Wishface, were you given a letter giving the new arrangements? If so, there should be the details of whom to phone on Tuesday with the information about the bus problems. Tell them you will back this up in writing but because of the bank holiday, you cannot get a letter out to them in time. As for finding out about whether you suffer from chronic anxiety as a life-long/ long-term condition (as opposed to being stressed due to being out of work and all the additional problems that brings) or you do have something like Asperger's, it might be best to talk to your doctor. If you cannot get anywhere with him/her, then I would recommend contacting the National Autistic Society for advice (they are very good) and even trying MIND or any other help group you have in your area. You may find they can help with advice on what to do to make sure you're on the right benefits. Also, find out about being seen by the Disability Employment Advisor at the JC. This may be a less stressful experience for you and they may even be able to come up with better options to help find work.

So, actually Ed, your answer to me should have started with 'yes' because that is what I was getting at. The tenant does put the tenancy at risk if they were hoping to stay in the property for a second term, if they have to take the landlord to court before the end of the tenancy for failing to put the deposit into a TDS - ie the relationship with the landlord has broken down and the tenant actually stands to lose out in other ways as a result. Mariner - if a landlord fails to abide by the law and protect the deposit, then they deserve to suffer the penalties. There are good and bad tenants and landlords. However, tenants have to fork out a whole load of money upfront, not just deposit for the property but by agents for credit searches and other fees. So, if they then find they have a dodgy landlord who is failing to protect the deposit, they are in a tenancy which is already risking the return of their deposit. If they then find, because they have to take action whilst the tenancy is still running to ensure they do have the full recourse to legal redress if the landlord fails to abide by the law, and the tenant understandably does not wish to stay with such a landlord after the end of the tenancy period, the tenant then has all those fees and deposits, removals etc to find upfront to move elsewhere. If all the landlord has to do if the tenant does take action at the beginning of the tenancy to ensure the deposit is secured, is to put it into a TDS, then the tenant is back to square one if and when they decide to move, because the risk then is that the landlord makes it very difficult for the tenant to ensure the deposit is returned. The legal position is one thing, actually ensuring that unprincipled landlords cannot get away with unlawful withholding of the deposit are very different matters and all too often it's a battle that tenants find is too arduous and expensive to pursue.

Hi Doti It does indeed look as if the claims for penalties cannot be made if the deposit was not secured and not refunded after the tenancy was ended. However, he should still be able to get his deposit refunded. Here's the clickable link if anyone else wants to read it: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?306389-Another-un-protected-deposit-decision I'm a bit concerned however in that the tenant is supposed to make a claim for a refund of the deposit at the beginning of the tenancy or has to resort to threatening to sue the landlord for the return of the deposit before the tenancy has ended - not the best way to conduct relations? I'm also confused by this relevant bit: Is this saying that, if the tenant finds the landlord has not paid the deposit into a TDS scheme, they then take the landlord to court to either enforce the landlord to pay it into a scheme or to pay three times the deposit as a penalty? The tenant is only going to be claiming for the refund of the deposit if it is not given. So, if the tenant cannot claim the penalty after the end of the tenancy, then they are putting their tenancy in jeopardy by being forced to take this action. So as it stands, it looks like the judge has created a loophole for landlords to not pay the deposit into a TDS??? Anyone clarify this???

Hopefully that's good for the OP - not so good for anyone who had a loan after then.

Cerberus - does the 6 year limit apply to Student Loans? As this applies to the OP, it's possibly a bit tricky on two counts: first it says if the loan hasn't ever been in arrears, which it seems the OPs husband's account has been, and second, it's aged 60 if the person was over 40 when they started the loan............. which her husband would have been? Can I ask for the second quote, for a SL taken out from 2002 - 2006, if there have been no payments at all, but just massive interest gathering, does the person have to wait until they're 65 before it is wiped clean? It seems very heavily laden against people who took out loans between 1998 and 2006 and who were under 40 when they graduated.

Need to keep this bumped up then because I'm sure they cannot tell you to default on loan payments when they haven't even begun to try and help you sort things out by offering short term alternative arrangements.

Gosh - thank goodness for Google - here you go: This link to another forum gives the name of two companies: http://www.aspergertechnical.org.uk/discuss/topic24.html Maybe even just get in touch with someone there to see if they have any ideas on how you can get into the job market - I'm sure that any company like this would be far more helpful than a local 99p store. good luck - I really admire the way you handle yourself and keep trying to get on - so I hope that something can come of all of this.

