Hi in Sept 2010 I started a p/t degree course. I started the course and then found full time temp job. Jan 2011 found f/t permanent job that meant a lot of study and time away and I could not continue with the Uni course. The course fee was £1920 The Uni gave a grant of £985. I am now being chased by ACT credit for £1920. I haven't contacted them as yet so any suggestions would be helpful. I have the original documents setting out amounts given above.

Parents in private rented property were given s21 notice as landlord wanted to sell. Daughter has been trying to get a mortgage to buy the property and in the meantime the parents have stayed put with the landlord's permission. Notice expired over 2 months ago. The sale is taking longer than the landlord would like and they are threatening to pull out. If they do, will they have to issue a new s21 notice? Am I right in advising that the parents are under no obligation to allow access for viewings etc whilst they are still living there?

Hello all. Been using website for reference on many occasion, so now time to ask a question. I have a debt with Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited for £186, balance opened 07/12/2002. The balance status is "gone away", and defaulting since Aug 2014. [Noddle] For approximately 3-4 years I wasn't paying the balance on account that I was unemployed and the account had insurance, which was being paid for me, for 8 years. (Sorry I don't know much about this, PPI maybe?). I moved address in 2010 and subsequently didn't notify the lender, RiverIsland. Last week I checked my credit file to find I've been defaulting since Aug 2014. I suspect this is when I registered as self employed. I have two questions, firstly does the Limitation Act protect me regarding the debt being older than 6 years since I last acknowledged the debt, even though the balance was being paid on my behalf by insurance? I'd only used the account once in 2002 and not made payment against the debt for 8 yrs or so. Just received statements each month confirming the minimum amount was being paid for me. If the Limitation Act doesn't protect my credit file, is it possible I can agree to pay off the balance in full, and the default notice on my account be removed somehow? It's not the debt which is concerning me, but the detrimental effect on my credit file. I'm not sure if it helps, but they hadn't sent me any letters regarding escalating the debt, (my ex-wife still lives at my original address). Thank you for any advise.

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???

Whilst browsing as I do I now have an important question, the thread title says it all, why? See here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/section/63 See s63 (2)(b)©

Pretext: Have been looking into the possibility of building a solar panel from scratch as part of an allotment project. Bit of fun more than anything. Discovered one of the major hurdles with building any solar panel (commercial or otherwise) is condensation and water vapour. It can severely damage the panel and reduce output, sometimes destroying it altogether. One of the ways they deal with this in commercial panels is to encapsulate the solar cells in a resin or epoxy, which are usually silicone based. Apart from being horrendously expensive to purchase, research is starting to show these encapsulants may still allow moisture to permeate. (You also have to wonder how "green" these resins and epoxies actually are!) Problem is there is not a lot of long-term data to state with any certainty how durable these solar panels actually are, especially in the UK climate. Many manufacturers and green organisations state panels can be expected to last 25 years or more. Installation guarantees are typically 5 years; product workmanship guarantees vary between 5 and 10 years; power output guarantees are usually 25 years. The expected payback time of a solar array is usually around 10 years. The question: If one or more commercial solar panels fail, in reality what protection does the consumer really have? Assuming of course these failures start to occur several years down-track. Are these guarantees really worth the paper they are written on?

Hello, I would like to share my bad experience for which i dont feel good and i feel very unpleasant. One week ago I went to a big chain and i changed the price tag in an item just to save 30 pounds. I changed the tag and went to the cashier and they informed me that the price was not correct which i accepted and left the item there. The total amount were 150pounds I left the shop at that point. After 2 hours i return to make a walk and not to buy the item. The security manager approached me and told me that i am banned from this store and i should leave the store. When he was next to me told me you know why right and i said sorry yes. i left the shop. He did not ask me for my details or anything personal and he did not refer anything about police. I am really sorry and i really thank this gentleman as he handle the situation with a really polite manner. He did not start shouting and put me in a very sad position. I really thank him. I did this mistake and i cant change it now. I wish i could do anything to change it. Do i have to worry about the police might try to track me through public cameras? I really cant sleep and my heart is beating fast all these days. Do i have to worry that i will be arrested? I do not have any intention to do this again or to visit the shop as i respect this gentleman and what i did was totally wrong. Will i be able to visit other stores around the centre? And last will there be any chance to pass any of cctv records to police and try to track me for this? Please tell me your opinion. Regards Michael

