"Sitzpinkler" is a derogatory term used in Germany to describe men who sit to urinate The finding was made when a landlord claimed his tenant had ruined a marble floor by sprinkling it with urine. The disgruntled landlord tried to retain a €3,000 (£2,300) deposit for the damage allegedly caused by his guest's acidic spillage. Despite growing domestication of men in this matter, urinating while standing up is still widespread But Judge Stefan Hank today ruled that men who stand up to relieve themselves cannot be held to account for any collateral damage. The Judge conceded that men who chose not to sit "must expect occasional rows with housemates, especially women". However in Germany, the debate over whether men should stand in the toilet continues to rage. Some toilets in the country bear red traffic-style warnings signs – expressly forbidding the standing position. "Sitzpinkler" – is a derogatory term used for men who decide to rest their legs and urinate. The insult implies that sitting is not masculine behaviour. "Despite growing domestication of men in this matter, urinating while standing up is still widespread," said Judge Hank in Court in the city of Duesseldorf today. That's a shame, it would stop the moans if we all sat down, we could never get told off for leaving the seat up

Hello, This is a query regarding requesting a copy of the original signed credit card agreement using Civil Proceedure Rules 31.16 and not S77/78 CCA 1974. I have already attempted using S77/78 CCA 1974, to be supplied with a copy an agreement which breaches S61(1)abc, S61A and S127(3) CCA 1974 as it contains no date of inception, no signatures of both parties, no prescribed terms at the time of inception, details of of a 3rd party (i.e. another customer) and an address I wasn't living at, at the time the agreement was supposedly taken out (i.e. Feb: 1982 according to hsbc). HSBC claim it is a proper re-constituted agreement, which it isn't as under those rules (and the ruling by Judge David Waksman in 2009) it has to contain the name and address of the borrower at the time the agreement was taken out. I am currently awaiting a decision from the Ombudsman, if that decision is unfavourable to me can I re-request a signed copy of the agreement under the Civil Proceedure Rules 31.16, thank you. Regards, shortbodkin

The new bailiff regulations came into effect on 6th April 2014 and a most welcome change was that with the exception of CCJ's £600 that are transferred to the High Court each debt type (council tax arrears, unpaid road traffic debts and magistrate court fines) now has fixed bailiff fees (Compliance Fee of £75 and Enforcement Fee of £235). To bring the enforcement of unpaid magistrate court fines into line with the new regulations it was necessary to amend the Magistrate Courts Act 1980 and this was achieved under a series of amendments outlined in paragraph 45 of Schedule 13 of the Tribunals, Courts & Enforcement Act 2007. On the same date (6th April 2014) the Magistrate's Courts Rules 1981 were also amended to provide that the person owing the court fine would in future be referred to as a 'debtor'. Part 52 of the Criminal Procedure Rules (Enforcement of fines and others order for payment) outlines the procedure that must be followed when a warrant of control (previously a warrant of distress) is enforced by a bailiff/enforcement agent. As a consequence of Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, and the associated Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 coming into effect on 6th April 2014 the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee has brought the rules up to date. The changes are outlined in the new Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2015 which were laid in Parliament a few days ago.

The FCA has announced new rules that affect loan brokers, mainly the payday loan market. Further details can be found HERE and HERE Wonder how many will comply??

Payday loan charges cap announced by FCA http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30000472

Hi everyone I just wanted a quick bit of advice. Blemain Finance issued a claim in 2012 and when the matter went to court and the judge was appalled that they were trying to gain possession of a property for such a small amount (1700) and refused to grant them possession. Instead the judge asked that I file a fully pleaded defence on or and that the claimant file and serve their reply. I filed the defence and in March 2013 I received a letter from the claimant's solicitors saying that they have been instructed to vacate the court proceedings. I called the court to find out why and they said because an agreement had been reached. No agreement between us has ever been reached. I have had a solicitor look over the loan agreement and she said that according to the terms therein, that I should pay £399.00 which I offered to them and they refused. I also received a letter from the court saying: "I can confirm that the court received a letter from the claimant requesting that they wish to withdraw all proceedings. This means that the case is now closed. Please note that you will have to seek legal advice if you are going to issue proceedings against the claimant". I received a further claim form for possession of property from Blemain Finance and I have to attend court soon. I now have to respond to this claim and wanted to know whether I could use the fact that they previously withdrew their case as part of my defence. I know from a previous post that Civil Procedure Rules 38.7 might come into effect. Could I possibly use this rule to help me in my defence also? I would really appreciate any advice you could give me.

