Hi Everyone, I’m wondering if someone can help please? I re-mortgaged my flat in 2005 through Countrywide and the mortgage adviser told me that I had to take out a Mortgage Protection Plan as it was necessary for me to get the Mortgage but now as I understand it isn't. The Mortgage Protection Plan summary says its Life or earlier Critical Illness Cover (decreasing) which is with Friends Life (used to be Friends Provident) and as I understand it Countrywide and Friends Life are affiliated (if that makes a difference?) I had buildings and contents insurance at the time, so I think that means I had enough coverage... I still have the policy and all the paperwork even though I changed Mortgage provider in 2008. Does anyone know if I can claim this back as miss-sold and if so if I should contact Nationwide or Friends Life please? Really appreciate anyone’s help! and sorry if I'm in the wrong place! Thanks, Sandra

I was put onto community work placement with Seetec. At my first meeting I signed a data protection sheet which I was told is just for jobs and the jobcentre, but after looking round various sites its got me worried. Does this mean seetec can now look at anything to do with me inc my medical records etc I had one job search day there and then I was ill and filled in a sick form for the 14 days, I thought I'd just be back at seetec on my next job search day, but after going the jobcentre I was re referred to seetec for CWP So does this mean I'm starting from the beginning again and will I have to sign another data protection letter or will they just use my old one and is there anyway I can take permission back so they can't look at any info regarding me?

Not sure if this is the right forum for this question but I can't find any other suitable for this issue. I'm looking for some advice regarding the data protection act and a bit of a long story but I will try to be as brief as possible. I am a foster carer of a 15 year old boy (B) who has autism, ADHD, and social emotional behavioural problems. I have been his foster carer for over 3 years and it has not been easy, he has temper tantrums like a 2 year old, has trashed my house on several occasions and trashed his room on a regular basis. He has been placed with me on a permanent basis. There has been a lady ® involved via social services who has been brought in to give specialist interventions for some particular problems he has and she has visited regularly with B's social worker. Myself and my adult son and girlfriend who live with us have been very open and honest with her about the difficulties hoping that he will get the help he needs to resolve some of his issues. I have another child in placement who will be leaving soon to return home and there has been suggestions that B, because of his difficulties then becomes a lone placement and that they will pay me for 2 placements so that i don't need another placement and can manage financially. In October the social worker and R visited and while they were here looked at his bedroom. I will admit that the bedroom was awful, he won't keep it clean and tidy and won't let me do it, he has damaged the walls, broken things and collects junk etc. When the social worker suggested to him that she would come round to help him sort it out he totally lost his rag over it, and with me too when I suggested helping him to get it sorted and said no-one is touching his room and if I do anything to his room he will trash mine! He has since been making a bit of an effort to get it tidied up and sorted out a bit under the threat of someone else doing it for him. A couple of weeks ago my supervisor told me the social worker and R were coming round to discuss how we can help B sort his room out. When they arrived R immediately said she had been asked to do a placement report and had brought it to share (absolutely nothing to do with what I thought they were coming for). I was totally shocked and unprepared for this and I had around 45 interrupted minutes (kids coming home from school) to go through a report containing at least 30 pages and tell her all the bits I disagreed with. The report was full of inaccuracies, assumptions, comments taken out of context and inferences. It was very derogatory regarding my family and home and made me out to be a dotty old lady who only cares about the garden, cats and chickens. I am actually a very intelligent, knowledgeable, and experienced carer. Yes my home is a bit tatty and everything is old but it's clean (apart from his bedroom) and it wasn't nearly so tatty before B came and trashed everything, broke furniture etc. I was very aggrieved that I was unprepared and did not have time to go through the report properly and point out all the inaccuracies and unjustified comments, She even got my son's age wrong and his university degree. She said of my garden that the veggies were all in straight rows with no weeds! Well she obviously hadn't looked because my veggies are not in rows and there are plenty of weeds. It said nothing about how B has settled, progressed and developed since coming here and how his temper tantrums have reduced significantly and how he will now talk about things upsetting him rather than throwing things. I felt like giving notice on B there and then but I won't do that to him, as this is the first place he has settled since coming into care - he went through about 6 placements in 2 years due to his behaviour - prior to coming here. Following this meeting I emailed R and told her I was not happy with the report and the fact that I did not have enough time to read it properly and challenge everything that was inaccurate or that I didn't agree with. I also said I was grossly insulted by the fact that she came into my home under the guise of providing specialist interventions for B and then used the information given freely for that purpose to write a report which was derogatory towards my home and family. I asked to revisit the report with her so I could have time to read it properly and give a considered response. That was over two weeks ago and I haven't had a response from her. The social worker, who I copied in did tell me her manager was going to call me but this hasn't happened either. If anyone can advise me I would like to know if I have a case under the Data Protection Act, due to the inaccuracy of the information and also the fact that it was gathered for a different purpose to which it has been put and what I should do about it. This information they now have could be very damaging to my good reputation as a very competent foster carer and could affect me getting other placements in the future. I have looked at the ICO website but it's quite complicated and there seem to be different rules regarding social services. It's also difficult to be very specific about what is wrong with the report as I do not have a copy and am relying on memory and I do not know what has happened since the meeting, whether anything has been corrected (the things I did manage to challenge). Sorry this is a bit long but if anyone has time to ready it I would be grateful for any advice.

Afternoon . Looking to see if anyone has had any success with the HBOS in regards to the ultimate reward packaged bank account . I opened one in 2009 and have noticed that i was paying for a card protection policy that would pay out up to £75000 if there was any fraudulent acitivy on my card after it was reported missing . My question is . as this card proection insurance was of no value (the banks having to already cover such fraud ) would including it in a package of benefits/insurances mean that the entire package was missold . Since the onus is on the banks to check that the products they where selling was suiitable . any replies much appreciated regards

The shop where i work was visited yesterday by a member of the revenue protection team. Stating their meter had been tampered with and they have been billed £14402. (13500 is for estimated gas usage) Firstly the reason I am looking into this for them is that they are Malaysian and have a very basic understanding of English. They took over the shop from a previous tenant in 2007 and have had the meter read throughout this period of time. Last week they came and changed the meter and stated the meter would be sent for forensic testing etc. This resulted in the RPO turning up yesterday and dropping this bombshell on them, he would not give any extra info when asked when i arrived he point blank refused to talk to me at all, despite being told I could speak on their behalf. They have to pay £4400 today or they will have the gas disconnected. I have spoken to them and they are adamant they have not touched the meter or any of the parts. Some info that may help 1, Payments have been made to British gas over the whole time they have had the shop. 2, Checking the new meter it shows 280kwh used in just over 7 days. I checked back at this years bills and over a 4 week period it averages out at around 260kwh over the same period of time (4 week period divided by 4) so we are talking a similar amount of usage with old and new meter. 3, The meter has been read and viewed by meter readers for the last 7 years without anything being said. Not sure what course of action we can take, the letter states nothing about being able to appeal the decision and they are terrified they are going to lose their livelihoods. I have advised them to scrape together the £4400 today by any means they can so they can at least keep operating as a business and we can look at appealing this. If anyone has any advice on which way i should go to help them it would be much appreciated.

