DPA filters are a pita and have been removed successfully in many instances by owners without a visible increase in the exhaust smoke emissions. However, New Regulations come into effect in February 2014 that makes it illegal to run a vehicle that was fitted with a DPF by the manufacturer as standard. Garages and testing stations will be required to check for a diesel particulate filter in the inspection of the exhaust system as part of the MOT test (or annual test for heavy vehicles) from February 2014. The vehicle will automatically fail the MOT test if the filter had been fitted as standard but is found to be no longer present

Very little point posting anything in the Black Hole area of CAG. In the old days there would be hundreds of Caggers on here every night until the early morning, doing what they could for others and everyone congratulating successes and encouraging others. Those days are long gone, the brave, clever, self taught legal rottweillers who humbled the biggest banks in Britain, wiped the floor with slimy DCAs and helped thousands out of debt all now cast to the wind. Makes me so sad to see this place now, with just a handful of members logged on along with hundreds of guests desperate for the small piece of information which will give a little hope.

Last week I purchased a mobile phone case described as distressed leatherbut on receipt it was obviously just plastic. I informed the seller, who is a business seller, that I was returning the goods and required a full refund. The seller replied within minutes apologising and giving an address to return it to. I then received an email from ebay a few minutes later saying I had to return the item within the next 2 days by trackable post and that my money would be refunded on receipt of the item. I sent them an email by return reminding them of the DSR and that I would post it within a reasonable time frame as I have no access to a post office for 5 days and that the DSR quite clearly state that the seller does not have to await the return of the item before a refund should be made. Strangely ebay have not been so quick to reply to this email.

I bought a Nexus device from Google Play Store recently, but soon changed my mind and decided to cancel my order. I rang up the Google Play customer service to cancel my order, but they said it was not possible, and was told to refuse delivery instead to get a refund after 14 days - which I did. A refund of the £9.99 delivery charge wasn't mentioned so I queried whether this would be refunded, to which I was told it would not be refunded. Am I not entitled to a refund of the delivery charge as well, under the DSRs?

I have just been informed that the first of three statutory instruments....The Taking of Control of Goods Regulations 2013......which will underpin the Government's package of reforms to bailiff law will be laid in Parliament today. I will post a link later and I will also post further information that I received today. PS: The Taking Control of Goods Regulations will be implemented in April 2014.

These have changed recently - can anyone shed any light as to what the changes are and how they will affect people in debt?

Thanks to some excellent advice from these forums I have recently resolved an issue of being expected to pay postage for the pleasure of returning a faulty item. R.14(6) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 places responsibility for bearing said cost upon the seller. I have pointed out the relevant sections of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 with which their Terms and Conditions do not comply in this regard. However, the company in question is still insisting their T&C's comply with all legal requirements but is willing to make a "one time exception" and replace the faulty item without receiving the defective unit (as if they're doing me a favour). My question therefore is: Do 'regulations' count as statutory rights or do they rank lower than Terms and Conditions? Obviously a company's T&Cs cannot circumvent statutory rights so how can they still claim to be abiding by the law?

Having booked a holiday for May this year with Thomson we found out (not from the holiday company) that there is substantial building and refurbishment work ongoing at the property. After lengthy arguments Thomson gave us two options, move the date of our holiday or cancel with the stipulation that we had to cancel within 3 days. We moved the date of our holiday and now feel that this was a somewhat knee jerk reaction. Having had time to think we now feel that we should have cancelled as the property will be much different than what we were led to believe. We have actually stayed at the same property 3 times before and the expansion will increase its capacity by about 1/3rd. We understand that we have a contract for this holiday but our feelings are that a contract is a two way thing and Thomson are in breach as what we will be supplied with is not what we bought. Would section 5 of CPUTR 2008 cover this ? Or is there anything else we can do ?

Hi All, Today a mother at the school gate looked really upset and burst into tears when I asked her what was the matter. Having got her back to her home and made her a cup of tea, she showed me two letters from Santander. It appears it's a small world in that she too had a Flexible Loan account with cahoot and it was transferred to the loan account when Santander took it over. She had buried her head in the sand and had not paid them in over 3 years. Her statements had been arriving with no monthly payment amount set etc and had received no other chasing calls, letters in all of that time. She then received a default notice last week dated 30th January and the original balance has more than doubled. She then received another letter yesterday saying that in 28 days, they would register the default with the CRA's if she didn't start paying. I explained to her what had happened to us and that we had written back to Santander a couple of years back, challenged the rate increase and the refund had paid off what we owed. However, when looking at the remedy date, I noticed that there wasn't one! In it's place it said that the remedy date was 14 days from date of service, nothing else! No you must pay by 20th Feb or we may do X, Y or Z. Have the regulations or requirements changed on this as I thought a properly created DN MUST have an actual date quoted for it to be compliant??? In addition, are Santander now playing hardball with refunds on the old cahoot Flexible Loan rate refunds and have stopped paying out? I'm going to help her draft her response etc but wanted to double check on the above two questions first. Many thanks, Bel

Found this, not sure if it has already been posted but thought some may find it interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21287323

Hi, Working in the creative industry, I recently decided to become a freelancer using an umbrella company. I have been offered a one month assignment by a recruitment agency. However they require me to sign a conduct regulations 2003 opt out form Can anyone explain what this is? Not sure if it´s just some bureaucracy or something I truly should worry about? Advice is very welcome! Thanks, Mia

Can anyone tell me what the law is on planning application time limits are? Do the council have to place a notice on the building that is the subject of the planning application and if so do they have to allow a certain amount of time between posting the notice and actually making a planning decision? Thanks in advance.

http://mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=724&page=1#1888 I'd strongly recommend anyone who has to fill in those dreaded forms keep a copy of this!