From 1 October, changes to the intestacy rules will mean spouses and civil partners will receive more if their partner dies without a will. The rules changes won't affect people who die with less than £250,000 in assets. The rules of intestacy set out who is entitled to inherit if a person dies without leaving a valid will. The main changes are: if a spouse or civil partner dies intestate and there are no surviving children, the remaining partner will inherit the whole estate if a spouse or civil partner dies intestate and there are surviving children, the remaining partner will inherit £250,000, all the personal property and half of the rest of the estate. The children then get the remaining half share on trust until they reach the age of 18. More about the intestacy rules http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/news/whats_new_sep14_inheritance__how_changes_to_the_intestacy_rules_may_affect_you.htm Inheritance law changes come into force http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29436533 Help yourself and charity each November Having your Will written professionally can give you great peace of mind. In November, you can use a local solicitor who has signed up to Will Aid and you can enjoy the added feel-good factor of supporting nine leading UK charities. Instead of paying your solicitor’s fee, you will be invited to make a donation to charity. The suggested voluntary donation is £95 for a basic Will or £150 for a pair of basic mirror Wills. The next campaign will be in November 2014 http://www.willaid.org.uk/will-makers

I was surfing the MPS site today and came across this. http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Interim-Standard-Operating-Procedures-Police-and-Bailiffs/1400023687221/1400023687221 See page one bottom right hand corner named "related publications". This is a very interesting read for those of us that want more information on the MPS ANPR stops with a CEO in attendance. Its a long document happy reading. For ease I have attached a copy as a PDF sorry if it has already been posted before

Hi, If I have a repayment mortgage will the full monthly mortgage repayments be allowed under the old rules or is it only the interest payments that are allowed? Thanks for your help. Regards, John

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/clampers-facing-full-regulation-115058608.html#Dw3mr1D A pet hate of motorists is to be fully regulated with all clampers forced to abide by a cap on fines and penalties. Under new rules operators targeting private car parks and property will be forced for the first time to follow the same restrictions and guidelines as companies policing public roads. Among the fees for illegal parking will be a maximum 100 euro charge for releasing a clamp and a 50 euro charge for releasing a car that has been towed away. But there is also a provision for clampers to be fined if they are in breach of regulations. Transport Minister Leo Varadkar said the new regime was designed to weed out bogus clampers. "This new Bill protects motorists and legitimate clamping operators, but will penalise bad behaviour by rogue operators. There will also be a simple appeals mechanism for all types of clamping for the first time," he said. "There have been a number of cases where private clampers are reported to have behaved unfairly or inappropriately, so we are now regulating the entire clamping industry for the first time. "I don't favour an outright ban on clamping on private property, as business owners and apartment complex management companies need to be able to deal with nuisance parking. However, the practice must be regulated." Up until now the clamping of vehicles on private property has not been restricted by any laws. The Vehicle Clamping Bill 2014 will create an appeals process and a regulator will be appointed under the auspices of the National Transport Authority (NTA) to bring overall consistency to parking enforcement. Further rules to be determined by the NTA include the time period that must elapse a vehicle can be clamped or towed away and the length of time a motorist will have to wait to be released after a fine has been paid. The new code of practice will require prominently positioned, clearly marked warning signs - including the penalties and fees - on every site where clampers police parking. Appeals will be dealt with on a two-tier system - first by going to the landowner, council or parking enforcement company to challenge a clamp, and secondly, if the complaint is not satisfactorily resolved, by going to an independent clamping appeals officer designated by the NTA. Further rules to be determined by the NTA include the time period that must elapse before a vehicle can be clamped or towed away and the length of time a motorist will have to be released after a fine has been paid.

