This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 03/05/19. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support their. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Dismissal with immediate effect means just that, unfortunately. It is a summary dismissal without notice. This would particularly appear to be so if they have not written to him about any notice pay or notice period and his employment terminated as stated, with immediate effect.

I didn't suggest that notice was required during the fixed term. You are right that of course notice to end the tenancy should be minimum 4 weeks (but at least one rental period) if the tenancy is periodic. You may think it is terrible advice to tell a tenant to withold the last month's rent. Believe me over the years I have seen hundreds of cases where people have paid their last month's rent and ended up going to court to get the deposit back off of a landlord with no business to keep it. What is the landlord going to do about it? It is the last month. All he can do is ask for it - if he has properly dealt with the exit inspection and hasn't tried to rip you off then pay him anything he is owed. Not terrible advice but a tactic to stop yourself getting ripped off. But as you say the deposit may be covered by TDS so not a problem. Oh yes and make sure when you vacate that you take photographs of each room. Or a video. Or something. Don't just move out and expect the landlord to be honest about the state of the property.

He he Dave, not being around won't stop them either!! What people should always remember about HMRC is that they never have to prove the debt in any court proceedings (that's certainly true about tax anyway and I expect the same about overpayments of benefits).. They only have to produce a certificate to the court that an amount is owing and the court is obliged to accept this as evidence that the debt exists and is outstanding. Even if they're wrong leaving it to that late stage is like that King on his throne telling the incoming tide to back off! And don't forget that they can proceed against you as long as they have your last known address. You don't want to come back to an old rotten fan covered in sh*t after your break now do you

Check your tenancy agreement. I suspect that it will refer only to the fixed term and probably doesn't have a specific clause in it about the tenant giving notice. Under the tenancy you are obliged to pay rent for the whole of the fixed period. If as you say you are on a periodic tenancy then you are not obliged to give any particular notice at all to leave the property, although you would generally give a month as this is a rent period. You should write to the agent/landlord (before 16.11.07) and tell them that you will be moving out on 16.12.07 and there will be nothing that they will be able to do about it (except keep your deposit and argue with you, so maybe don't pay the last month's rent if they hold a month in hand - i know some will tell you (rightly) that you shouldn't strictly do this, but where you know the landlord is going to be difficult it is a legitimate tactic in my view)

Trouble is that they won't go away. If they have started, however mistakenly, to get you in their sights, although they may be slow, they will not stop. In my experience always deal with HMRC immediately - otherwise they can, and many people I have dealt with in the past will confirm that they do, just roll over you and you'll find that you're telling them they have made a mistake in your response to their bankruptcy petition.

Really can't see what the fuss is about. If people want to engage someone else to do the work for them, thats' fine by me. Just make sure you choose someone qualified and insured. What people charge is a matter for agreement. It is rather strange to say that offering a service to asist people to reclaim is morally repugnant. There are all sorts of companies and services available in all walks of life to do things for people that they could do themselves both in and outside of a legal context. People get the choice and having the choice is a good thing. There's nothing moral or not about it. Use them or don't - your choice. I have only dealt with my own charges and reclaimed for my brother but I have no problem with someone doing the work for a fee if that's what the reclaimer chooses.

No offence taken Dave - you and I have exactly the same view of X Factor and programs of that type ! In fact I hardly watch telly anymore - probably a good thing

Facebook - bah - a load of old rubbish - i like to phone my friends and talk to them - email is quite useful and I even meet those who live quite close by Just goes to show that you can make millions for not very much nowadays - bit like X factor - the human race must be entertained - our fears in times gone by were things like survival, food, war, disease - now we are terified of not being entertained . Yet another thing for employers to ban from the workplace !! Excuse the bah humbug tone - fed up at work at the moment - but, Facebook can bite me.

Basic Dental Treatment

Just a last update - statements back to the opening of my account in 1995 have now popped through my letterbox. So don't let anyone tell you that NW can't give acount statements beyond 6 years.

What was the exact start date of her employment?

Just send all of the above and your comments (less the one's about the jobsworth ) by way of an appeal and I'm sure you will be fine.

As the OP said, the surveyor was not working for him, but the buyers, so it seems highly unlikely that he will be able to complain about that surveyor. Certainly the surveyor wouldn't owe any contractual or tortious duty to the OP. Sorry to hear you lost your buyer.

The only option is to file it now. That would be better than turning up to court with it, or worse still without it.

Have now received all account information going back to the beginning of 1997. Have also now written again to the Information Comissioner's office to complain about: 1. Their letter to me stating that an SAR is not required for claiming back charges - notwithstanding that the only other option appears to be to hoard all statements yourself for years or to pay up to £5 per statement as the banks so often say is their charge. IC gave no other infomation about how one might obtain banking transaction information going back many years - but they do say that an SAR is not necessary 2. Their apparent willingness to believe the letter from NW to me stating that information is not kept beyond 6 years (and this informing their decision to take no further action on my non-compliance complaint) despite evidence in my complaint that this was not the case and me having now received 10 years worth of account information. 3. Their comment that charges claims should be taken through the Financial Ombudsman and that they should not be bothered with SAR non-compliance complaints. Essentially they appear to have made a policy decision that they will fend off these complaints, probably because they have so many of them and can't keep up. In short the ICs office is effectively stating that they wioll not be taking non-compliance complaints about banks failing to give customers account information seriously. Anyway I have the info I wanted now - it only took 6 months

Now spoken to the Data Protection department of NW - thanks to whoever posted the telephone number on another S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) non-compliance thread. I am told that they have ordered the information I have requested back to 1997 (account opening) and I should get the info in the next week or so. Won't hold my breath, but most surprised that when speaking to them they confirm that they do hold the information (this time I was told going back a max of ten years) which is exactly the opposite of what they tell you in correspondence

Ok so I then complained to the Information Commissioner sending all relevant copy correspondence covering my request; the bank having sent me (just over) 6 years worth of statements on three occasions in response to my request; my complaining to the bank that they had failed to comply; and asking relevant questions about destruction of information, the identity of their data protection officer and for their comments about the Nat West Archive. The Information Commissioner has written back to me saying that: a) there is no need to submit a SAR for bank charges info :-? b) they are not taking any further action on my complaint because Nat West have told me that they do not keep information for more than 6 years - (oh well that's alright then) - (despite NW having sent me info older than 6 years (by a couple of months) and despite my comments in my letters to them asking about the Nat West Archive and that I personally know three other people who have had information going back to the early 1990s) - :o It beggars belief. I will be writing back to the IC as soon as I can be bothered to continue this now 6 month epic to get the information from NW - do people think I would be better off just issuing non-compliance proceedings in the county court?

Just to clarify a little. If you can only show that the debt on the stat demand is disputed in part they will still be able to proceed to bankruptcy on any undisputed part of the debt over £750. A set aside is not usually granted unless the whole debt is disputed. The other way to avoid bankruptcy is to offer security for the debt - i.e. let them secure it against your house (and you will see that the stat demand states that the debt is unsecured and undisputed). As long as this was linked to a payment plan agreement it might be suitable. You cannot be made bankrupt for a secured debt (unless the creditor releases the security first).

A&L settled my brother's second claim the day before yesterday - it was due to be heard yesterday.

I pay for every cheque, cash point withdrawal and any other services on my business account. Why shouldn't you pay for your banking instead of relying on the least well off, least fortunate, or least able to manage the vagaries of everyday life, to subsidise your banking? After all you manage your affairs so well I am sure you will budget to pay the charges.