This could have serious consequences... http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/parkingeye-subject-to-data-protection.html?m=1

Currently have a case with the FSCS that i am trying to do myself Started as something else but they wrote to ask for details of a mppi policy . I am now trying to find information to submit to them but going round in circles. Have been told by solicitors the cheque was made payable to Commitments but sent to the broker (who is declared in default with fscs) Neither ourselves, the mortgage company nor the solicitors have any further details regarding policy numbers etc. as it was all done by the broker. Interestingly i had a call followed by a letter from a Commitments earlier in the year (which i still have) saying to fill in the attached form. The form attached was for a Middleton solicitors. A further search of Commitments gives me several addresses for them in the past 2 in Shrewsbury 1 in Redditch, 1 in Huntingdon . The original Mortgage Payment Protection was NOT on the mortgage keyfacts but the total advance provided to the solicitor and the solicitors completion statement included a £2500 for MPP. This was the fee the solicitors confirmed as a cheque to broker. Are these companies one of the same? ie is the company we paid the £2500 to from our total mortgage figure the same company that were encouraging us to use Middleton Solicitors for a fee of 30% + vat? I declined this and asked them not to contact me again. There is a policy number on the pre-printed claim form. Could this possibly by the original number? Anyone had anything similar?

The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) was raised to £85,000 per account in 2010 following the financial crisis and specifically the collapse of Northern Rock. However, EU regulations mean that this amount is going to change, and it’s going to go down by £10,000. The Bank of England has announced that the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) is making changes to the protection under FSCS. For most savers currently covered by the FSCS, the existing level of deposit protection (£85,000) will be maintained for six months before changing to £75,000 from Jan 1 2016 http://www.bitterwallet.com/fscs-protection-to-be-cut-by-european-directive/86392

HI all, my wife works as a Bank Catering assistant with the NHS. We also have a little one we arrange childcare for. My wife rolled into work today and her supervisor asked her if she could work an additional day per week, she also said that she had cleared this with the childminder first so that wasn't an issue. To add my wifes supervisor and our childminder are sisters. Surely on both counts it much breach some kind of regulations/policies. Both my wifes supervisor or our childminder shouldn't be discussing my wifes hours or availability prior to having the conversation with my wife. Just wondered what the best course of action is here. IS this wrong??

I bought an item on ebay, and it did not turn up. I asked the seller to track it, and the seller got back to me to say that the item had been left with neighbours, but the courier was unable to state which neighbours. None of the neighbours had it. I therefore wanted a refund, and had to put in a buyer protection claim. Ebay refused to refund me, as the item was delivered within the "allowable distance". I was utterly gobsmacked, I have confirmation from the seller that the item was not delivered to me, and yet ebay say that because it was delivered somewhere close to my house I am not entitled to a refund? The amount of money involved is small, too small even for the small claims court, but the implications are huge. This was a cheap item, but I have been relying on buyer protection when I buy expensive items. Ebay appear to have changed the rules, if the item came somewhere near your house, and the courier can prove that with GPS, you will not get a refund - even if the courier and the seller both state that the item was not delivered!

Hi, hope somebody can answer this for me. Been driving for nearly 20 years with no fines...until last year, my dad is the registered keeper of my car, he received the letter and sent it back advising my name. Sent it back, paid the fine etc, job done...I thought. 2 months ago I got another, did the same with the letter but didn't hear. The other day my mum rang me and she was fuming, said that she rang the number to find out why nothing has happened and they told her my licence was revoked for failing to send my licence back last year. This was the first I knew of it, I thought points were automatic and didn't receive letters from the DVLA. However what I need to know is, did they have any right to disclose such personal information to my mum? Surely this is a DPA breach? This has caused massive arguments...surely they can't just disclose this info can they???

Can you advise of a suitable law firm that could help with my appeal against Unum who have rejected liability for a policy I have paid into for 10 years. I have been confirmed as too ill to work by GP, consultant and awarded total incapacity but Unum have rejected this. I would really like to discuss with an experienced solicitor please. I am in northern Ireland.

Hello everyone, I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this...hope so. I wonder if I share a story, if anyone can offer advice please. 9 years ago, due to illness and family tragedy, my husband got into financial difficulty. Via the CCCS, token repayments to creditors were agreed an interest suspended. Since then, payments have increased in line with affordability. We have reapid a considerable amount, but still have a fair way to go. I know some will say, 'why didn't you try to go the non-cca, unenforceable route' but, all apart from one were helpful (I did get SD set aside re Arrow Global as they wouldn't play ball) so did not want to pursue the fight with the others. Fast forward to now and our circumstances have taken a turn for the worse and, due to a reduction in income (husband self-employed and work slowed, loss of income due to ongoing health issues and hospital visits), we can no longer afford the current repayment levels, so we have written to the remaining creditors to explain the situation (and included an up-to-date I&E). The one I would like to ask advice on is Idem. ORIGINAL DEBT TO MBNA APPROX £7800 APPROX MBNA PAID £4400 APPROX PAID TO IDEM SO FAR £2000 Original Creditor MBNA agreed a repayment programme that, provided we kept to until they were repaid, they would leave us alone (which they did). We continued the payments, then in September 2012, we were advised that they had sold the remaining debt to Idem Capital Securities Ltd, but that the agreement would continue (which it did). We began paying the same payments to Idem but, we cannot afford these now. Idem has written (see letter C) saying that they need express consent to process the information in our letter and I&E, either in writing or by a phone call. As we won't deal with any of this at the telephone, the signed confirmation is the only option. DO WE HAVE TO SIGN AND RETURN THIS? WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS IF WE DO? WHAT IF WE DON'T? What we don't want is for them to 'get heavy' with us, because we can't pay what we can't currently afford. If the repayment programme with MBNA was in place and a default notice never issued as a result (don't have one in file anyway), when the debt was sold to Idem, did that terminate the account and could Idem take us to Court if we can't agree on continued repayments? Any suggestions on how to proceed? Thanks Sorry, forgot how to attach copy letter, it's been so long since I posted on here!! Think this should work. Didn't-too small, sorry. Hoping this works. Can someone let me know if you can see this copy ok. If not, I'll try the other suggested method. Stigman, Thanks for the response. Yes we do have our own house (with equity, I'm afraid). You said send a CCA request (to Idem I presume). Is that n preference to a SAR (to MBNA)? Also, do you know anything about the request to sign the 'express consent' letter and whether we have to do this in order for them to look at our chnge of circumstances/I&E? I've got all the MBNA statements so I can look at them with regard to charges and a possible reclaim. How far can I go back?