Can anyone clarify the transitional rules for bailiffs? I had a debt that was passed on as a result of a liability order made before the 6th April, with a first letter sent after the 6th April. The bailiffs are - obviously - trying to claim under the new charges. Most sites seem to say 'Transitional rules apply' but I can't find a description of those rules. Looking at the legislation: The Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (Consequential, Transitional and Saving Provision) Order 2014, Article 4 it looks to me as if paras 3 and 4 apply, therefore the old scale of fees applies. But there's no mention of when/if the new enforcement stage fees apply. Does anyone know?

Hi, this is a bit unusual I think. I bought a Zafira for £3000 on finance from first response finance 2 years ago. I was also sold gap insurance and a service agreement. I have never missed a payment and I get statements from the finance company to show this. I have made approximately 47 payments of £153. I am disabled and was awarded the higher rate of Disability Living Allowance which I'm currently using to pay for the car. However, my disability is making this manual transmission car increasingly more difficult to use and I am thinking of applying for a Motability car with automatic transmission. If I were to Voluntarily Terminate my finance agreement and return the car will I be liable for any shortfall on the remaining balance and what the car fetches at auction? I paid a lot for the car from a dealer and it's value now would only be around £800 I imagine. I have paid well over half the contract at a large APR of around 30%. There will be at least £2000 left in payments to make as there is a year left on the agreement. Finally, the service record isn't up to date. I have had the car serviced but they were mobile and never stamped the book. Is the service record essential? The MOT expires end of May, does the car have to be in MOT for any length of time? Thanks for any help. Martin.

Hi My wife and I had a joint HSBC bank account together up to 17th March. We are separating and wanted to have our own separate bank accounts, HSBC seemed the easiest route to take. I initially went in to see them on a Monday and asked to open a new account, this was done. They also froze the joint account (with about £400 in there) until we could go in together to see them. Here's what I don't understand and where I think that HSBC staff basically lied to us, but I don't know the rules. The clerk who was dealing with the accounts said that because we'd come in and told them that we were separating it would be illegal for them (not HSBC rules but FSA rules) to keep the joint account open. The problem that this caused was the Direct Debits I then had to transfer from the old joint account to my new (and empty of cash) account were returned. All of a sudden I get three letters more or less within a day of each other from HSBC that they are closing my new account because of 3 returned DDs. Did HSBC lie to us that they MUST close a joint account when they've been informed that the couple are separating? To say I'm furious at how they've treated me when I've been a decent customer (paying for their Premier account when it was a joint account) for the last 7 years or so.

Hi there, I am wondering what i can do in this situation... I claim Joint JSA for me and my partner and we have 2 children under 5, I have recently come off a sanction where the JCP stopped all the money from the claim, from what i have just read they cant do that... is that true? My partner does not sign as shes a full time parent. I am probably going to be on another sanction pretty soon as i had a "heated discussion" with my Steps to Work advisor today. My partner was wondering if we could reverse the roles so to speak as she wants to work so she wants to sign and i look after the children. Would this be possible at all? Thank you in advance. Scott

Hi, How do you go about getting help with your Council Tax (I work but earn very little)? My friend is on JobSeekers and automatically got help with his council tax, but I cannot go on JobSeekers as I am not looking for work. Can I go direct to the council? I know from reading other posts that different councils are different, but as I say, my friend also in Northampton gets his Council Tax paid so I know they do 'help' people. They say on their website they cap the benefit at 91.5% for people with less than 16,000 in savings. It makes no 'easy' reference for people on low incomes? There is a PDF which gives concise details about the whole scheme and Ive tried reading through it but got absolutely lost and confused. northampton.gov.uk/downloads/file/5844/northampton_borough_council_council_tax_reduction_scheme If somebody who is more experienced with reading this jargon could help Id be most appreciative. 1. Can I get help? 2. How Much would I get with £4000 savings? 2. How Much would I get with £9000 savings? (reason I ask is I have about 9000 but looking too buy a reasonable car in the new year). Cheers, R