Hi, Last year I was diagnosed with ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder), and it transpires that I've had this condition since childhood. I'm now taking Methylphenidate, which has given me a bit more focus with detailed finances and small print etc. The effects throughout life have been subtle but profound, and very destructive in a number of ways; though I masked it somewhat due to being quite intelligent in other areas. One of the effects was (and still is) a difficulty working with figures and managing finances; it takes me about 4 times as long as a 'normal' person to deal with spreadsheets, complex calculations, financial concepts such as PPI etc. Only very recently I realised the implications of this, in regard to PPI mis-selling and reclaiming charges. It appears that, according to the Disability Discrimination Act, people should be covered against discrimination in regard to provision of Goods and Services: nidirect(dot)gov(dot)uk/mental-health-and-the-disability-discrimination-act-dda It would have been very difficult for me to fill out a loan or credit card form and make the right choices for my circumstances, and also to realise that something was wrong later. Now, speaking to the Mental Health Professionals in my area, it appears that adult diagnosis of things like Bi-polar and ADHD is becoming increasingly common these days, due to more awareness and improved diagnostic tools. It may be there is a whole demographic of the population who used to be just bracketed (like myself) 'bad with money', where they've actually been struggling with a hidden condition that impairs their ability to make accurate and timely choices regarding their finances. Worse, those that are 'good with money' have been preying on this trait for their own ends. I now feel, on the other side of the diagnostic 'curtain', like I've been 'milked' over the years, due to my naivety and poor skills with forms and numbers. Ring any bells for anyone? Can anyone point me to resources where Mental Disability has been used to get restitution, is there even a case for a US style Class Action suit? Thanks, hope this helps anyways.

Hi All, I've recently had an issue at work, and was wondering whether anyone could help me with it. I am going to take advice from other sources also. I have been employed less than two years. I have been diagnosed with Irritable Bowel Syndrome (diarrhoea predominant) for a little over 4 years (and have had symptoms longer than that). I am currently going through investigations to determine the exact cause or alternative diagnosis for my symptoms. Day to day i'm on medication, and the current medication is working well, however I still occasionally have flare ups. These flareups can occur over hours or days, or occur almost instantly. Symptoms that occur are sometimes very difficult to differentiate between normal IBS and potentially any diarrhoea/sickness bugs (besides no vomiting) also - which means sometimes I have had 48 hours symptom free before I begin work again to prevent passing anything on to the public. I declared all of my previous medical history on application. I was recently called into a meeting with management because of my sickness and absence record. I have had a total of 6 absences in the last 12 months, totalling ~8-10 working days. The majority of those absences have been related to my condition. I have previously been referred to occupational health, and the situation is going to be reviewed in 6 months. If I have any more sickness in this time I will have this review meeting instantly and I believe it will also involve HR. So far I have let them follow the standard procedure, however (apart from sending me to occupational health), they seem to have not made any reasonable adjustments to allow for my condition - I will add details from the previous occupational health visit later today. Am I covered under the Equality Act? Previously I didn't consider myself to have a disability (I just got on with life, and my previous employer never had an issue with a similar sickness rate), however having read a bit more into it, it appears I may qualify under the terms that are used. Would a reasonable adjustment in this case be to allow me a "reasonably" higher number of absences to account for my condition? In the past 12 months I have had 6 total absences, not a massively high amount, but the fact they will review me immediately if I have any more sickness in the next 6 months is making me concerned. Thanks for everyones help in this matter. AJP