Over 5 years ago my mother suffered a brain injury which rendered her unable to manage her own affairs. As you can imagine this was a very traumatic and heartbreaking time for us. As there was no Power of Attorney in place (we were due to put this in place and had discussed it with my mother), I was appointed as a Deputy by the Court of Protection to look after my mother's financial affairs. All very stressful and could have been avoided. My mother has a number of accounts with several different banks and building societies. Whilst it was an onerous task, most banks were helpful and sympathetic although admittedly many were ignorant of my role and what it was supposed to empower me to do. Santander have consistently been a nightmare to deal with, the type of issues I have faced: 1. Having to go into branch(es) to undertake simple tasks. 2. Having to be treated like a fraudster every time I try to undertake a simple task. 3. Having to explain what a Deputy is, only for the staff to look at me as if I am trying to defraud them and being humiliated and having requests refused. 4. Having internet banking disabled surreptitiously by a branch manager who thought I was a fraudster because they did not understand my role. 5. Spending hours on the telephone to undertake simple tasks (changing standing orders etc) because no one could authorise the actions I wanted to undertake (and am legally permitted to undertake). 6. Having online transactions blocked and cards disabled regularly. 7. Receiving letters addressed to my mother each time we tried to do an online transaction for her - asking if the transactions were legitimate. 8. Having to constantly re-explain my role and why it was not appropriate for them to keep trying to contact my mother etc etc... just so we could change her care home fee contribution! This is just a small sample of what has been a longstanding nightmare. It got to the stage that we avoided dealing with Santander because it was too time consuming and stressful. Ultimately I ended up paying for things myself as I was constantly worried that they would again stop a card or disable access or cause other issues. After the most recent problems, I again made a complaint and it appears now that they have resolved some of the problems (I now have internet banking back after 3 years without it, I now have a cheque book, I also have a debit card that works at the moment). The misinformation continues (the cheque book was supposed to be in my name as Deputy for, but came in my mother's name. I have been told to sign cheques in a few different styles. I am yet to test a cheque). I have received an apology letter from Santander and have been offered a small financial gesture from Santander for the 5 years of grief. I don't know whether to accept the gesture or, pass the complaint to the ombudsman. Has anyone else had issues of this nature? I'd appreciate any opinions on this. Thank you.

Received my DSAR from CitiFinancial re; platinum credit card taken out in 2003. received copies of statements and original application form, which includes a ticked box for "Cardholder Repayment Protection" which statements show I paid an average of £20 per month , is this the same as PPI?? I cannot remember asking for this. the statements also shows numerous Late Charges and Overlimit Charges for £20 a time. Also, £5 charges for cash advances. Many advice would be welcomed.

