Hi, I'm posting for SWIM but I hope you can offer advice. My friend's been on JSA for nearly 12 months, but the truth of it is she doesn't really want a job. She's in one of those benefit trap positions where she lives in London and gets so much housing benefit that if she were to work then she'd have to move out of her flat, because work wouldn't pay. Yep, crazy I know, but that's the reality. However, now she's coming up to a year of signing on, her adviser has referred her to Work Program and is also threatening some sort of Community Payback gig where she'll have to remove graffiti like some sort of common criminal, or volunteer for some immigrant charity which she disagrees with out of principle. So, she was told that if she went to the doctor and said she felt A&D (which apparently is the buzzword for anxious and depressed) then the GP would give her a sick note she could take to her adviser and claim ESA instead which would get her out of any of the nastiness which is being threatened. Is it really that simple? Just because apparently everyone's doing it, I'm not sure it's right. What about the people who are really depressed?

Eldest daughter is just about to move out of a house she rents with three friends in London- it's rented and managed by one of the bigger London agents. They are all listed on the tenancy agreement. She's been there several years and the tenancy agreement has been extended etc. There is provision in the contract to move out mid tenancy, subject to a charge, and various conditions, including finding a replacement tenant. She's been made aware of the Right to Rent legislation which appears to apply from 1st Feb by the agent. Now, she's planning to move before 1st Feb, and they have a new tenant lined up and approved by the agency / landlord.. However, she's being told that the other three tenants (who are also within contract) have to have the Right to Rent check done- at a not inconsiderable charge - and that she's likely to have to bear the cost of this. As I understand it, the legislation applies to new tenancies. I would also have thought that said managing agent would have all the documents already on file to satisfy the legislation, taken as part of the screening and reference procedure when they moved in... She's also been told that the fee to change tenant is £50 more than it says in the contract that she signed.. Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

pls delete

Hey all, just checking my wife's statutory report online for the first time in over 6 years using equifax and there is 1 account which is very odd, details below 13/12/2007 Account fell in to arrears in May 2008 and late markers placed on file, NO PAYMENTS made 100% sure since may 2008 yet this account was not defaulted until 29/6/2010, thats is more than 2 years after last payment. I know its only 6 months and it will drop off anyway, but is it worth me trying to sort this, this should have come off her file 2 years ago. Account in question is Communications Supplier from Bt Consumer and the balance is under £60 Thanks

went into Nottingham town today parked on the road paid the fee and walked into town. noticed a car had a ticket on the window thought that's a nice Christmas box for someone. when I came back saw he/she had another on the window so being nosy looked in the window to see if he had a parking ticket and they had but it had run out nearly 2 hours ago. so is this legal? and if so how how many tickets can you get in one session?

Baby's early arrival leaves parents stranded in New York for three months with £130,000 medical bill A couple on a four-day trip to America have been stranded for three months after their baby was born prematurely. Katie Amos, 30, went into labour during a New York sightseeing trip with fiance Lee Johnston, 29. Only hours later their son Dax was born weighing just 3lb – 11 weeks before his due date. Doctors said the baby will not be able to fly home to Britain until March... Full Story

I know. The title says an EBay seller gets it right which in some cases can be a rarity however, a recent experience has left me extremely impressed. Now, I am no fashion victim so I don't care what I buy so long as it works. In this case, a smart phone. I bought a Chinese knock off called a Timmy M7 but after a month the internal speaker went wrong(I couldn't here callers although they could hear me) I started the returns process through Ebay and the next day got a message offering me a refund of £15 to get the phone repaired. They also asked me to close the returns process as it 'affected their standing with Ebay'? I replied stating that I wouldn't close the process whilst the case was ongoing and to supply me with a returns label or an agreement to repay me my postage costs. The next message I got left me gobsmacked. They said they would send me out a new phone and I didn't need to return the old one so long as I closed the returns process which I agreed to on condition that they fulfil their promise. Yesterday, a brand new phone turned up. I couldn't be more happy with this seller. Sometimes things do go right. The only thing I would say to Ebay sellers from China. Stop pretending you are English. You may have a warehouse in England but the format of the letters and the time difference between replies suggests posts are sent to China and I haven't yet heard of a Chines person with the name Malcolm

hi Has anyone dealing with ulster bank, been told this. Spoke to ryan in ulster bank asking how I can obtain statements from 2003/2004.....he informed me that Ulster bank can only go back 7 years,, and that I would need to get a court order with a judges signature to request more than 7 years... Is he right in saying this, what does a SAR letter enforce ?? thanks all

Really interesting article about online right to forget issues. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/when-should-the-internet-forget-20151031-gknt4w.html I think people do have rights to wipe internet records about historic issues, but not sure who should Police this. Surely it should be subject to an application to an official body and anyone who would have interest should have ability to lodge an objection. There should be a noticeboard somewhere on Google or elsewhere showing right to forget applications, so that those against an application can register an objection.