Hi there, first post so I hope it makes sense... Can anyone give me a brief understanding of section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 please (in layman's terms) as I'm trying to help my sister with a work problem and I think it might be relevant. She is a member of a union but they haven't been much help! It's relating to an actionable attendance policy at her work. She is disabled under the definition of the act and is employed by a large public sector organisation. She is rarely off work except with disability-related sickness (this has happened 6 times in the 24 years she has worked for them) and when she is it always lasts a few months and therefore breaches the policy guidelines, even though they relax the rules slightly for disabled employees. i.e. in one year Policy - 3 periods or 8 days Disabled employees usually 4 periods or 11 days She has been in work for 22 months without any sickness but then was taken ill and has been off for eight weeks and is due back at the end of March on a return to work plan (reduced hours for five weeks and weekly management meetings). She went to a sickness meeting last week and was told in passing that they will not put up with this level of sickness anymore and mentioned capability. She always takes personal responsibility for her health, takes her meds, lets manager know if a problem is developing, goes to the doctors/counselling etc. My question is that because of her disability when she is of sick she has always broken the actionable attendance policy which puts her at risk of being dismissed. Would it be reasonable to ask that her attendance be ignored under section 15? Just as an aside she has been off with depression and anxiety caused by work related stress. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks Dex

Hi I'd be grateful for poster's thoughts on the following query. In a business to business context, can a supplier's contract terms delete the reasonable quality or fit for purposes terms implied from the sale of goods act. So, for example, would a term stating "instead of any warranty implied by law, we will replace the product if you give us 10 days notice" be enough to permit the supplier to say that I (as a small business), because of this term, cannot rely upon the fitness for purpose terms in the Sale of Goods Act. Thanks

Morning guys, I wonder if somebody can help me please. Would the above act for harassment include over frequent requests of I&E - i.e. Token payment accepted for a store card debt and company fully aware of circumstances of long term illness yet a request for a I&E be completed every 2-4 months Thanks

In n order to better understand the current position regarding the above, I thought I would put my understanding on here and then hopefully people will correct any misconceptions. The TCEA The immobilization of vehicles as part of the taking control of goods procedure, is covered by schedule 12 of the TCE. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12 The power to take control of goods is given by section 13 of the schedule. 13(1)To take control of goods an enforcement agent must do one of the following— (a)secure the goods on the premises on which he finds them; (b)if he finds them on a highway, secure them on a highway, where he finds them or within a reasonable distance; ©remove them and secure them elsewhere; (d)enter into a controlled goods agreement with the debtor. (2)Any liability of an enforcement agent (including criminal liability) arising out of his securing goods on a highway under this paragraph is excluded to the extent that he acted with reasonable care. (3)Regulations may make further provision about taking control in any of the ways listed in sub-paragraph (1), including provision— (a)determining the time when control is taken; (b)prohibiting use of any of those ways for goods by description or circumstances or both. The relevant sections being; Subsection (a) which covers the securing of goods on a debtors premises, Subsection (b) which covers the procedure on the highway. Section 3 permits the creation of regulations which define the procedure to be used: Taking Control of Goods regulations (2013 8094) http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1894/contents/made The relevant sections contained within the regulations are: Section 16 which covers the immobilisation (clamping) on debtors premises: 16.—(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), an enforcement agent who is securing goods of the debtor on the premises on which they are found (under paragraph 13(1)(a) of Schedule 12) may secure the goods— (a)in a cupboard, room, garage or outbuilding; (b)in the case of goods on premises (or on a part of the premises) which are not occupied for residential purposes, by the enforcement agent remaining on the premises to guard the goods of the debtor of which the enforcement agent has taken control; ©by fitting an immobilisation device (which must be provided by the enforcement agent); and Section 18. which covers he procedure for immobilization on the highway Securing goods of the debtor on a highway and removal: vehicles 18.—(1) Where the enforcement agent is proceeding under paragraph 13(1)(b) of Schedule 12 and the goods to be secured are a vehicle, those goods must be secured in accordance with this regulation. (2) The vehicle must be secured by an immobilisation device, unless the debtor voluntarily surrenders the keys to the vehicle to the enforcement agent. (3) The immobilisation device must be provided by the enforcement agent. There are differences in the two procedures which can be discussed later, hopefully in this thread. The next post will concern the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and how (if at all )it effects the EAs ability to immobilize vehicles by the use of a clamp.