Hi, below i have paste information from the Scottish gov. website. If you are thinking of defending a repossession procedure and that you are not able to get legal aid, you cant afford a solicitors, you can get a Lay Representation to speak on your behalf. You can contact the Scottish Shelter to help you. At the moment i am at the early stage with my bank, they are threathening me with calling up notice if i dont pay up debt over £200,000.00 ( 3 accounts ) two account they cannot produce credit agreement documents. This dispute being going on for 6 years. Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010: Guidance on Lay Representation Introduction/Background 1. This guidance relates specifically to section 24E of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 (the 1970 Act) and section 5F of the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894 (the 1894 Act), as introduced by the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 ("the 2010 Act"), and the Lay Representation in Proceedings relating to Residential Property (Scotland) Order 2010 (the Order), which allow for the lay representation of home owners and entitled residents in court proceedings for possession of residential property (including recall proceedings). 2. In early 2009, in response to the economic downturn and consequent rise in repossessions, the Scottish Government convened a Repossessions Group, as a sub-group of the Debt Action Forum, to consider whether protection for Scottish home owners facing repossession was sufficient. Members of the Group represented a wide range of interested parties, including representatives from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Finance and Leasing Association, the Scottish Law Commission, Shelter, Citizens Advice Scotland and the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The Group made a number of recommendations to strengthen protection for home owners, which were taken forward through Part 1 of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010, to: require all repossession cases to call in court; require lenders to demonstrate to the court that they have considered reasonable alternatives to repossession; and enable home owners to be represented in court by approved lay representatives. 3. Paragraphs 5.3 to 5.14 of the Repossessions Group Final Report, published in June 2009, recognised that the repossessions process, in particular a court appearance, can be intimidating for home owners faced with repossession. The Group acknowledged that there was a need to improve arrangements for assisting those individuals affected by the formal procedures, including better access to information, but also better access to the full range of appropriate advice and representation providers. It was felt by the Group that there were particular issues about enabling access to representation, and that the existing restrictions on rights of audience exacerbated problems. Individuals who did not qualify for legal aid and could not afford to instruct a solicitor were faced with the prospect of appearing at court as an unrepresented litigant. The Group recognised that non-solicitor advisers were limited in what they could do in such cases, and identified that it would be helpful if experienced providers of lay advice and representation, where appropriate, were allowed to play a larger role in helping unrepresented litigants in the court process. 4. To tackle these issues, the Group recommended that there should be statutory change to enable home owners to have the option of being represented in court by approved lay representatives as well as solicitors. This would make the court process more accessible and encourage more people to take advantage of the legal protection on offer. 5. Section 24E(1) of 1970 Act and section 5F(1) of 1894 Act allow for the debtor or entitled resident to be represented by an approved lay representative in court proceedings in relation to a creditor's application to exercise the remedies available on default by the debtor in respect of a security over residential property, including repossession, (extending to recall proceedings under sections 24D and 5E respectively of those Acts), except in the circumstances which are prescribed by Scottish Ministers. 6. Secondary legislation prescribes those persons and bodies which may approve lay representatives. Those individuals approved as lay representatives will be required to satisfy the Sheriff throughout the proceedings that they are a suitable person to represent the debtor or entitled resident and that they are authorised to do so by that individual. 7. The provisions introduced by the 2010 Act essentially introduce rights of audience for approved lay representatives to defend proceedings related to applications for creditors' remedies on default, including repossession. It should be noted that the Act does not confer an automatic right on debtors and entitled residents to such representation, nor does it mean that an approved lay representative is obliged to participate in all proceedings. Nor can an approved lay representative act for a creditor. 8. This guidance is primarily directed towards those persons or bodies who are prescribed for the purpose of approving lay representatives, but is also relevant for approved lay representatives. The guidance explains the role of a lay representative and the competences expected of an approved lay representative. It is intended to aid prescribed persons or bodies in approving lay representatives. 9. The guidance sets out advice on how prescribed persons or bodies should approach the approval process, and importantly how organisations should seek to manage the provision of lay representation so that the individual client receives appropriate assistance from the appropriate adviser. This may in some instances mean that it is more appropriate for the individual to receive assistance from a solicitor than from a lay representative due to the complexity or the type of case that is involved. What is a Lay Representative 10. Section 24E(3) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 , and 5F(3) of the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894 define a lay representative as an individual, other than an advocate or a solicitor, approved for the purposes of that section by a person or body prescribed, or of a description prescribed by the Scottish Ministers. That definition is filled out by Article 3 of the Order, as set out in paragraph 20 below. The Role of a Lay Representative 11. Previously, in repossession proceedings, there was a limit to what non-solicitor advisors could do. The only individuals with rights of audience to represent and participate in the proceedings were solicitors or advocates. The provisions introduced by the 2010 Act mean that lay representatives also have these rights of audience, so that any debtor or entitled resident involved in these proceedings can have a lay representative acting for them if they so choose. However, prescribed persons or bodies should ensure that approved lay representatives are clear about the extent to which they can and should be acting in any specific case or circumstance. Lay representatives should be clear about the point at which they are not competent to deal with a specific case or a particular aspect or legal process, and should refer cases where appropriate to a solicitor who is skilled and knowledgeable in this area, or to another lay representative with the relevant skills and knowledge either in their organisation or another advice agency. It is expected that lay representatives will not normally charge for their services. 12. Standard 4.3 in Section 1 of the Standards, refers to referral arrangements. It is recommended that approved bodies, whether accredited or not, adopt arrangements such as are envisaged by this standard. If in the opinion of the lay representative the circumstances are such that the individual would benefit from legal advice, they lay representative should consider referring the individual to a solicitor and remind the individual that they may be eligible for legal aid. The lay representative should therefore be familiar with the financial eligibility requirements 1 of legal aid. 13. The legislation defines the term "lay representative" for repossession proceedings, with a view to both protecting the debtor or entitled resident, and to ensuring that court business proceeds smoothly. Only individuals who have the appropriate skills and knowledge to understand the proceedings and to represent individuals effectively may be approved to act as lay representatives. Someone who does not understand the relevant court proceedings or legislation is not equipped to be able to represent the interests of debtors and entitled residents properly in court. 14. Other people such as a friend, spouse or colleague can in some instances attend court proceedings to support individuals but this is distinct from the active role of the statutorily defined lay representative, and they will not have the right to participate in repossession proceedings on behalf of the individual. Satisfying the Sherriff that you are competent to be a lay representative and authorised to do so. 15. Section 24E(2) of the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970, and 5F(2) of the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894 require that an approved lay representative must throughout the proceedings satisfy the Sheriff that: he or she is a suitable person to represent the debtor or entitled resident; and he or she is authorised by the debtor or entitled resident to do so 16. In line with this requirement an approved lay representative will need to be prepared to demonstrate to the Sheriff that they are competent and authorised to appear before the Court as a lay representative. Approving organisations are encouraged to provide their local courts with a list of persons approved by them to act as lay representatives along with letters of confirmation of approval that individual lay representatives can show the Sheriff if required. This should be done in advance of any hearing in order to inform the Sheriff that such individuals are competent to appear in court. 17. It is strongly recommended that approved lay representatives also obtain written confirmation that they are authorised by the debtor or entitled resident to act on their behalf, which can similarly be provided as documentary evidence for the Sheriff if required. 18. Prescribed bodies or persons approving lay representatives should ensure that those individuals approved to act as a lay representative are aware that the Sheriff is responsible for ensuring efficient use of court time. This means if the Sheriff considers that the lay representative is not a suitable person to act on behalf of the debtor or entitled resident, and therefore that it is not in their interests for this person to continue to represent them, then the Sheriff may discharge the lay representative and they would no longer be able to take part in the hearing. 19. Such discharge and any resulting postponement of the proceedings would be extremely inconvenient for all concerned and the costs involved with postponing are likely to fall on the debtor. It is therefore important that approving organisations ensure that all lay representatives approved meet the criteria to demonstrate that they are competent. Prescribed persons or bodies for the purposes of approving lay representatives 20. Individuals can act as lay representatives so long as they are approved as such in accordance with the legislation, and are not barred from acting by virtue of article 12 or 13 of the Order (e.g. as a result of inadequate performance). Article 3 of the Order prescribes those persons or bodies which have the power to approve individuals to undertake lay representation. These are: Organisations with a current entry on the register of advice organisations established and maintained by the Scottish Legal Aid Board; Organisations which have been awarded accreditation at Type III level against the Scottish National Standards for Information and Advice Providers; Local Authorities; and Citizens advice bureaux which are full members of the Scottish Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux - Citizens Advice Scotland. 21. To ensure consistency and high standards, however, it is recommended that all prescribed persons or bodies pay close attention to the Scottish National Standards for Information and Advice Providers, when approving individuals as lay representatives. Scottish National Standards for Information and Advice Providers 22. The Scottish National Standards for Information and Advice Providers (hereafter referred to as 'the Standards') were compiled by the Scottish Government with the assistance of advice providers in the voluntary and statutory sectors. 23. The Standards are a framework for the development of effective and efficient services and were compiled in recognition of the fact that people choose to access information and advice from various s sources. 24. The Standards framework can be used by any advice provider to improve the quality of its advice service. The standards can be found here: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/10/05112820/02 25. The Standards distinguish between three principal types of advice giving and intervention. These are: Type I - Active information, sign-posting and explanation; Type II - Casework; and Type III - Advocacy, representation and mediation at court or tribunal level. 26. There is a more detailed explanation of the Types given in the Standards manual. 27. The Scottish Government specifically directs prescribed bodies to certain standards within the Scottish National Standards for Information and Advice Providers for the purpose of this guidance, both in respect of organisational standards as well as those which relate to competencies of individuals. Procedure for approval of lay representatives 28. An individual wishing to act as a lay representative will require to make an application to the approving organisation. A person will not be able to make an application to an approving organisation if they have made an application to another organisation which has yet to be determined. 29. The consideration of an application by the approving organisations must have regard to the interests of persons who might seek to be represented by an approved lay representative. 