Wow, I remember responding to this post - just over 4 years ago! Can't believe how much time has flown by! So glad to hear that everything worked out for you, and that you're still here @ CAG

I think they may deem it to be cosmetic if it does not affect the actual working of the television - as the OP says, the scratch is there but may be missed if you don't look for it. Personally, in my opinion, if you have cover for"whatever happens" then you should have cover for all eventualities - however, my other opinion is that a company will not pay for a repair if the item in question is not [faulty] - in the way that they believe faulty means.

So, kind of good service then? Weather permitting!

I know it's indimidating, especially as people within HR are of a certain..."type" shall we say, but it's their job to look out for the both the company and the employee. But they can be a bit 'business like' and it can be a bit scary. But there is no need to be; CAG is a brilliant place for advice and support from people who have been through the same thing, and people who live and breathe it - ACAS is also excellent, and between the two, you can't go far wrong 8-) Get a good nights sleep too!

Sounds like they have fallen foul of the TUPE regulations, under which they are required to give a consultation to the employees. However, the laws surrounding TUPE are quite complex, and it's worth seeking advice. For what it's worth, it does sound like you may have cause for some further action here. However, you are right about being in Scotland - it can make a difference. ACAS can be contacted here - http://www.acas.org.uk - they will be able to help, and have a regional office in Scotland.

Absolutely, I completely understand that. But my concerns are that the circumstances surrounding the caution/offence were in excess of 6 years ago, therefore establishing the grounds for an appeal as you have previously mentioned are thinner than they would have been closer to the time. I'm not attempting to say that an appeal would fail, no one can say that, but the chances of success are smaller. If you did want to go ahead with an appeal, it may be wise to consult someone more specialised in an area of appealing a caution - convictions are more straight forward, as they hold an appeals process through the judiciary, but cautions are somewhat different due to [as we discovered] their nature of implication.

Glad to hear that. But there are issues in appealing this caution, and the likelihood of it ever going anywhere is almost zero. I just wanted to make the point that sometimes it's better to find the best way forward, than trying to look back and make up for things that may not ever change...

re-posted, for some reason it did not post all of what I typed

Legal representatives are normally given the following advice: Legal Advisors should bear in mind and should advise their client accordingly when they are considering whether to accept a Simple or Conditional Caution that although a caution is not a conviction it is an admission of guilt and may be used in evidence against them at any future proceedings under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Depending on the offence, it can also show evidence of bad character, should a similar offence be committed. Therefore, by accepting a caution, you admit the offence, and the chances of having the caution reversed or appealed is very close zero. The offence for which you were arrested was theft - from a dwelling, vehicle etc - it's all the same Act. Application forms will normally ask for disclosure, and an opportunity to advise on the circumstances surrounding the offence. However, some professions will be more rigid than the others, and the only advice I can suggest is that an explanation is given surrounding any enhanced disclosures you may have to give. I presume your unborn son is now born? For his sake, even mentioning suicide shouldn't be contemplated. I'm not sure if your remark was serious or off the cuff, but if it was true then I would urge for you to not suffer in silence or alone over this, there are ways to move forward.

Some forces will delete the record of a caution after 5 years, some may continue to hold information for longer periods. However, the caution is "spent" and does not need to be disclosed unless specifically asked for under a more enhanced CRB or police check. Most forces will delete the record of a caution if you have no further convictions.

Did you honestly tell your employer you "cba" to come into work? Surely there are other ways of saying "Sorry, I can't make it in today, but I am working later" ? I agree with the above, I would prefer my staff to bend the truth and be polite and respectful, than the blurt out the above, electronically or verbally.... Sure, it's rude and disrepectful, but doubtful that it's grounds to dismiss you - how long have you worked for this employer/company? Redundancy has to be handled fairly, and is enough to start it's own thread. Grounds for unfair dismissal are dependant on many factors. Namely your length of service - can you let us know how long so people can advise you of your options here?

You should receive pay for this day if you work, in lieu of the fact it's a Bank Holiday. But you should be paid on Christmas Eve..