Leedsguy - now that you've posted that extra bit of info, is it possible that the feedback you received is the problem - ie - they cannot communicate? The reason I think this might be the case is that they have left out what they know and assume (erroneously) that you would realise - essentially that as you would be providing a consultancy service to those 'higher up' in the Civil Service, they need to employ someone who can demonstrate they've dealt with that kind of client in the past. They would need someone who not only knew their product/service, but who can also show they have delivered to tough customers before. I do understand how difficult and demoralising it is - my own son is a older than yourself, with an ASD condition and is just on the long-term unemployed heap. However, you do have a lot going for you and I would certainly try to avoid applying to places such as Poundland - you'd scare the pants off them. Ideally you need to find an employer who will take you on to train as a consultant - not in the technical stuff, but in the negotiating and delivery training. Without knowing what your specialism is, are there any companies where you live which might be open to doing that, even for a modest salary so you can get your foot in the door. There was a Swedish company who had a UK part of their company who specialised in taking people with Asperger's - but as usual, my pea-brain memory can't dredge up any more info than that. I'll try to find it for you even if only for interest.

This doesn't make much sense. If he is saying that the one you filled in online is ok, then there is nothing more to fill in.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what the "area one" is. The Census forum is just one forum - huge and meaningless, but just the one form. There was no community census form or area one. Have you seen it and if so, what colour is it?

Is he saying that the online form was not submitted correctly? What is he asking you to complete now? Is it a complete new form? If so, can he not just have left it for you both to complete and collect later?

I thought it was no longer allowed to try and force clients into further debt when not making every effort to try and help them in any way possible? If this doesn't get any more replies here, post this on the Halifax forum where other knowledgeable helpers hang out.

I'd say at a rough guess Flumps explanation is more likely. I'm finding agencies are now sending emails to say "Follow us on Twitter/ Facebook" for all the up to date jobs etc. Thing is, I do not and will not have an account with either or any other 'social-networking' sites. A) they have long ceased to be just social-networking sites as they're used so much for business now (and wads of unwanted carp), B) when I tried Twitter I found it to be the most frustrating and boring thing imagineable and C) more worringly is how much of your privacy you give away. I'm not sure on the outcome of the privacy debacle with Facebook, but if anyone believes that they can just remove 'proof' of things they don't want to be found out - forgetaboutit!! As far as I'm aware, Facebook own and keep anything that is put up on their website. If the DWP really want to go rummaging and require evidence, they will get it.

Are you sure they've overpaid or was it a month's salary in lieu of notice from them? I'd hang on to any overpayment until it is requested as there's no guarantee they'll get anything right if you do return it. As they have failed to comply with your requests for a P45, it would be better to work with your accountant and then with HMRC to get the important legal stuff sorted first of all.

I think yesterday's Mirror headline has to be the classic: Naming Private Ryan.

Having picked this up from the newsletter - wonderful poem - had me in stitches. Any updates on this disgraceful bunch of shylocks?

The one little bit which may be their 'get-out' is: (Name of candidate) lacked evidence of some of the key competencies needed for such a senior position, notably team working and customer appreciation. What this means is that you could not demonstrate that you had experience of these aspsects to the role. So, it goes back to the job spec and example questions - was there anything that suggested a candidate needed to demonstrate such experience? And then, was the position indicated as being a senior position which would require prior, evidenced experience? If there was no such information or requirement, then I'd tentatively suggest you may have something to go on.

DOH!! Got it guys - thank you very muchly!

I know that if I read a thread, then when it's updated by another post after I've left, I'll get an email which is great - can see if there's anything more interesting to read. Am happy with that. If I don't go back to the thread again because I'm no longer interested, I don't get any more emails - or so I thought - with one exception!!! I haven't been into the thread since I last posted there several days/weeks ago (apart from today to see if there was some way of unticking something), but still I keep getting emails every time it's updated. Is there something odd about this thread - or about me - or perhaps, leave the second option out of it? Thread that I can't seem to shake off: What are you listening to?

Did they give this to you verbally or in writing? You do need to talk to someone as honeybee suggests because it may not just be a question of claiming for your injured feelings. Is there the consideration of loss of earnings???