The iron is a Breville 2400W Digital iron. This morning, like every Monday, I was heating up the iron (2/5th setting) like normal. I put my trousers on the board and then as soon as the iron touched the nylon trousers, it stuck to it and burnt a hole in them. They were my only decent pair, and fairly new which were £40 from Debenhams. I've done this many times before without any issues, it just looks like now that the iron heated up much more than it should have. I could prove this too with an infrared heat sensor. http://imglnk.uk/img?i=yepJVY http://imglnk.uk/img?i=BYuVIZ Even the ironing board cover melted slightly. What shall I do about this?

Hi There, Been green when it comes to what I can and cant do so just hoping for general impartial advice. My Ex has moved into a new house with her new partner (8 weeks after leaving me and our children in the family home) I currently have the children with me and it's all going through a court so clearly unable to go into the level of details however it's been ordered that our youngest child spends all day with mum 3 days per week. The night before the first day of contact I received a call from her requesting that I pack nappies, wipes, toys & spare clothes for our child. I requested that she too also provides for our children but got the response "I don't get any money for them anymore you do so you need to provide the things that I require for when I have them" This to me doesn't sound right. She currently works during the evenings and her new partner does not work but surely I'm within my rights to ask for her to either pay money to me towards the upbringing of our children or at the very least provide the basics when she has our children over for contact?? I just wanted someone to give me some impartial advice on how to proceed with this. Clearly I've took to here as I'm not in a financial position myself right now to fund a legal adviser.

Our property got repossessed by Cheshire mortgages and after complaining to the ombudsman regarding the way it happened ombudsman said is an issue that they will not get involved and has to be resolved in court basically. After that we got a call from Cheshire saying they sold the flat and there are several thousands of pounds outstanding but they were willing to work with us and lower the amount to 168 pounds. We told them that we found it strange that they repossessed the property for less money than that (and refusing to accept any settlement offer from us) and now they were willing to write off double that amount. He kept asking if we are planning to take them to court we said we haven't thought about it yet and that we wanted a full statement of the account and a formal letter with the redemption figure and how they arrived to that amount. For a few months they kept saying they send it to us we received nothing we told them that they kept saying they will send it again. Three weeks ago I called them again they said they needed to ask the team that deals with this to re issue a figure because our previous one expired. And that in 5 days we will get a letter. Today I called them to ask for the documents again and I said o received nothing. The lady on the phone said we owe nothing and the account is closed. I asked if we will receive a statement and a letter confirming that she said no. Are all the above normal practices? Anybody who knows more than us maybe can enlighten us? Thanks

I haven't been on CAG for a while for the last 18 months I have had an ongoing battle with my electricity/gas supplier who have applied 3 times for a Right of Entry. Each time I have attended the magistrates court to contest the application and on two occasions it was refused and on one withdrawn . I just wanted to say it can be done and if you present your case calmly give an overview, a chronological history of who said/did what and when, actions you have taken, what you would like to happen and a conclusion, then the magistrates, at least in my experience, seem to appreciate you bothered to turn up and came down on my side. The three Enforcement Officers, all different, applying for the warrants at court have all been pleasant. One was so surprised I had turned up he said he wasn't going to apply for the warrant as he knew nothing about the back ground to the the issues surrounding the warrant application, so withdrew it. The second time, I went on the stand and the enforcement guy beforehand was actually very helpful. The third time he was OK but had a slight whiff of bailiff attitude about him. All three were woefully ill prepared and did not seem to have any information beyond they are there to gain a warrant. On the three occasions I have attended, I have been the only person with a warrant application for Right of Entry to have turned up. From what I saw the magistrates ask some very cursory questions and rubber stamp all the warrants. So my advice is take courage, go to the court, put your case and fight your corner even if it is just to by yourself some time.