30. The approving organisation's consideration of an application must also involve an assessment of the applicant's: (a) Knowledge and understanding of: (i)) Scottish legislation and common law in so far as they relate to housing and repossession and (ii) Court procedures and rules, specifically in relation to summary applications in the Sheriff Court (b) Competence at constructing and stating a case both orally and in writing © Advocacy skills, in particular in support and representation 31. The key competences that approved organisations will wish to take into account when assessing an individual's suitability for the role of lay representative are set out in more detail in paragraphs 42-51 below. The approving organisation must also obtain an undertaking that the applicant if approved to act as a lay representative will not act as a lay representative in any situation where this would place the applicant in a situation of conflict of interest, and that the applicant will respect client confidentiality. Training requirements 32. As part of the approval process, the approving organisation may provide an applicant with training in order to assist the lay representative to achieve a satisfactory level of knowledge, understanding, competence and skill in the areas outlined in paragraph 30. 33. Moreover, depending on the competency levels of the applicant, the organisation may need to consider an individual's training needs and arrange or provide training before being able to grant approval. Management and monitoring the performance of approved lay representatives 34. Prescribed persons or bodies have the responsibility of approving lay representatives and it is important that they have systems in place which also set out their own criteria for such approval of individuals. Furthermore such persons or bodies should also have organisational arrangements in place for managing the activity as part of their services. 35. It is recommended that prescribed persons or bodies, whether accredited or not, observe the organisational standards in Section 1 from page 9 of the Standards 3. Close attention should be paid to standards 2.1 - 2.6 4 and 4.1 - 4.7 5 in Section 1 of the Standards, with particular regard to delivering a Type III service on mortgage repossession work. 36. It is advisable that prescribed bodies develop an action plan showing how they intend to manage and deliver the particular elements of service delivery that will be carried out under the lay representation provisions. The organisation will need to be able to relate information about competence, training and supervision of staff to the specific category of circumstance that work will be carried out in. 37. The prescribed persons or bodies should put in place a system for monitoring the performance of individuals approved as lay representatives, paying particular attention to any complaints or concerns about their performance as lay representatives raised by Sheriffs, other court staff or clients, investigating any such complaints thoroughly (see paragraph 59). 38. Prescribed persons or bodies should ensure that approved lay representatives are clear about the extent to which they can and should be acting in any specific case or circumstance. They should be familiar with the financial eligibility requirements of legal aid and remind a debtor where appropriate that they may be able to employ a solicitor through legal aid funding. Lay representatives should also be clear about the point at which they are not competent to deal with a specific case or a particular aspect or legal process, and should refer cases where appropriate to a solicitor who is skilled and knowledgeable in this area, or to another lay representative with the relevant skills and knowledge either in their organisation or another advice agency. Standard 4.3 6 in Section 1 of the Standards, refers to referral arrangements. It is recommended that approved bodies, whether accredited or not, adopt arrangements such as are envisaged by this standard. 39. It is recommended that those persons or bodies with the power to approve lay representatives maintain a definitive list of individuals whom they have approved as lay representatives and review appropriately their performance in this capacity. The approval of each representative must specify the sheriff court districts in which they are expected to act, and it is recommended that the list include that information. This does not limit the number of sheriff court districts in which a lay representative can act but it will be for the approving organisation or body to specify these districts as part of the approval process. 40. It is important that prescribed persons or bodies ensure approved lay representatives are consistently meeting the standards recommended within this guidance. 41. If an individual is not meeting these standards, the prescribed person or body should ensure the individual receives training to improve their performance and should suspend the individual's approval until the person or body is satisfied that they are competent to resume acting as a lay representative. If the person or body remains unsatisfied, they must withdraw their approval. Individual competencies relevant for approval as lay representation 42. It is recommended that in approving lay representatives, prescribed persons or bodies should consider whether individuals are capable of meeting the generic competences for advisers, within the Section 2 Competences for Advisers and Agencies of the Standards. 7 43. Prescribed persons or bodies should note that the competences required for accreditation to Type III - Advocacy, Representation and Mediation level will be particularly relevant for work lay representation . 44. Prescribed persons or bodies should consider whether an individual meets the housing specific knowledge competence for Mortgages/Secured Loans in Section 2 of the Standards. 45. The following key recommended competences are relevant to specific activity that will be undertaken in the court setting. These should be considered in addition to the competences set out within the National Standards, where such competences are not explicitly mentioned in the Standards. Key Recommended Competences of a Lay Representative 46. The key competencies which it is recommended an individual should hold before a prescribed body approves them to act as a lay representative are detailed below. 47. These competencies are considered to be particularly relevant and important when judging the suitability of individuals for the role of lay representative. 48. Has impact and credibility as a representative because: has a good knowledge of subject area, particularly mortgage arrears and repossession procedures used by lenders, FSA regulations and good practice relating to the treatment of customers in arrears, including MCOB 13 8, and consumer credit legislation, and in particular relevant Scottish legislation such as the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Act 1894, the Conveyancing and Feudal Reform (Scotland) Act 1970 and the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010, and the Applications by Creditors (Pre-Action Requirements) (Scotland) Order 2010. has an ability to make links where appropriate with other relevant areas of law retains objectivity has a good understanding of relevant evidence and presents the above in a structured, coherent and persuasive manner both in writing and orally 49. Undertakes legal research effectively researching relevant legislation, common law and case law, government, regulatory and industry guidance and Codes of Practice, policy statements, etc Understanding the importance of collecting and preserving evidence Discussing all options and their consequences with clients objectively and clearly 50. Understands relevant Court rules, protocols and procedures and basic principles of rules and evidence (e.g. hearsay) understands Sheriff Court procedures and possession procedures, including relevant court notices, application procedures and forms understands the procedure involved in conducting a proof understands the role of officers of the court - i.e. sheriff clerks and appropriate behaviour in court, including the importance of not wasting court time with irrelevant, frivolous or theatrical interventions 51. Use their knowledge, understanding and research to identify arguments, defences and remedial strategies in arrears and repossession actions and present these in a clear manner Identifies arguments which support the client's defence and advise on court orders which it may be appropriate to seek Presents these arguments in a structured, coherent and persuasive manner both in writing and orally Understands post-possession order procedures Challenges negative decisions, actions or legal interpretation which may be adverse to clients Demonstrates an ability to 'think on their feet' in a Court/litigation environment Is prepared to pursue a case to a conclusion where competent to do so and where the client wishes to do so, while at all times clearly explaining the consequences of any action to clients, and seeking to negotiate constructive solutions and arrangements with lenders, court staff or other interested parties where feasible. Withdrawal of approval of lay representatives 52. An approving organisation may withdraw any approval it has granted by providing notice to the approved lay representative. 53. The procedure for withdrawal of approval must involve an evaluation by the approving organisation of the approved lay representative's performance, in particular whether the approved lay representative: no longer satisfies the criteria set out in the procedure for approval is performing inadequately and the approving organisation considers that the approved lay representative's performance could not be sufficiently improved by additional support or training; or has acted dishonestly, in breach of client confidentiality, or in a situation of conflict of interest. 54. Where an approved lay representative has been provided with additional support or training and following a further evaluation the approving organisation considers that the approved lay representative cannot perform adequately, the approving organisation must notify the approved lay representative that the approval is withdrawn. 55. An approval of an approved lay representative is deemed to be withdrawn if the organisation which granted the approval ceases to be an approving organisation. Circumstances in which an approved lay representative may not act 56. An approved lay representative may not represent any debtor or entitled resident other than in proceedings where the debtor or entitled resident is a client of an approving organisation, though not necessarily the organisation that approved the lay representative. 57. Where an approved lay representative is performing inadequately and the approving organisation decides not to withdraw approval; and instead to provide additional support or training to improve the performance of that lay representative, the approved lay representative may not represent any debtor or entitled resident until the approving organisation is satisfied that the approved lay representative can perform adequately. Prescribed persons or bodies to provide Scottish Ministers with information 58. Those persons or bodies with the power to approve lay representatives may be required to provide information to Scottish Ministers about lay representatives. 59. Scottish Ministers will not seek to obtain information on individual lay representatives, but it is anticipated that aggregated and anonymised information will be requested from approved organisations, particularly: total number of individuals approved as lay representatives by that organisation the number of lay representatives approved by that organisation over a specified period (for example during the previous year) the range of Sheriff courts in which these lay representatives operate and the number approved to operate in each Sheriff court details of the training provided to lay representatives by approving organisations over a specified period (for example during the previous year) number of lay representatives that have had approval withdrawn over a specified period (for example during the previous year) and the reasons why approval had to be withdrawn Although not required under the Order, it is hoped that approved organisations will nevertheless co-operate, wherever possible, with any other information requests that Scottish Ministers may make for the purpose of monitoring and evaluation, or arranging additional training, awareness raising or other support to ensure an effective lay representation service is available everywhere. For example information might be sought about: the approximate number of cases in which they have provided lay representation for repossession cases the sort of feedback approved organisations have received about client satisfaction levels when they have offered a lay representation service any issues or difficulties (beyond any need to withdraw approval of individual lay representatives) which have arisen in providing a lay representation service, for example an indication of the approximate number of times when they may have had to turn down requests for lay representation and the reasons for having to do so Indemnity Insurance 60. Persons or Bodies with the power to approve lay representatives are strongly recommended to consider the liability of those individuals that they approve, and indeed the liability of the body for the actions of individuals approved by it. Prescribed bodies should refer to Standard 3.9 and 3.11 9 in Section 1 of the Standards and consider their position. They are strongly encouraged to ensure that they have appropriate Indemnity insurance. Complaints procedures 61. Those bodies with the power to approve lay representatives should ensure that they have a complaints procedure in place, for individuals receiving lay representation to use if any problems arise during the process, and that any complaints are investigated thoroughly. (See paragraph 36 above and Standard 3.11 in Section 1 of the Standards) 62. As part of ongoing work to ensure that approved lay representatives are continuing to act at high standards, prescribed persons or bodies should seek regular feedback from users and stakeholders, such as court staff and Sheriffs. (See Standard 3.12 in Section 1 of the Standards) Housing Access and Support Division Scottish Government Yes, its alot of reading. I am doing alot of reading to fight my bank. i am going to represent myself to contest the calling up notice if my bank decide to go down the road issuing me with a calling up notice. The bank's solicitors keep making threats to take me to court (3 letters so far), and Up to now they have not given me clear breakdown of the debt. Just demand the total amount from the 3 accounts that i have with the bank.

