance from you, or that they haven't been paying an allowance that is due to you, or both? No wonder sangie and Emmzzi have given up!

But they can change the criteria, can't they?

I think sangie and Emmzzi are simply trying to advise you, impartially, as to what the law is and what your legal "rights" as an employee are. You may (or may not) quite justifiably feel hard done by and unfairly treated by your current employer, but that does not neccessarily mean that you have any legal recourse. If, however, you are a valuable employee and asset to your employer, they may decide to accommodate you anyway. It's impossible to say from your inconsistent account. Congratulations on unearthing your old T&Cs, but as sangie has said several times, provided that your current employer adheres to the prescribed legal procedure regarding the removal of the allowance (or whatever it actually is) they can do so with or without your consent. EDIT: Good luck with a grievance...

nic - I've read all this thread and I'm really confused (but I don't know as much about employment law as sangie and Emmzzi do). Are you in a union or not? If you are, what have they advised you about your situation (assuming you've told them the full story)? In answer to your original question (and extensive exchange of posts) about a subsequent employer changing your T&Cs after TUPE, I can personally assure you that what sangie told you is correct. I went through this some years ago when my NHS position was being transferred to a different trust (100 miles away!) and I got advice from my union (at a regional level), from my own trust's director of HR, and I also paid to get advice from a solicitor (don't worry sangie - I never sought representation from anybody - I didn't need to!) and they all told me what sangie told you. It seems a great pity to me that sangie has wasted time advising you on this TUPE issue when it seems (I'm too confused by your changing story to be certain of anything) that most of what you've posted has been unreliable and inaccurate. Emmzzi has had their time wasted too. As Bazza points out above, both they and sangie really understand these aspects of employment law.

Yes. I'm not a "lawyer" except insofar as I have two law degrees from 40 years ago! Never used the qualifications professionally though. I too am sure it is standard "boiler-plate" wording, but my lay-man's interpretation is that "...not otherwise disposed of in the preceding clauses 3 and 4 of this my Will..." would have been clearer and not open to any doubt.

Yeah - I'd forgotten your post mentioning the CCG. I agree that going to the GPs again should be the quickest way of dealing with this, but it would seem that sopiaa's relative is on the list of a somewhat difficult and intransigent practice, but without being physically able to witness the exchanges between them I can't say for sure. I agree with you about the other poster's "advice"!!! A quick way of getting nowhere and/or getting kicked off the list! There is no point in making anything resembling a complaint until you've gathered enough information to identify the substance of the complaint or, indeed, to identify whether there are grounds for a complaint at all. I think sophiaa is still at the information gathering stage. sophiaa - when you contact the CCG be prepared to have to explain the problem to more than one person. It's not unreasonable for the first (or second or third...) person you speak to not to be in a position to give a definite answer, but somebody must be able to do so. Also, if English not your first language (apologies if this assumption is wrong!) then I think you can legitimately use this to reinforce your confusion and puzzlement over why patient choice is not working how you think it should. Play it as you not understanding the system and being grateful for somebody to explain it to you.

Sorry to butt in - I'm not a lawyer (so this contribution may be worthless!) but am interested in wills at the moment. I'm assuming that the will was drawn up by a solicitor and that the clauses used are standard ones, but is there not a lack of clarity in clauses 5 and 6? What I'm thinking about is clause 5 refers to personal effects "...not otherwise disposed of by this my Will..." Could it be argued that the effects referred to in 5 are "...otherwise disposed of..." in clause 6? I'm assuming that I must be wrong as the wording must be standard, but I don't see the purpose of that phrasing in clause 5 and why it should be necessary. To my simple understanding the will is clearer without that wording(?). No doubt I'm wrong and probably wasting everybody's time!