SSP is payable from the fourth day of sickness - you are not paid for the first three days of any sickness period. If you are off for less than 4 days due to sickness, then you will not be paid for this time. Once you return to work, then the three-day rule starts again UNLESS you have been off for four days or more in the past 8 weeks. However, in order to be paid SSP for the second period of illness, this must be a period in excess of four days as well - in this case, you will be paid for ALL time of sick during your second period of illness. The above is a mimimum sick policy, therefore your company must either use the above process or improve upon it. Confused? It's a confusing subject! Simply re-post if you have a question and I'll try and help as best I can.

By the way, before any capability procedure is put into play, the company has an obligation to identify the reasons for poor capability, and address any support which is to be given PRIOR to any formal action being taken. So it could also mean that they are trying to establish all of the facts before discussing how they will support you.

I can see why you are concerned, however what seems to have happened within the last 18-24 months is that many larger companies have taken a great interest in people's sickness levels, due to reports which state how much sickness costs the economy, as well as the tight restrictions which have been placed on all industries. However, what you need to take into account is that what this company are doing is simply what the vast majority of employee contracts and handbooks tell you they will do - but have never done before. This is being done mainly by the larger companies who have big HR and Personnel Departments, which are being urged to keep tighter records and to ensure that "unusual" and "frequent" words (when used with sickness) are looked into in greater depth to ensure that, amongst other reasons, they do everything they can to keep it above board. More and more companies are seeing litigation against them for various forms of discrimination, negligence and other issues which could have been resolved if the procedures were followed correctly. With regards to a disability, your employer is correct - as it will improve with time, and is not one which is of a long-term disadvantage, then it's termed as acute, and will therefore not 'separate' you from how other employees are dealt with over the same issue. However, I can understand that this may unsettle you, especially with unemployment rising. Make an appointment to see HR or your Line Manager, and discuss your concerns. Highlight your strengths, and what it is you are doing to get back on track and your health back to normal. As you say, medical experts and evidence will support you, however you are obviously valued within the company (promotion and a senior position) and I doubt if you are being targeted here - it's more likely that your sickness is an excercise in HR management - however, should anything occur in the future which you may want to take further, it would be important for you to have shown that your concerns were raised early on, as their answers can often hold valuable weight should they need to. Good luck, and try not to worry - also discuss with ACAS as advised above, they are brilliant at giving advice and will assist in putting your mind at rest.

From your post, there are no grounds for legal action here. Your father has a legal right to return items if they are faulty or not as described. I agree with the above, it's an anger thing because it didn't go the seller's way - and if Ebay found in your favour in a dispute case, as long as you obtain a refund, I would forget about it.

Congrats, sorry for the late reply!

Not particularly nice! However, you do have some rights - the Sale of Goods act states that goods must be "as described" and this can apply either verbally or in written format. The price card, or any other literature which points towards this item, will be treated as an "invitation to treat" which not a legally binding concept - similarly, if you are in a supermarket and the label says a price and it scans at another, it does not have to be sold to you at the advertised price - but most retailers will honour such as mistake. I would advise you to do the following: Have a good nights sleep! Return to the retailer, and ask to speak to the store manager - the best way to handle this is to be calm and collect, do not argue... Advise that you were sold an item which, upon purchasing, was not what was described at the time of deciding to purchase said item Your rights, under the Sale of Goods Act, are that the item you bought is fit for purpose, and is as described - and it does not meet either criterion As you were led to believe, by a representative of the retailer, that you were buying a 5th Gen 16GB iPod for £69.99, then this is the end result you would like. Now at this point, around 75% of retailers will start to realise that you know what you're talking about, because you are calm and not acting desperate. However, should this not be enough to get either what you originally wanted or a full refund, then you need to delve a bit deeper. You contacted Trading Standards earlier on in the morning (of tomorrow!) and consulted them for further advice - they advised you of the above, and said that they wanted the details of any retailer who was not complying with their statutory duties for further investigation - at this point, you can ask for the store manager's name (if he refuses, then just write down "refused") and ask for the company registration number, and the Head Office address. Now, around 40% of the remaining 25% will cave in here, and try to strike a deal because you are on the edge of actually getting him into some serious trouble. However, some will be defiant and decide that they will just not take you seriously. If this happens, then get the above information and simply tell him that you are going to get this matter looked into straight away, you are not a pleased customer and that you feel that you have tried every reasonable avenue to obtain either a refund or an exchange for an item you originally thought you had bought. If you do end up walking out the shop, you could contact their Head Office and speak to someone there to see if it can be resolved internally. Alternatively, give Consumer Direct a call, who can advise you further on where you should go after you have done the above. You can also go to Citizen's Advice who will assist in taking further action if you wish. Good Luck!