If she left to go to Uni, then I can't see how she could still be with the company unless she had a specific contract which employed her during eg stated school/uni holiday periods. So, it depends what her contract stated. If she was still 'employed', then she would not have needed a verbal agreement that she could come back to work - it would be in the contract and pre-arranged. The error in stating that the complaint was in writing, when it was verbal, is really semantics. Unless she has a contract that specifically states she is employed during xxxx time-periods and they've just dismissed her, she's really a temporary contract worker and her contract is not being renewed. Has she been given a P45?

Dave - if you are still currently not receiving benefits, my advice would be to wait for a few more days to see what the CLA come up with. In the meantime, you need to sit down and itemise where all the money has gone because they will want to know. If you still have that car, you may well need to think about selling it because one way or another, if it hasn't helped you get a job, and you don't have the money to pay for living with no benefits, then the car becomes an unaffordable luxury. The other people you need to tell are your parents for a number of reasons. a) they deserve to know that they're throwing good money away and may want to have time to consider if they can, or if they will, help you again. The JC may even suggest that you will have to apply to your parents (or friends etc) to live without benefits if your benefits are withheld. b) I am not sure about the tax implication, but the last time I knew about it, the tax-free gift threshold was £3,000 per annum, or £6,000 for the first gift if one had not been given in the previous tax year. Whilst there may be ways around the tax, as this 'gift' is going to come to light, your parents may prefer to know so they can ensure that there is no liability upon them. In the meantime, no point in fretting - you're doing the right thing by moving this along as best as you can to get it all cleared up. So, step back and chill. Work on your finances to cut your outgoings to a minimum so you can show you're bringing things back under control. And - keep looking for work - focus on that more than anything because that's what will get you out of the dumps.

Perhaps, depending on the circumstances of the consideration, if the Judge at the tribunal granted that the transfer of the individual in question was clearly a further instance of harassment, then for that individual to be re-assigned to the area, the act of 'further instance of harassment' must still stand. If the individual was re-transferred to another area following the decision that the transfer to the OPs area was further harassment, then it begs the question as to why the Authority have gone against that decision by the judge and allowed the individual to transfer back. I'd say that this really would be better discussed with a solicitor, or someone who can help perhaps with a complaint to the PCA (before they all get disbanded under Govt cuts!!!). The big question is who took the decision that it was ok to send the individual back to the OPs area, how was it justified under the circumstances considering that it had already been identified as further harassment, and if an error or neglect has occured, what are the OPs rights to have this matter resolved to ensure they can their rights to living without fear of harassment?

What is very clear from reading so many stories on various forums, and from talking to others in the same boat, is that the culture and service varies from Job Centre to Job Centre and region to region. I have to say that being long-term unemployed, I've seen quite a few different advisors and a few have been 'difficult' and some very unhelpful. However, I've also had at least twice as many be not only very helpful, but also very understanding. I have come to realise that a lot is down to how I approach them, and if I get the odd ratty one, I just do what I have to do for that moment in time whilst at the JC to ensure that they sign my payments and then leave it all behind and get on with my life - well, my daily round of job searches. In an odd way, it's taught me to let go of a lot of angst because it just isn't worth it - and when something goes right or someone is helpful, I also make sure I let them know that I appreciate their help, and I'm very grateful for it. Things still go pointy-things up, especially when dealing with different departments, but a bit of perserverence usually sorts it out. Personally, I also would find it very difficult to work in a JC because of the pressures from above to reach the Government's targets, having to keep changing methods and practices to try and have a positive effect on reducing job seeker numbers, having to deal with those genuine cases of people who are just stuck as virtually unemployable, and those who are downright rude and agressive .................................. It can't be at all easy. BUT - whatever our experiences out there in the field, here in the forums we are interacting with people like Flumps and Erika who are quite clearly here to help with their expertise and for that we should all be very grateful as it's an invaluable resource.

Not sure if this helps, but if you do have any PPIs on any of the cards/loans etc depending on how useful/less they are, first of all get those refunded so they reduce the amount owed. I don't think there's a problem with telling your creditors that you're redundant and (presumably) will be on JSA? Put them all on hold and ask them to back off and give you time to sort out a new DPM when you have more details of your income as you are actively seeking work etc blah blah blah. I'd have said it might actually be better to not try and pay off a few of the debts just to get rid of some of them if you still have others who you cannot pay off. Any agreement HAS to be full and final - as DX posts. If the word 'partial' keeps appearing, tell them to roll their own and smoke it!