B-I-L had an accident two days ago from what ive heard he came through a junction on green at which point another car came through the other side on red and hit him at about 40mph, he ended up in A+E with no serious injuries in the end (had to be x-rayed etc) but large amounts of brusing and side pains at the scene the woman said in front of witnesses "sorry i was on my phone and didnt see the lights" this was infront of BIL + His brother + people from the car behind fast forward to yesterday and shes told her insurance company that it wasnt her fault, BIL says that if the witness replies that she said that they will push for 100% liability if not it will end up at 50/50 now hes worried that the witness (who was very friendly at the time) might not reply now here comes the cheeky part, the woman lives in portsmouth, i had her name, i set up a fake facebook profile, with profile pictures as "pets", roughly same age, and same school history. found the woman on facebook - confirmed it through her pictures which had the car in question (bmw 5 series) ive managed to get onto her friends list by saying i vagely remembered her from school, and asked about the car accident if shes ok etc, if she actually admits the being on the phone again how useful is this, as its a fake account theres no issue giving the insurer the login to read the message themselves or a print off any ideas?

Hi Group Earlier this year in January while claiming JSA my Mortgage Interest help ran out as I had claimed MI help for the maximum 2 years. I then returned to work in February but unfortunately became unemployed again in September and started claiming JSA again. Will the 52 week linking rule mean that I am not entitled to MI help. As the new claim will be "linked" to my old claim which I had already received the maximum 2 years of MI help? Thank you for your replies in advance iain

Hi, Does anybody know how long it has been since the deprivation rules came into being both for means tested DWP benefits and Local Authorities? I am concerned more with the deprivation of capital as opposed to income. I have opened a 'can of worms' with the DWP over something that I did way back in 1978. I am just trying to establish if the DWP have a case and if so on what basis.

After long reading and a long conversation with an adviser at DVLA I come to the conclusion that part of the current legislation is in evident violation of EU laws. Let me explain. If you drive a vehicle with foreign registration plate in UK for more than 6 months you are required to obtain a UK plate and re register the car, only exception students and professionals in UK on a temp basis. Now, if I lease a car from BMW through their German leasing company the car will come with a German registration, being a leasing ownership stays with the German company, insurance and road tax are paid by the German company. Being the keeper, under the leasing contract and not the owner, I am not entitled to apply for a change of registration. Based on what DVLA said in writing to me today, if stopped by the police the vehicle could be impounded if they believe it has been in UK for more than six months and more important local authority will not issue me with a resident parking permit. I believe this is in violation of several EU laws regarding the freedom of provision of services and local authority and/or DVLA shall be sued for that thoughts?