God what a mess!! I will try and explain this as best I can but I have gone so far and don't know if I am doing this right. I have two accounts with Santander which makes matters worse coz I'm not sure if I should now separate them into two claims: 1 account I had a £1000 overdraft on it and I used to pay £20 per month for the privilege, I need to clarify this detail as they have removed the account so I cannot see the statements anymore but I think I forgot to pay the £20 one month. My wages were now with another bank but as long as I paid the £20 Santander were happy with the overdraft just sitting there. As I forgot this is how it escalated in bank charges from £45, £100, £150, £150 & £120 so now the amount owing is £1604.99 of which £565.00 is charges. I have a 123 account which went £9.95 overdrawn and then after a few unpaid charges of £5, £10 they started putting on big charges up to £380 pounds. I recently paid this account £81.23 which is what I felt I owed them and this now leaves the £380 in big bank charges. I phoned Santander in December and they did an income and expenditure with me over the phone and said I needed to speak with Stepchange as I stupidly got mixed up with Payday loans. I wrote in April and they were going to go through my Income & Expenditure but never heard back from them by phone or letter. I wrote a LBA and I have just received a final response saying sod off basically. Do I really have a leg to stand on or should I take it to the Financial Ombudsman or Small Claims Court and see if they are bluffing? I should mention that the £1604.99 amount has been passed to Robinson Way and they have registered a Default. All I wanted them to do was to remove the £565 in unfair bank charges so that I could set up a payment plan for the remaining amount and start repaying my overdraft!! The £380 they are threatening me with a Default at the moment so I expect any day this will appear on my credit file. I explained in my letter that whilst an account was in dispute they can't do that but they said that as far as they were concerned my accounts were not in dispute!!

Hi All As title stated, how can insurance company cancel policy for no reason or even false reason. I had a motor transportation insurance which been cancelled by the insurance company with no reason giving and even without my knowledge, Did read some thread over here claiming insurance company only require to sent a recorded letter regardless if received or not and regardless of the cancellation reason. The cancellation has cost me so far £20000 refund for customer's booking. hire purchase, rent , mortgage, wages. and had to shut down my business totally as no any other insurance company are willing to offer me alternative insurance due to the crazy cancellation. this is the first question i been asked by the other insurance company did you had any policy cancelled or void, obviously i have to say the truth and have nothing to hide, i do have a clean licence with 10 years no claim bonus. when i did contact the insurance company ( the broker ) claim it is not them who cancelled it and i need to speak with staveley head, spoken with them they claim i have no space at my house address to sell cars or to keep my recovery trucks, but i am not trading from home,never said so, and they already has my industrial estate business address, then they change they word and says the industrial estate showing as Tesco site, then no it is a caravan site !!! well there is a caravan site at the end of the industrial estate but has nothing to do with me, also Tesco is 2 miles away, however they asked for pictures of my unit and yard space around and i did sent them all pictures and even with video. the insdustrial unit has a large yard of 800 Sqm , then to the date no reply what so ever even after i sent 2 other email and recoded letter. I am so close to be a bankrupt and have no idea what do it, it is been well over a month now and don't even have fund to pay for a solicitor as i have to keep my payment for the hire purchase vehicle , did make a complaint to the financial ombudsman however they claim i have to wait 8 weeks if no reply from the insurance company, thinking about taking a legal action myself, however there is no much information online about the real truth if the insurance company in UK have the right to cancel any insurance policy regardless of the reason or not. any help will be much appreciated

