Citizens Advice Bureau are asking people to donate a tweet and tell the Government that it wasnt OK to drop the Bailiff Regulation. CitizensAdvice We'd really like people to donate a tweet and tell the Government it wasn't OK to drop bailiff regulation thunderclap.it/projects/1554-… Link to the Thunderclap Project https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/1554-let-bailiff-victims-complain

As the title says came out on 18th March 2013 This is the link: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2013/03/advice-for-landlords-on-bedroom-tax18032013 This is a PDF of that link:

This honestly doesn't surprise me. All I can say to those of you who use the website be careful.... http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/dec/11/fake-adverts-government-jobs-website

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21245308

The enforcement and advice sector were taken by surprise late this evening when news channels contacted them for interviews in connection with the Press Release issued to the media last night outlining how the Ministry of Justice plan to regulate the bailiff industry. Included in the Press Release are the following: Mandatory training scheme for bailiffs Bailiffs who do not follow the rules will be barred Stop bailiffs entering homes when children only are present Stop bailiffs using force against debtors. Bailiff will only be able to enter homes between 6am and 9pm Will also legislate on a set of rules and fees detailing when the bailiff can entry property, what goods they can take and a fees structure which will end excessive and multiple fees. Ensure vulnerable people will get assistance and advice Train bailiffs to recognise vulnerable people. The press release only provides a brief outline of the proposed changes and further details will be announced by the government in the morning. Interviews will be taking place on breakfast channels and radio stations in the morning so be sure to watch or tune in. Good night..........

Have you all seen this! http://www.rossendaleshighcourtenforcement.com/index.php/news/37/51/Rossendales-Secure-Prestigious-Government-Standard Rossendales Secure Prestigious Government Standard Rossendales has now secured the prestigious Customer Service Excellence (CSE) Government Standard! When it comes to Customer Service the Government is very clear, “They want services for all that are efficient, effective, excellent, equitable and empowering – with the citizen always and everywhere at the heart of service provision.” Rossendales has won significant Central Government Contracts recently e.g. HMRC,CMEC (Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission) and The Student Loans Company . These Central Government contracts sit alongside our already, well established, Local Authority Client Base . It seemed appropriate therefore that we sought accreditation against a standard that is held in such high regard by Government. We are particularly pleased in having succeeded in our objective to be the first Bailiff Company to acquire this prestigious standard, thus reinforcing our intention to consolidate our position as market leader within the industry. We were required to evidence a range of criteria, including: consulting and involving customers setting and meeting the highest standards of service using resources to the maximum efficiency being innovative constantly looking to improve treating our staff and customers fairly. Within the assessment, applicants were allowed up to 11 ‘Partial non-conformances’ – Rossendales had none. Recipients normally reach ‘compliance’ status. Rossendales have been awarded ‘Compliance Plus’ status in recognition of our exceptional achievements in the following areas: Staff – Highly commended for their Professionalism and Attitude towards customers. Welfare – Dedicated department to help and signpost Vulnerable Customers and persons in severe financial difficulties. Innovation – In particular, the ‘Client Web’ which empowers Clients to securely view and update our case management system in real time and to track individual case progressions. Working Relationships - Providers, Partners and Communities Delivery – Body Worn Video Cameras for our field force to allow for greater visit transparency and accountability.. The CSE assessor concluded the inspection by stating: “It’s unusual for any company to achieve this award at the first assessment. This is an amazing achievement.” LL:???:

Read more.. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20950691

Please read the following linked post. From 50m to 20m for mobility element It is vitally important people should be made aware of this. The sneaky change of criteria from 50m to 20m means that a huge number of people who depend on their car for working, shopping, socialising and everything else able-bodied people take for granted and part of their normal life, will lose their main tool of independence. To give you an idea of what 20 meters represent, see below: upload pics or imagine this: unrolled. This is it. If you can walk, shuffle, mobilise beyond that distance, you can not qualify for the upper mobility element under the new criteria. And of course, they sneaked it in over the xmas holidays, with no consultations, hoping to get it set in the regulations and present all of us with a fait accompli.