New rules about appeal rights and making appeals against benefit decisions are due for widespread implementation from 28 October. Overview From 28 October 2013, new appeal rules and procedures that already apply to universal credit (UC) and personal independence payment (PIP) are due to be extended to benefits administered by the DWP. Housing benefit is not included – the appeal arrangements for that benefit will remain the same. It is understood that for benefits (child benefit and guardian’s allowance) and tax credits administered by HMRC, the new rules and procedures will be introduced from April 2014, although this is not yet confirmed. The changes are: a requirement to have had, on request, a revision of the benefit decision before the right of appeal arises: so-called ‘mandatory reconsideration’; where mandatory reconsideration applies, the appeal is to be made directly to HM Courts and Tribunals Service, and not to the decision maker: so-called ‘direct lodgement’; time limits for DWP responses to appeals sent to HM Courts and Tribunals Service – but not until October 2014. What is mandatory reconsideration? This clumsy term is the official name given to the requirement that before appeal rights arise a request for the decision to be revised must be made, and that the decision maker then accepts that request so as to consider a revision. If the revision is considered, the claimant is sent a decision on the result of that in a ‘mandatory reconsideration notice’. If the claimant is still unhappy, s/he may then appeal. For example, the revision decision may refuse to change the original decision, in which case the claimant may remain unhappy and so wish to appeal. The usual time limit for appeal applies, from the date the decision in the mandatory reconsideration notice was sent. Note that a revision is required: a supersession will not do. The overall effect is to end the right of direct appeal against an initial benefit decision. The DWP is clear that if the request for revision is late and is not accepted by the decision maker, there is no revision, and there will be no right of appeal. In effect, therefore, the mandatory reconsideration notice is the official recognition of a right of appeal. 1The actual rules that apply to UC and PIP do not read quite as clearly as that. They say that under mandatory reconsideration a claimant has the right of appeal ‘only if the Secretary of State has considered on an application whether to revise the decision...’ (emphasis added).2 The official line is that if there has been a request for a revision, but it is late and the request is not then accepted for consideration, then the decision maker will not have gone on to ‘consider whether to revise’ the decision. Consequently, there is no revision, no mandatory reconsideration notice and no right of appeal. The government has pointed out that it has eased the late revision rules by removing the requirement that the application has ‘merit’ and removing the provision that the fact that the claimant was ignorant of, or misunderstood, the law cannot be taken into account.3 Disputes about whether there has been a mandatory reconsideration will be decided by HM Courts and Tribunals Service, but in practice it will normally look for a mandatory reconsideration notice – ie, a revision decision. The requirement to have a revision (even if that does not actually change the original decision) means that revision grounds and time limits will become especially important in retaining appeal rights. Standard advice is to request a revision within one month of the sending of the decision wherever possible, to ensure a revision on ‘any grounds’ and guaranteeing that there will be a mandatory reconsideration. Otherwise, a request for a statement of reasons for the decision can slightly extend the time allowed for revision (if the DWP accepts that reasons were not already included in the decision, which is rare), a late request for an any grounds revision can be made, or a revision can be carried out ‘at any time’ on limited grounds (usually restricted to cases of official error). But all of those depend on the DWP accepting the request and going on to consider a revision – if not, then there is no right of appeal. Late requests for any time revisions are likely to be the most important route here. Rules currently differ slightly for UC and PIP (and contribution-based jobseeker’s allowance (JSA) and contributory employment and support allowance (ESA) under the UC system) and other benefits, but in essence involve a 13-month time limit, a requirement to show why late revision is sought, why it is ‘reasonable’ to grant it and how ‘special circumstances’ meant it was not practicable to meet the one-month time limit.4 Official guidance says that this should be applied broadly, and the claimant should not be required to show ‘unexpected’ or ‘exceptional’ circumstances.5 When does mandatory reconsideration apply? Mandatory reconsideration has applied to UC and PIP since April. It is expected that mandatory reconsideration will apply to other DWP benefit decisions dated on or after 28 October 2013. That includes decisions about JSA and ESA. The original benefit decision should include a statement to the effect that there is a right of appeal only where the decision maker has considered on an application whether to revise the decision. (If there is no such statement, then mandatory reconsideration does not apply.) Also, the decision should include the one-month time limit for an ‘any grounds’ revision and of the possibility for requesting a statement of reasons where that is not already included. If mandatory revision applies but the claimant attempts to appeal straight away, that may be treated as a request for a revision.6 How is a mandatory reconsideration requested? There are no new arrangements for requesting a revision. It is simply a matter of requesting a revision (or at least asking that the decision is looked at again