Hi, Firstly sorry for the long winded post but just trying to summarise our problem and will get to the point eventually lol, hopefully someone can help with my fiances problem, My Fiance moved in with me in July 2014 and she has some serious medical conditions that have been going on for 9 years and aren't going to get any better, She moved from the south to join me up north and we both new it was important to become registered with a local GP as soon as possible with her requiring constant repeat prescriptions for controlled drugs. She approached the local GP surgery and requested registration, was given a form to complete and thought that was that, from there its been nothing but a nightmare. On our first visit to the GP we were informed that the secretary had registered her on a temporary basis and not permanent meaning her files wouldn't be requested and the GP would have no info on her conditions and problems, the secretary said it was done in error but it was ok as after the 2 month period she could register again on a permanent basis, creating major problems as the level of her medication which had been established over the last years with her old GP was under question by the local GP and trying to explain all the medical problems (there are many) seemed to be falling on deaf ears and literally taken with a pinch of salt and disbelief by the GP. As my fiance is on such high levels of meds she frequently had to request repeat perscriptions due to the GP not allowing the levels her previous GP and pain clinic had perscribed as they had no medical notes infront of the explaining her medical history. On one occasion my fiance (who struggles to get out of bed some days and has great difficulty getting about) walked up to the surgery as per practise rules to order a repeat prescription and allowed the 48 hours for processing, as my fiance was unwell and had ran out of her med's for a day I went to collect the script that had been ordered to be told that there wasn't one there and the secretary then looked at her computer screen and said there was no script, and went on to work out how much medication my partner should have left for the time period from the last script (thought this was a clinical decision and not one a secretary should be making or discussing openly on reception infront of waiting patients), despite my fiance being on a sliding amount relevant to her pain, this calculation made by the secretary was wrong leaving my fiance with no med's and told that it would take a further 48 hours to rectify (the med's are controlled drugs and cannot just be stopped), despite this there was no offer to rectify the secretary's error straight away and refused to be able to see a doctor urgently. Obviously we were disgusted and frustrated. On another occasion my fiance had an appointment to see a GP, as she is unsteady on her feet I escorted her to the surgery, her appointment lasted 25 mins to my surprise and on her exit she had a urgent referral letter to hand to the secretary, she informed me that the GP had found a lump in her arm, one in her armpit and one in her breast, the reason for the lengthy consultation was that the GP had to call a second senior GP for a second opinion, the urgent request was handed in and we awaited an appointment. Several weeks passed and we received a Book and Choose appointment to the local Skin Tag clinics, my fiance rang and enquired with the skin tag clinic if this was the correct referral for lumps in flesh i.e lumps in breast tissue and in armpits, she was told it was a skin tag clinic for removal of lumps ontop of skin and to contact her GP surgery and notify them there has been an error as she had been referred to the wrong clinic. upon doing this my fiance managed to speak to the secretary that had made the referral and she apologised for the error but was told that she couldn't rectify the problem and that she would have to go back and see the GP for it to be rectified, an appointment was made for two days later for 11.30am despite my fiance having an hospital appointment the same day for 3.00pm for an endoscopy but due to the worry of an urgent referral that hadn't turned out that urgent in their eyes my fiance accepted the appointment. On the day of the GP appointment and the endoscopy appointment my fiance hadn't slept all night with worry, she fell asleep at 7am. I tried to wake her (which is difficult enough on normal days due to the medication she is on) for her GP appointment but was unable to do so right upto half an hour before the GP appointment, so i rang the surgery 25 mins before she was due there to notify that she wouldn't be able to attend and informed them the reason why, I was told in a not so nice way that I should have called Half an hour before the appointment and that this would go down as an Did Not Attend, despite the secretary being very off in her manner I asked if we could reappoint as the appointment was regarding an Urgent referral that had been made with the wrong clinic and that the referral was supposed to Urgent despite 3 weeks passing and hadn't been rectified. With that the receptionist checked the appointment and informed myself that my fiance had been made the GP appointment but that she had Dropped of the system due to her only being temporally registered and the 2 months had expired so she wouldn't have been able to have see the doctor anyway! Obviously this created great confusion and frustration, my fiance had an appointment booked but had she have arrived at the surgery she wouldn't have been able to see the GP?? and was told before my fiance could have an appointment she would have to go to the surgery and register as a permanent patient, I was then asked if my fiance was available to talk (due to patient confidentiality) I told the receptionist that my fiance had just stirred from her sleep due to her bad night of worry and that she was'nt really in a state to talk but she said its fine if a can just talk to her plz so i passed the phone over to my fiance, i was by her side and could hear the receptionist being very abrupt and talking down to my fiance, to that my fiance asked the receptionist said 'excuse me iv'e only just opened my eyes, would you mind not speaking down to me like something you've just stepped in and talk to me a little more civilly), my fiance was explained why she would'nt have seen a doctor today if she had attended and told to visit the surgery and register as a permanent patient, my fiance hung up, this was a friday so she could'nt get to the surgery until monday as she had her endoscopy to attend that afternoon. Monday came and my fiance realised that her meds were very low and that she needed to register as a permanent patient to avoid complications as in the past, she rang the Surgery and asked what the procedure was to register permanently and that she needed an appointment due to her med's running low. She was told by the receptionist that the surgery would'nt accept her as a patient due to being Verbally Abusive to staff and she had to find another GP surgery, she was also informed a letter was out in the post notifying her as to the reason why. We never received any letter so we rang and asked the Practise Managers name to address our complaint to and was informed Dr X by the receptionist, so we wrote to Dr X asking for a meeting regarding the accusations and what had happened in the past, Dr X replied refusing a meeting/appointment stating that on several occasions my fiance had been verbally abusive to staff and due to the NHS zero tolerance procedure the practise wouldn't accept her as a patient. So we sent a section 10 Data Protection Act Request for my fiances notes and copies of any documentation including notes of the alleged verbal and abusive behaviour including dates and copies of any referrals made urgent or non urgent and to which clinic, along with the stat £10.00 postal order. we have since been sent a reply from Dr X returning our postal order stating that they no longer hold any records and enclosed a list of dates and circumstances that my fiance was supposed to have been verbally abusive to staff but these are written in his letter not copies and to be honest none of the dates tally with appointments she had and the seems all fictional there's double appointments she has missed apparently after the date her notes so called dropped of the system??? the GP clearly refers to evidence he holds in his hands and on a recent telephone call to the surgery with an enquiry about my fiances sicknotes the typed her name in their system and they informed us of dates that they stared and finished in the past, so obviously something is on their system. We sent a letter notifying DRx that he had failed a s10 Request and returned the postal order and that the days are still counting down, and just had a reply stating that ' we do hold statements from staff regarding your communication and conduct during your contact with the surgery, however as it has been abusive both in the surgery and over the telephone I'am refusing to release those statements to you on the grounds that should I do so, I feel there is a real risk of my staff having further abuse which is not acceptable' and that he has taken advise from his local NHS information Governance Support Officer. We have since found out that Dr X isn't the practise manager as informed although Dr X has taken it upon himself to reply and that Dr Y is the Official Practise manager. (again informed by receptionist that Dr X was Practise Manager???) Can anyone please advise if this is correct??? if we can continue persuing any documentation they hold on my fiance?? the pure incompetence of the receptionists is unbelievable and beyond belief the claims being made are so far from the truth, my fiance has been with her old GP for 13 years and not one complaint made against her but yet she moves here and within 2 months there's two or three and I have been with her in the surgery at the alleged times and also within earshot on the phone.. and none of these alligations are true. Since this farce with the Local Gp and only a week after the refusal to re register there my fiance ended up in hospital for two weeks prior to christmas and this could have been avoided had she her GP to call on... Again sorry for the lenthy post just hope we can get some help/advise Hadituptohere