Ok, first I'm not really back, just doing Lex a favour as he's swamped (well, he said hammered, but I think he meant swamped, lol) so put the pitchforks away! Second, THIS is far too important not to spread around, but I have no idea where it should go, so "Rural communities" it is for now, mods feel free to move elsewhere if required. I cannot stress enough the importance of the Coastguards. As I read elsewhere, they are the 4th emergency service and this is so reckless it takes my breath away. If you live near the sea (and in the UK, none of us are very far from a coast!) then this concerns you too. Bookie

The Government are opening up Data for Transparency You can look through what Data is available and download the csv files. Here's the link for the Dwp Data available. http://data.gov.uk/data/search?q=dwp

The Government refuses to regulate Payday loan companies. The Government has given the green light to Payday loan companies to carry on charging thousands of percent interest on loans and to bully and threaten those who take out a loan. They have 'refused' to discuss the growing trend and misery caused by this legal rip-off. Jo Swinson, the minister for Employment, Relations and Consumer Affairs said "It makes sense to leave it and wait to see if the companies come up with some voluntary control". What a disgusting statement from some stuck up cow who lives on state money. She said they might have a chat about it next summer.

Hi All I would like to take vodafone to task for continuously harrassing me for over 13 months for call charges made from China when my sim card was lost/stolen. The total charged to me was over 2k. The ineptness and frustrations of dealing with the people at vodafone have been incredible. What I want to do is bring pressure on the government by ordering the mobile phone industry to protect their customers similar to the security my Lloyds bank have in place. When an unusual amount tries to be debited from my card it is declined and I have to ok the release of funds with Lloyds, how simple and effective. Ok the time involved going through Lloyds security is abit of a pain but if it protects my money thats great. If the mobile phone industry are forced to be financially liable for events happening outside their precious terms and conditions and block sudden increases in usage, this will help victims like myself and doubltless other victims who have been bullied into submission. The mobile phone industry would soon get their own security methods sorted if they were hit in their profit sheets. My credit rating was attacked which I only found out when I was refused credit in another national store. Embarassing or what!! I would appreciate any thoughts and experiences, we the people cannot allow this to continue and bring dispair and misery to people who are at no fault but purely victims of a crime.

I don't know what this government is about. They , especially Cameron and Osborne , seem determined to alienate the ordinary working people in this country with their never-ending onslaought on our rights and freedoms. Despite all the promises made before the last election , they have no decided to do away with a lot of the rules regarding planning , developing green field land , and radical reforms of the benefit system due to come in next April that will cause hardship to millions. They don't seem to care at all about the ordinary man in the street. The main problem is Miliband and Co does not seem to offer any hope as well !!!. I will certainly be voting for the only politician worth his salt , and that is Nigel Farage of UKIP. A pity they stand no chance of winning anything other that ousting the pathetic Lib Dems into fourth place at the next election:-)

I have had Fibromyalgia symptoms for 3 years and have recently been officially diagnosed,( previously treated for depression, vitamin d deficiency ) the fibromyalgia is probably because I have joint hypermobility syndrome (Ehlers Danlos type 3) and the years of over extending, long periods sitting and standing has exacerbated the condition. In 2010 I was moved to a ‘back office’ function, retaining my grade and pay. My health status did not improve but was not getting worse as I could pace myself; this was considered a reasonable adjustment. I have a rheumatologist and twice yearly OH appointments and generally my employer has been reasonable, for example allowing me to take disability leave for medical appointments and physiotherapy/Pilates. I have now been informed the unit I work in, where, incidentally I received a £500 bonus for my exceptional work is closing and I will be redeployed to another department. However, I will lose the allowances I received for weekend working and shift work this amounts to approx. £9000 per annum. I work annualized hours and this was agreed collectively at the beginning of the year. I will also lose my warrant and be re graded to a position that attracts no allowance and a lower basic salary. The reason I am being moved is that my employer will not send me back to the front line (where my colleagues will retain their warrant, pay and allowances) due to my disability. I believe this is very unfair and I wonder if it amounts to discrimination. Is it possible to be effectively demoted due to a disability? Grateful for advice