Hi Caggers, Just a quick question. Can a mail order company ignore the provision of The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 just because they have hidden in their T & C's that they can? I thought the right to a refund including delivery charges for goods was absolute

In June we ordered a sim card only online from O2 and it came with a 12 month contract and got the email to say that a sim card will be sent within the next few days. Waited and nothing arrived so we assumed that we had failed the credit check for whatever reason but weren't too bothered about it. No DD was set up on our account either. At end of July we got an email to say that our bill was ready and that it was zero. No problem we thought. However at end of August we got another email stating that our bill was zero. I contacted O2 via their chat line and after being passed around from pillar to post got to some one who said that they would look into it. I told them that I wanted these emails to stop because as far as I was concerned I had not received the goods. They told me that if I wanted the contract terminated I needed to pay them £93! As I never received the card I told them that I had never activated it and that there was no usage. This seemed to go over their heads and they maintained that a termination fee was due! We were also advised that they activated the card when they sent it out? In essence if someone starts using the card, we would be liable? Seems crazy. We no longer wish to use O2 as we made alternative arrangements when we thought we had been rejected. Surely if I never received the goods at the very least DSR apply, never mind the fact that they never completed the contact in the first place. All I want them to do is to cancel the 'contract' and to stop billing us! Please advise as we went around in circles trying to get across to them that no sim card, no activation, no usage, no contract! Thanks.

The Ministry of Justice has published a consultation to change the rules for Claims Management Companies (CMCs): https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/cmr-rules-consultation-cp15-2012 The consultation proposes rules requiring firms to obtain written, signed agreements from consumers before charging any fees. Currently contracts can be agreed verbally. The consultation states: “The provision of a written agreement would provide consumers with more protection, by allowing sufficient time for a consumer to read and understand pre-contractual information before agreeing a contract.” Under the proposals, claims chasers must also provide “unambiguous” information about ombudsman schemes and other forms of redress. Firms are already banned from implying that consumers can get a more favourable outcome by using them rather than going to the Financial Ombudsman Service, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or the Housing Ombudsman Service. The MoJ has now added the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to that list. The MoJ is concerned the use of its branding makes consumers believe firms are endorsed by the Government, so it is proposing banning the use of its name in promotions. It says firms should only refer to it as the claims management regulator. The consulation also proposes rules that will require claims firms to keep customers updated by informing them of any variation to, or suspension of, their authorisation status. Under the proposals, regulated firms could face action if they work with unregulated introducers that break any MoJ rules on advertising, marketing and soliciting business. Cold calling by firms will be addressed separately to the consultation. The MoJ is working with the Information Commissioner to deal with unsolicited communications such as text messages. The consultation closes on 3 October. The MoJ will publish a summary of responses in December with the aim of implementing new rules by April 2013. http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/govt-proposes-tougher-rules-for-claims-chasers/1056679.article

Hello I'm 18s years old and received a letter from First Capital Connect last Monday stating they were in intending to prosecute me under 5.3.a of the Regulations of Railways Act 1889. Basically, I was an idiot and purchased a child's ticket in order to get to College for an interview. Upon getting to the ticket station I realised I was without the money to buy an adult ticket in my rushed state purchased a child's one instead, figuring it was better to pay something than nothing. Upon getting to the station I then panicked further and stated I bought it by accident before admitting the truth on the form. I desperately need 3 things answering and would appreciate any help given. 1: What is the maximum possible sentence for violating this part of the act? 2: What is the likely sentence? 3: What should my course of action be? Should I attempt a settlement letter? Thank you

I am hoping to a better response in this forum than the other forum I riginally posted in. In May 2005 we purchased cash a Blue Dorema all seasons awning suitable for a seasonal site with a one year guarantee from a dealership nearby. Three months later we had to have all the steel poles replaced. In December 2006 we had to send the awning back to the dealer for the stitching to be redone in places as the stitching was right on the edge and it did not take much for it to come apart. This was done free of charge as I quoted the Sale of Goods Act. Now 7 months down the line from the repair in February 2007, the same stitching has come apart again making it difficult to zip up the awning in the front. However more importantly just over two years from date of purchase the awning has gone from Blue to Green! We specifically chose Blue to match with the curtains etc. Our one neighbour who has the identical awning has also changed from Blue to Green a colour they specifically did not want. It is almost as if the manufacturer had a load of green canvas left over from a run which they then dyed blue which is why we have a green awning instead of a blue awning. Our other neighbour has a proper green awning and you cannot tell the difference in colour between the three awnings that is how bad it is. Do you think I have much of a chance pursuing this through the small claims court using the following arguments; a) Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale). b) Goods are of satisfactory quality if they reach the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory, taking into account the price and any description c) Aspects of quality include fitness for purpose, freedom from minor defects, appearance and finish, durability and safety. d) For up to six years after purchase (five years from discovery in Scotland) purchasers can demand damages (which a court would equate to the cost of a repair or replacement). The dealer has already said no ways are they going to consider it therefore as I purchased from the dealer, I have to pursue any action through the dealer. I appreciate that it is up to me to prove non-conformity but I think that the awning which costs nearly £750 no longer conforms to the colour it was when purchased and neither does the workmanship stand up to conformity considering the price paid. I am not interested in getting a refund, but rather a repair free of charge or a replacement. What are your thoughts on this one? Thanks