Hi all, Currently have a claim in with the FOS over a mortgage PPI claim back in 1987. This in on behalf of my father (who was alive 2-years ago when he submitted the claim) but has now died. I am continuing it on behalf of my mother. I have today received a rejection letter from the FOS stating that they don't think the policy was miss sold and that it was suitable for my father who was self employed. When we made the claim my Farher distinctly recalled that he was told he had to have the policy otherwise he wouldn't get the endowment mortgage when he tried to make a claim on the policy, as he was self employed, he was told he would have to renounce his company with HMRC etc in order to make a claim. There's little we can do about the issue of being 'forced' to take out the policy on the threat of next getting the mortgage, but hopefully there is something I can do about the policy not being suitable for a self employed person. I attach the front page of the mortgage PPI certificate which Halifax have provided to FOS unbelievable, they cant find the rest of the pages which I assume would say under what circumstances a claim can be made - I know its a long shot but does anyone have a copy of the rest of the document - which I assume will be general terms and conditions. Thanks in advance.

Hello I am currently going through the reclaiming of PPI from Halifax.. but I am also considering applying for additional compensation to help me make repayments of the loan, I took out a loan through B O S ( Halifax), but insisted on a sound and secure insurance protection.. Reason being that I had a Stroke a couple of years previous and wanted to protect myself.. I was also Self Employed!! So as to kept this first step short. . I went to great lengths to cover myself, and now I have been ill again. . second minor Stroke the Halifax has told me " I am not Covered.. As I had a previous Stroke" Can I ask/Demand additional Compensation to cover the problems I am now experiencing because of the false information given at the time. . I think I have a case, I have the Transcripts from a telephone conversation, Where I ask if a previous medical Condition will effect the policy and the reply being " Not if its over 12 months since you had the Problem ( 1st Stroke) It is also states that I quoted " If I cant have a policy that gives me 100% protection, I don't want ANY loan or credit. So Far I have been ignored by both Halifax Insurance and BoS Any advise or information would be invaluable