or be reconsidered) in the normal way, within the standard one-month time limit wherever possible. There is no official form. The request does not have to be in writing but it is better that it is, especially if the standard one-month time limit has not been complied with. The mandatory reconsideration process will involve a decision maker contacting the claimant by telephone before the revision is made, to ‘talk through’ the disputed decision and invite her/him to submit any additional evidence.7 Making an appeal Following the mandatory reconsideration, the appeal must be lodged directly with HM Courts and Tribunals Service and not, as before, with the decision maker.8 This is called ‘direct lodgement’. HM Courts Service has produced a new appeal form (Form SSCS1 – How to appeal against a decision made by the Department from Work and Pensions) and guidance about the process. Its use is not mandatory but is recommended (in any case certain basic requirements including reasons for the appeal remain mandatory). It is understood that if the current appeal form (GL24) is inadvertently used where mandatory reconsideration applies, that will not in itself invalidate the appeal. In England and Wales, ‘direct lodgement’ appeals should be sent to HMCTS SSCS Appeals Centre, PO Box 1203, BRADFORD BD1 9WP. In Scotland, they should be sent to HMCTS SSCS Appeals Centre, PO Box 27080, GLASGOW G2 9HQ. The standard time limit for the appeal is that it must be received at HM Courts and Tribunals Service within one month after the date on which the claimant was sent the result of the mandatory reconsideration – ie, the revision decision in the mandatory reconsideration notice.9 Late appeals remain possible – ie, the tribunal can waive the one-month rule. The tribunal rules require that a copy of the mandatory reconsideration notice is included with the claimant’s notice of appeal.10 It is understood that to facilitate that, claimants will be sent two copies of the mandatory reconsideration notice. However, it should also be noted that the tribunal has the power to waive the requirement to include a copy (as with any other requirement under the tribunal rules)11 – so that a claimant who identifies her/his revision decision well enough might have her/his appeal accepted even without a copy of the mandatory reconsideration notice. If a claimant attempts to lodge an appeal with HM Courts and Tribunals Service without having had a mandatory reconsideration, the appeal will be returned with advice that it is not valid and that a mandatory reconsideration from the DWP should be sought.12 Time limits The DWP has undertaken ‘to introduce time limits to stipulate how long [it] has to respond to an individual appeal’ from October 2014.13 It says that will mean that the DWP will have 28 days to provide an appeal ‘response’ (ie, a set of appeal papers) to be sent to HM Courts and Tribunals Service. Note that there is no intention to introduce any time limit for carrying out a mandatory reconsideration. Note also that at time of writing the relevant rule is unamended (including for UC and PIP), and merely requires the decision maker to provide a response ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’.14 Personal Remarks The DWP denies that mandatory reconsideration involves an extra step in the appeals process or that it constitutes an important change in appeal rights.15 Very arguably, it is both. If revisions are (as the DWP says) carried out anyway it is difficult to see what extra value in terms of dispute resolution there is in requiring one. Someone who wishes to dispute a decision more than a month after the original decision is currently (apart from in UC and PIP cases) able to request a late appeal, even if a late revision is refused. Under mandatory reconsideration s/he cannot. If her/his request for a late or an ‘any time’ revision is refused, then (on the official approach) s/he will not have the right of appeal at all. Judicial review is the only legal redress. Furthermore, claimants will be without the benefit claimed pending the outcome of their request for a mandatory reconsideration. In ESA cases (currently the majority of appeals), it remains that ESA pending appeal is only payable when an appeal has been made – ie, not while a mandatory reconsideration is pending. The very real concern is that many claimants will abandon their dispute because of the simple need to sustain themselves and their families. 1. See, for example, ‘Detailed Lines to Take for Customer Representative Groups’, and Advice for Decision Makers, A3015 and A5043, 2. Reg 7(2) The Universal Credit, Personal Independence Payment, Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2013 No.381 (the ‘UC, PIP etc D&A Regs’) 3. DWP, Mandatory consideration of revision before appeal, Government response to public consultation, September 2012 (DWP), p16. At time of writing, only the UC, PIP etc DA Regs late revision rule was in this form. 4. Reg 6 UC, PIP etc (D&A) Regs; reg 3 Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 1999 No.991. It is assumed that reg 3 of the latter regulations will be aligned with regulation 6 of the UC, PIP etc (D&A) Regs, in particular to remove the requirement that the late application has ‘merit’ and that the claimant’s ignorance of or misunderstanding of the law cannot be taken into account. 5. Advice for Decision Makers, A3016 6. Reg 7 UC, PIP etc D&A Regs 7. DWP, Appeals Reform: an introduction, April 2013, 8. Rule 22 The Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Social Entitlement Chamber) Rules 2008 No.2685 (the ‘Tribunal Rules’) 9. Rule 22(2)(d)(i) Tribunal Rules 10. Rule 22(4)(a)(i) Tribunal Rules 11. Rule 7 Tribunal Rules 12. ‘Detailed Lines to Take for Customer Representative Groups’ at 13. DWP, Appeals Reform: an introduction, April 2013, 14. Rule 24(1)(b) Tribunal Rules 15. ‘Appeals Process Changes – Customer Representative Group Questions and Answers’ , V1.0a, DWP, December 2012,