p3t3r wrote: The Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access - this is a perfectly valid notice, - my opinion of this is backed up by the ruling from Judge Pugh which is shown earlier in this thread. The notice is akin to 'No Cold Callers' notices which are supplied by various police forces, councils etc. In relation to bailiffs, the notice is not considered to be valid. Firstly, there is no implied right of access for a bailiff since it is an explicit right. The bailiff has the right to attend the property and as such ignore the notices. IMPORTANT: Anyone relying on this notice to get rid of the bailiff is more likely to suffer financially since they are presumably under the illusion that such a notice would simply get rid of the bailiff. In this instance, the notice is absolutely useless because the bailiff does not have an implied right whatsoever, the bailiff has an explicit right - which is backed up by UK legislation which affords such right to the bailiff. Again, this is backed up by Judge Pugh. So, whilst the notices are akin to 'no cold callers' notices and apply to the vast majority of people, the notices do not apply to people who have a legal right to attend your home. The bailiff has a legal right in UK law to attend a debtors home. The reliance on such notices by individuals can lead to a dangerous scenario since the individual is under the false illusion purported by FMOTL that the notices are valid. Again, to put it simply, the notices are not valid to anyone who has a legal right to attend a home - and this includes bailiffs who are given the legal right to attend a home. Now, turning to a possibility as to how the notice is valid against bailiffs. EU law, ECHR, human rights... Lets take an example of council tax. If a debtor can not pay council tax, then their ability to pay should be assessed by a court. My opinion: If the person does not have an ability to pay, then allowances should be made by the court. In no circumstance should a liability order be granted on a person who does not have an ability to pay their council tax since as this is perverse! There is absolutely no point in instructing bailiffs to attend a debtors home and therefore significantly increase the debt by adding on bailiff fees. However, in the case of a debtor who can afford to pay but does not pay, then bailiffs should attend. IMO, bailiffs should be used as a last resort against the debtor who refuses to pay where all other possibilities have been exhausted such as deductions from benefits, salary deductions etc. There are IMO various EU laws which would help with the validity of the Notice Of Removal Of Implied Right Of Access. Firstly, the right to a fair trial. There is absolutely no fair trial in the scenario of council tax where liability orders are processed almost automatically, 'rubber stamped' by the Judges. This goes against ECHR article 6, the right to a fair trial. If the debtor has not had a right to a fair trial as defined by ECHR article 6, then the bailiff should be informed of this in conjunction with ECHR article 8, the right of respect for his home, family etc. The debtor should make their case known to the bailiff and the bailiffs client. If the bailiff does not leave the property after being informed of ECHR article 6 and article 8, then it could be argued that the bailiff is in violation of those applicable laws. This is my opinion and until someone actually tests the legality of this in a court, then it is just that, an opinion. A (BBC?) report which can be seen from one of my links in this thread from a few years ago states that the use of bailiffs should decrease since the human rights act. Unfortunately, I feel the reverse has happened in the fact that liability orders are rubber stamped and as such bailiff use has increased rather than decreased. Again,I reiterate that use of such notices are ineffective against bailiffs and other people who have a legal right under UK legislation to attend the home of a debtor. However, as Judge Pugh has outlined, the notices are valid toward those people who do not have a legal right to be at the property. Usage of such notices used in conjunction with that of various EU laws and human rights should IMHO prevent the bailiff from attending the property until such time that a FAIR TRIAL (article 6 ECHR) has occurred. The debtor should then escalate their case using ECHR and EU law in order to provide remedy. Summary: Notice of implied right of access is perfectly valid, but not valid against people (bailiffs) who have an explicit legal right to attend. However, such right should be examined under EU law since I feel that more often than not, article 6 has been violated (fair trial) which would then lead to article 8 violated. EU law / ECHR - This trumps UK law! Whilst people may have an explicit right under UK law to attend a debtors home, this is not necessarily so using EU law. Discuss.

Six years ago (in 2009) a Freeman on the Land (FMoTL) supporter by the name of Mike Dobson (Mike:of the clan Dobson) drafted a Removal of Implied Right of Access notice which he used to ‘scare off bailiffs’. He advised on the Freeman Ireland website that the notice should be put up at the boundary of the ‘private estate’ and the ‘public access way/street’ and that if a bailiff came to the door of the house they should be politley told that they would be trespassing and that they would have just 60 seconds to leave before a call would be made to the Police. Due entirely to the internet, the Removal of Implied Right of Access notice drafted by Mike Dobson went 'viral' and appeared on the Freeman on the Land’s favorite media outlet; YouTube. In 2010, the notice first appeared on the popular FMoTL forum; Get out Of Debt Free. Within a short time all popular Freeman on the Land websites carried the notice with many of them making their own changes to the wording. In March 2014 I researched the background to these silly notices and started a thread on this subject which to date has received over 12,000 visitors (link below): http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from PS: Unfortunately, the internet sites that recommended using this notice were unaware that the notice proved to be a complete and utter failure for it’s author; Mike Dobson (see link below) http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?420602-Notice-of-Removal-of-Implied-Right-of-Access-(NOROIRA)....where-did-these-bizarre-notices-come-from&p=4664219&viewfull=1#post4664219

Hello all, I need some advice, I was at work last week and received a phone call my HR department to attend a meeting they wouldn't say what it was about over the phone. so at this point I had no idea I was going to be suspended. I work at a local branch where you can drive in to work, I was asked to attend the meeting at a city centre branch and therefore had to go home to get bus fare at this point I became ill. I called up my manager to inform them I would be unable to attend and she passed the phone to a guy from HR, who became very rude over the phone and demanded I attend this meeting and that he was removing my right to self certify for sickness as per my employment contract. I asked him to put this in writing and he refused and gave me 1 hour to get to the city centre branch or the option for them to come to my home. I felt really pressurised into allowing them to come to my home because I was to ill to attend. Can they do this? At this meeting which took place in my home, I was suspended. I have worked for them for over 8 years and I think they have dealt with this matter very poorly. After this meeting I contacted my doctor and made the next available appointment and have since been signed off sick with depression and anxiety for the next 4 weeks due to something unrelated that has happened in my personal life. However, my employer are now unwilling to accept my sick note due to me being currently suspended and this why I believe they didn't allow myself to self certify. Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks Jane