Today, the Local Government Ombudsman ( Dr Jane Martin) released to the public a copy of her report into Blaby Council. The Press release issued on their website today is as follows: Blaby Council did not exercise proper control over bailiffs it employed to collect council tax debts, finds Local Government Ombudsman, Dr Jane Martin. In her report, issued today, she says: “I am issuing this report in the public interest because the practice of bailiffs’ ‘double charging’ for visits is not uncommon. These bailiffs were acting on behalf of the Council and it was within the Council’s control to contractually curb excessive charges by the bailiffs. I would expect local authorities and their agents to consider the reasonableness of their practice in this area in future and I am pleased that this Council has now done so.” She adds: “The Council has an obligation to collect council tax and to pursue people who do not pay. Mrs S has not paid her council tax for some considerable time. She also failed to honour the payment arrangements made to clear the debt. So the Council was entitled to take enforcement action against her, including instructing bailiffs. But the Council should ensure that the bailiffs who act on its behalf comply with the relevant regulations and that debtors are charged only sums which are properly due. It is clear this did not happen in Mrs S’s case.” Mrs S owed arrears of council tax. She complained that bailiffs employed by the Council to collect her council tax arrears had not acted within the law and had overcharged her. She also complained that the Council failed to properly answer her queries and complaints about these issues, including a serious allegation that four bailiffs tried to break into Mrs S’s property and obtained money from her partner by clamping and taking occupation of a car that was not his. The Ombudsman’s investigation found that the Council failed to exercise proper control over the actions of its bailiffs and the fees it charged. The bailiffs had charged eight visit fees (because Mrs S had arrears for eight years: ie there were eight accounts) on two occasions for one visit by one bailiff, and failed to carry out DVLA checks on the ownership of the vehicles. The Council also failed to properly investigate Mrs S’s complaints until she complained to the Ombudsman. These faults caused Mrs S stress and anxiety, and she had to take significant time and trouble in pursuing her complaints with the Council and the bailiffs. Once the Ombudsman became involved the Council: reduced the fees charged by £630.50 carried out DVLA checks on the vehicles, which showed they did not belong either to Mrs S or her partner, so removed the remaining levies and associated fees, and negotiated a new contract with its bailiffs only allowing one fee to be charged for one visit even where multiple accounts are involved. The Ombudsman finds maladministration causing injustice, and is pleased that the Council has agreed to pay £300 to Mrs S for the distress and inconvenience she was caused, which it will offset against the outstanding council tax arrears. The Ombudsman has urged Mrs S to enter into a reliable regular payment arrangement with the Council to avoid future action, such as an attachment of earnings either through her or her partner

Can someone tell me whether a claimant of housing benefit and/or council tax benefit has to declare when asked by the local council paying this what they have spent their money on? My cousin claims these benefits and was recently asked to produce bank statements which she did. Now her local council have asked her about various outgoings and incomings. She told them what she spent her money on was none of their business. She can understand them asking about the incomings which were only transfers from one bank account to another but the outcomings is a different matter. Or is it? Thank you in anticipation.

A petition has been put together on the government e-petition site to have the government enforce and impose fines on banks / organisations who fail to meet their requirements under the data protection act. We are trying to get as many people as possible to sign the petition and spread word of the petition through social media. http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22295

Hiya, I'm sort of asking for advice on behalf of my mom. I'll start from the beginning so I'm sorry if this is long! My mom is with her partner- he is divorced from his ex-wife. Her partner is her carer, they receive DLA, carer's allowance, a small bit of income support (which is his) and incapacity benefit (which is my mom's). Her partner has always been a hard worker until he had to care for my mother as her health has deteriorated, they put in a claim for income support to help pay the rent etc. Not long after they sorted the claims out, the Government contacted them and said they would be taking X amount each week (I think it's £7) to pay for a debt- claiming he had claimed income support back in 2000 although he was working. He says he hasn't done this and never would- he did work but it wasn't a cash in hand job or anything, so how would he be able to claim JSA and work at the same time? He's asked for proof of his signature numerous times but they have never sent them any information. This has been going on for the past few years and by now they should have paid the debt off. They phoned up today and the first person said they owed £700+ and my mom said they were wrong. They passed them around to different numbers- 2 different people said there was no debt but then the last which was the Government debt collector's- they said it was over £2000! Now when they were first trying to sort this all out, the only way they could access the files was to have the ex-wife's NI number. The first question they asked was "If it's my debt, why would I need her NI number?" The government people didn't know. Then they said it was a joint claim. Then they told them that there were government loans taken out (about 4 of them for various amounts) but because their NI numbers linked from the first Income Support claim (when he was working) they said that he had to pay them back. Now when he and his ex wife were married, they had the same first initials so it would be Mr and Mrs J Bloggs... so if J Bloggs took the debt out, it could have been either of them. So, today they were basically arguing the point that they still hadn't proof of what debt's they were (he really hasn't got a clue- he got up, went to work- he worked nights- and then came home to bed! He left all his wages upto his wife and she sorted the bills and shopping and that was it.) So they've asked for proof in writing, over the phone numerous times each, and they've visited the CAB and they've written letters for them- all of which have been ignored. Today on the phone the lady admitted that the signature etc would have been destroyed by now- the debts were taken out 2000 and before that. So what I need help with is where do they go from here?! I'm sorry it's so long (and confusing!) They are writing in to appeal yet again. We're wondering (and planning on) CC'ing the letter, but we're not quite sure who to etc. Is there any help that you can provide us with? My step-dad (mom's partner) is adament he didn't take it out, he's adament he didn't claim income support and work- I'd say he's one of the most law-abiding citizen's out there, so I really do believe him. Thanks in advance for any help. It's greatly appreciated.