According to this section of the site https://www.gov.uk/become-lorry-bus-driver/licence-validity-and-renewals Drivers over 45 will continue to renew their entitlement as they do now. When you renew your licence at the end of a 5-year period, you’ll need to provide a medical examination report. therefore, a 47 year old that has had the C/C1 class entitlement installed automatically on their paper licence when they passed their test in the mid 80s, will now need to upgrade in the same manner as before, which is - do nothing. However, will/does this situation change if the licence is upgraded to a photo type one based on the following link ? https://www.gov.uk/exchange-paper-driving-licence

A question for you guys out there. I have a wheelchair bound son and I bought him a car to transport him, he is unable to drive himself. Recently one of my sons while driving it had a prang with a boulder so the car is now off road while we sort out quotes to repair. Whilst it is offroad I have sorn'd the car and cancelled the insurance and it is outside his bungalow in communal parkling used by all the residents. The neighbours who are a bit stuck up have complained to the managing agents about the fact the car is an eye sore. The managing agents have stated unless it ir repaired within a certain amount of time the car will be towed and crushed. Also they have stated we need to insure and tax the car whilst it is on the communal land. I am sure that they are unable to take the car away and taxing and insuring the car is not needed while it is sorn'd and not on roads governed by the RTA. Can you confirm if I am correct and could someone point me to the regs so I can draft the managing agents a letter pointing them as to what they can an cannot do. Thanks in advance.

I missed a payment on a loan from an infamours bank. One week later I wrote offering a revised repament plan which was accepted immediately. I have made all the due payments in accordance with the new arrangement. A section of the bank seems to be unaware fo this since they keep mailing 'Arrears' letters based on the original payment regime, and their latest threatens a 'Default Notice' if I don't pay these arrears. Can they legally do this with an agreed repayment plan in place ? They have ignored all my protest letters so far. Luckysandpiper

Hello A PDL company issued a claim against me on MCOL in early March. I acknowledged service, and admitted part of the claim,and put in a defence for the rest (the biggest part), within the time limit, and put in financial details to ask for time to pay. (I am on a DMP which the PDL wouldn't accept) I've tried to log back in today to see if anything is happening, but there is no longer a link to the claim, and if I put the Claim Number and password in the boxes, it just comes up with the message "claim number or password is incorrect" Is this normal at this stage of the process? Should I still be able to view my details? Are the PDL company expected to respond to my defence, or does it go straight for judgement? How do I find out the result? Does it come in the post? And normally what timescale? Thank you in advance WHT

Whether they know it or not, more than 700,000 households in England and Wales are at risk of losing their homes over debts as small as £1,000. New rules come into effect today governing the way that creditors can force the sale of property in order to repay outstanding sums on payday loans, credit cards and other forms of consumer debt. The new regulations – the Charging Orders (Order for Sale: Financial Thresholds) Regulations 2013 – could prove controversial for two reasons. First, they represent an about-turn by the Government, which had indicated in the Coalition Agreement in 2010 that a threshold of £25,000 would be set rather than the £1,000 limit that takes effect today. Second, the numbers of people with charging orders on their property who could then go on to lose their homes could surge as house prices rise. Once a charging order exists on a property, the owners are only a step away from losing their home as their creditors can ask a court to force a sale in order to satisfy the debt. Just over 400 sales orders were made in 2011, the last year for which there are statistics. Rising house prices mean that there is more equity in homes and that creditors are likely to get their debts paid from that equity if they force the sale of a home. House prices appear to be moving upwards after five years of stagnation. StepChange, a free debt advice charity, is perturbed by the move to set a £1,000 threshold. Peter Tutton, head of policy, says: "The Government have reneged on their promise. We think there isn't sufficient justification." He believes that there will be more charging orders given in future, up from the 81,000 made in 2011 or the 93,000 in 2010. "I'd be surprised if we don't see more charging orders because it's easy for creditors to get them," he adds. http://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/1000-debt-could-force-you-to-sell-your-home-8562606.html