Hello, I was wondering if anyone knows if I can find a written statement anywhere that states that as a consumer, under UK law, I have a right to shop around for the best deal on goods and services. I have spent a couple of hours looking around online but cannot find a statement like this anywhere. Any help anyone can give would be very much appreciated Thanks in advance. Pickles18

Afternoon! Really really hoping you guys can offer some advice. I have received a claim form from Northampton County Court Business Centre, SUM is for 664 inclusinve of costs. I have parked in a private "wasteland" car park, tucked away on the side of a building, subsequent to this i did receive PCN's however took local advice and one even from a police office to simply ignore. Having ignored these (first dated 03/10/2014) I have today received the claim letter along with a letter from the solicitors detailing the particlulars of claim. I wouild like to defend this case given that my job would be put in substantial jeapordy should this be awarded against me (work in financial services) Any advice - PLEASE!

This is my first post on here. Any help will be greatly appreciated. I seen a house that I liked so I arranged a viewing, when speaking to the estate agent who showed me around she said the property had been on the market for around a year with very little interest and that the property was for sale because the owner went bankrupt whilst he was renting this property out. Taking these few things into consideration I thought I would make a cheeky offer of 100k hoping that they would want a quick sale due to the bankruptcy situation (the property was on the market for 117,950). Two days later I rang the estate agent to see if there was any news she said she hadn't heard back from the trustees yet and in the end it took them a week to decide to reject my offer and make the decision to take the property off the market due to the property being in negative equity. If you've got this far I thank you for your time and basically what I want to no is what do you think they will do now? Will they file for repossesion and therefore the property will be up for sale again shortly? If so how long would it take before its back up for sale? Or will they do something different? Obviously the mortgage company want as much money back as possible therefore the only way I can see this happening is by them selling it. One thing I've thought of is will the trustees possibly take charge of the property and rent it out until the property price increases until they case sell it for what they need to take the property out of negative equity? Thanks

Hello All I just got my husbands yearly statement for his life insurance UNBELIEVABLE !!! Its an adaptable term plan and most its ever gone up is a couple of pound every year WE have had this policy for 20 years This year they have uped payment from £36 pcm to £166 how does that work? Surely they cannot increase premium this much £214,000 cover (which I think is less than last years cover have to check) for £166 pcm Gob Smacked ! and to make matters worse their letter dated 1st March was received today which now gives me 10 days to deal with this. HELP HELP HELP

Hi I recently bought a new car from Arnold Clark mid February. Who even though instructed I did not want the service plan included it in the purchase. However I were persuaded by the salesperson it was a good deal and that it would prolong and complicate the process to take it out at that stage. My main concerns were that there would be a mileage limitation and that none genuine parts would be used on my car endangering the manufacturers warranty. The salesperson assured me there was no mileage restriction and only genuine parts were used and services would be in line with manufacturers schedule. I have not received any documentation about the service plan from Arnold Clark. Looking at their website they offer service plans for vehicles under 42 months but they do have a mileage limitation of 24k miles. The service plan would possibly expire before the second service was due (intervals of 1 year or 20k miles). It is over a month after the purchase of my car and I am regretting taking this package as at £379 for 2 years it doesn't seem that great a value for money and is causing a lot of headaches. What would my rights be if I were to want to cancel the service plan?

to cut a long story short.....after many complaints to external management about working conditions i decided enough was enough and handed my notice in, i asked my manager what holiday entitlement i had and was told 22 days, it is not possible to view your own record on the system we had or amend it, things deteriorated and i eventually walked out. In a nutshell i was regularly working in excess of 60 hours whilst being paid for 48. i then get a zero payslip stating that the holiday that the system showed was incorrect and i had 1 days holiday.. i asked them formally for a record of all holidays taken and hours worked in those weeks and got the vaguest reply without all this information, i also should have been given TOIL for bank holidays which they admitted hadn't been given so they are crediting the cash value against the overpayment they made to me. I also asked how they would recompense me for additional hours worked over and above my normal hours and they stated that my contract contains an opt out of the WTD and that i should have opted in to this if i didn't want to work over 48 hours. this doesn't answer my question on the company policy into how these hours should be compensated for, i have an email from my manager stating that she required me to work up to 55 hours a week and she would help me to write rosters that meant i didn't need to, she never did help me. so my query is really............ do i have to opt in to the working time directive? are they required to pay me for all hours worked over and above the 48 contracted for? can they recover overpayments from me if i dispute that i owe it? do they have to provide all the information i am requesting and can i do anything if i dispute the amount of holiday taken using my own records? thanks for any help

"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