No, it goes back to the days when creditors were local, and credit reports did not exist - it was advertised and people would see that a local customer was now insolvent etc...things have changed, the only requirement is the London Gazette, but the record is public.

Mine was in the London Gazette only, but all details are normally held on the Insolvency website for a set period of time, searchable by the public.

The way that it is viewed is that your action (or inaction) and violation of local traffic laws (is how most companies word it) caused a detrimental effect on the company, causing it to deal with correspondance which it would not have had to deal with had you observed and respected the speed limit. Your choice, to speed, effectively caused the company to defend it's situation and subsequently pass on your details (as required by law) in order for their enquiries to continue. Whilst similar to over-charging banks and other financial institutions, this is different as it's not a penalty or a fine, but a charge made by a private company through a breach of contract, which would have been in their terms and conditions (standard clause) which you accepted as you rented the car. My opinion is that if you take an action, you will lose. You have no right to claim back the charge for breach of contract, it's a C2B contract which will not be deemed unfair, because the charge is not variable, and also dependant on you (effectively) breaking the law. In order to contest the payment, you will need to prove that you had not breached the contract, and that the claim that you were driving above the speed limit is false - which, my presumption is, what you cannot do, as you have admitted to the violation. My point? Just because it's unfair doesn't make it right! I'm not being judgemental, I'm being honest with you and voicing my opinion on your situation as described above. However, the above is my opinion and personal advice - you are free to take any action you so wish!

Hi, and welcome! Unfortunately, your issue relates to probate matters, which is a complete minefield in the UK and in many cases (hence why people post on here) are very complex, and beyond the scope of a swift reply. In response to your questions (and these are just 'hot' facts) Executors cannot charge for their time, unless there is a charging clause in the will. This applies even if the Executor is a professional person. Any executor (of a UK probate matter) can reside abroad, or within the UK. Not sure that your cousin would have submitted perjury from the details above, but possibly have commited a form of false representation. But your case sounds extremely complex, I would advise seeking some legal advice - not easy to do if you are in New Zealand, but I really do think that this may stretch beyond this forum's experience - my normal advice to anyone (on and offline) is to seek advice from a probate professional, as the complexities were not even studied in full during my time studying it!

Last year, just before Christmas, Orange decided to remove all cooling off periods (except the statutory DSR for online customers), and a whole load of other operators and retailers decided they would do the same. Essentially, there are no rights to return a phone once purchased face to face, unless either the retailer offers a cooling off period (optional), or your statutory rights are breached (faulty phone, mis-sold, not fit for purpose etc) If, however, the phone was purchased online, then you do have a right to return in (on the premise that you will be liable for the airtime). The airtime contract is, unfortunately, more than likely similar in it's contractuals - O2, Virgin and Talk Talk seem to be the only operators who will honour a return, but I'm guessing that the terms of that are that it is purchased directly from them. I think your daughter should have asked the questions before signing the contract on what her rights to return to be. We do not have the right (in many situations) to get our own way purely because we make a wrong decision.

Warmfront is a scheme for the DECC but administered by EAGA PLC - http://www.warmfront.co.uk As they are acting and administering a scheme on behalf of the Government, they have an established complaints procedure, the charter is on their website. It also says on the website that "heating work" is currently taking around six months to carry out, due to high demand. However, it is always worth making a complaint to see what they will actually do about it - in this case, provide incorrect information - it may get you somewhere, it may not but it's always worth making a stand when you have been wronged. Good luck!

I do realise that, but the reason it was written off was because of numerous bad practices by 3G mobile and bad record keeping - i.e. they didn't keep any. The default is long gone from the credit file as it now over 6 years old. Therefore, if another agency comes knocking, they'll get the same responses and will not be able to provide any information because it doesn't exist, ergo the saga starts again.