I am wondering whether to buy a car with a credit card because of s75 protection, if it goes wrong quite quickly. I have read up on it but I can find nothing new and wondered if I would be protected. I can transfer funds to the credit card to avoid the interest rates a few days later. Al input welcome regards as always Jack

Hi all Please could I get some advice regarding an issue with opus energy. My father who owns a takeaway was visited by 2 British has guys on behalf of opus energy to check the meter (something which they did on all the shops on the parade) . After a quick check they advised my father the meter is over 20 years old so would therefore need to be replaced. They phoned back after a few days and made an appointment to visit and exchange it. On the day of the visit, 4 guys turned up (not sure why it required 4 of them) and went about their work about 15 mins later they produced a seal and told my father this wasn't the correct seal. My father simply said oh ok, as he wouldn't have a clue about it. They then went to leave and before doing so told my father the meter reading had been written down on a piece of pAper and left by the phone. Having only read the letter 2 days later (as my father assumed it was just a meter reading as advised) it's from revenue protection services for opus energy stating 'we have reason to believe the gas meter may have been prevented from registering all the gas used. We have therefore removed the meter and placed it in a sealed box which will remain sealed until the meter is removed for testing' It then says to call a number if we wish to witness the test being carried out or have any queries. This has come as a huge shock to my father who's not sure what to do as it appears he's being accused (pending tests) of energy theft. The gas men seem to have taken all the above action yet not once mentioned to my father, the meter wasn't even sealed infront of him either. Does anyone have any experience in dealing with such an issue and have any advise they could please share, Please advise Midlands bloke

Hi, I've had the unfortunate experience of having to deal with British Gas customer services since January to date. They're aggressive, ignorant, incompetent and disconnected in many ways, to the extent that their collections team are unable to view things going on with the account in the billing team. Its clear that I'm getting nowhere with them by complaining, so I've resorted to: Transferring to Ovo (Who have been brilliant so far) Spreading the word and telling everyone I know about Ovo. Most significantly though, I have raised two e-petitions on the government website to force British Gas into improving their services. One has been accepted and one has just been submitted. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Energy Suppliers Service Related Charging Responsible department: Department for Energy and Climate Change I would like the government to impose a mechanism upon the Energy industry whereby a company's charges are determined by the levels of service they provide, as with the Water Industry & SIM (Service Incentive Mechanism). This would force the likes of British Gas with a 39% customer satisfaction rating (Which? 28/04/14) to concentrate on improving their services to customers. --- ******** http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/64429 ********** --- Recently, 'British Petroleum' embarrassed our nation with their disaster in America. 'British Gas' currently have a 39% Customer Satisfaction Rating from a 'Which?' survey. I would like the government to licence the use of the name 'British' in company names to ensure that any company using it, provides a world class service that reflects traditional British qualities. Quality of service should be measurable with pre-defined parameters that companies must meet before they are allowed to use OUR good name. --- I hope you agree with these sentiments. If you do, please help and sign my petition. Also, please don't forget to confirm your entry by clicking the link in the email they send you. Best Regards, Rob

Hi there, I have recently been stopped and cautioned by a Revenue Protection Officer at an un-manned train station. I usually buy a ticket whenever I travel on public transport. This time, however, I had got on a train at a manned station in a rush. I had my money ready to pay the fare but since no conductor passed on the train I couldn't purchase a ticket. I still had the money in my hand when I was stopped by the officer when I got off the train so it was clear I had the intention of paying the fare. After I gave the officer my details he told me I would receive a letter in a few weeks time asking me to pay the fare. However, after reading the previous thread and the replies I am now worried about the consequences. I understand it is a criminal offence but does every offender get convicted or can it be dealt with simply through a fine? Thank you for your reply. Elaine

My wife and I have two Life Insurance policies with AVIVA (taken out in 2002) and I've just realised that they both have Premium Protection attached. I don't remember why we were sold the protection at the time as we were both in secure employment. Could we have been mis-sold this aspect of the policy and could we therefore reclaim the amount of the premium that paid for it?

Wonder if anyone can give any advice about this... .yesterday I got a letter from my Ostomy supply company,Pelican, telling me an ex employee was contacting the users of this company asking them to change to their , newly set up, company to supply our ostomy needs, I am a little worried about how he got mine and other clients of the companies details, has there been a DPA violation?