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.

Hello, First off, I didn't realise that forums like this existed and have already found some great discussions! I am a relative newbie to all of this, so thanks in advance for the help/tips. I have been storing some belongings for a friend for several months now in my home. They have remained in bags in my living room and there are around 6-7 blacksacks of goods there. Due to unfortunate circumstances our friendship has ended, however I still have the items in my house. I am attempting to get the chap to come and collect the items, however he is being suprisingly unwilling to claim them. We only ever had a verbal agreement that he can store the items in my home, as friends would. I am in email contact with this guy (has no fixed address) and have provided him with an inventory of all the items he has left. I have come across the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 which appears helpful for this type of situation. However, there are clear rules within this tort that relate to getting rid of the items as long as there is no dispute. Now that there is a dispute I am slightly lost as to what to do. The house will be put up for sale ASAP and I expect to be gone within the next few months ... I do not what to spend any money on moving his gear with me and I wish to cut all ties with him. FYI there are a few of his belongings which are worth a considerable amount of money. He has advised that he does not want his items disposed of (naturally). Last week he said that he would not collect any of the items unless he also recieves 3 items which we had a shared interest in. I replied to this and advised that I am willing to relinquish any interest I have in the shared items and he can take them aswell (these cost me around £300, however I am happy to give them to him to get him out). Now he's come back again and said he will not collect any of the items as there are some missing from the inventory. I am confident that this is not true, and perhaps a hope to keep the items in my home free of charge (as he has no fixed address). He was never a lodger in my home and we had no formal agreement for storage of these items. It was simply a favour I offered him at the time. Please can anyone help with some guidance/advice on how I can handle this situation as the Tort stipulates the rules for selling/disposing of items only where there is no dispute. Many thanks

I am a store manager working on the east coast of the UK, who works for a large company I was diagnosed with an incurable cancer and have struggled with things like fatigue since making the decision to battle on and keep doing a job I enjoy I understand that I am covered by The Equality Act I am paid a basic salary and also receive OTE for hitting store targets My employer has been increasing my targets by as much as 60-70% vs year on year performance, I feel I am breaking under the pressure of trying to remain at work and also manage my team I have mentioned volume 3 of the Equality Act which mentions adjusting targets to my employer but they are saying they don't have to as they aren't "my" targets and my teams. But I am reviewed on them, I am paid when I hit them and feel this is an excuse to not make the reasonable adjustments and not increase my targets by such drastic way. Does volume 3 of the equality act (pay and benefits) apply to me and why would my employer state I don't have personal targets when I am paid on hitting them other than as an excuse to not make adjustments Any advice/ help / support welcomed

Hi, First of all, unlike a lot of people on this site, I did shoplift. I knew what I was doing, I made a stupid choice, and I don't really understand why I did it. Just was trying on a bunch of stuff, and then thought I could get way with it, and walking out of the shop was stopped. I knew I was doing something wrong, I felt guilty even before I left the shop but wanted to see if I hd done it (and whilst it was a one off, I had previously taken small things - to see if I could- I think 2 other situations both a while apart. A scarf once, and a hair product once. In this situation, I put stuff on and put stuff in my bag- about 50 pounds worth. Not that it's relevant to the wrong doing, I had had some pretty awful stuff going on - my brother's girlfriend comitted suicide not ages before this, and I was waiting on a hospital appointment for an MRI scan, as I was in pretty major pain at the time and on some pretty funky pain killers (I had an operation not long after that sorted that). I don't think it's relevant, but the security guards and the police kept saying who put you up to this, is something wrong, why do this etc (I suppose they didn't expect someone like me- at the time mid twenties, polite, and super regretful - there was a woman in there swearing and saying they couldn't do anything to her etc.) Anyway, I answered every question I could as best as I could, no one was rude to me (I emptied my bag out for them, and while they questioned a necklace I had, they accepted the receipt I had for it, even though it was from a pound store and those receipts just say 'item', (I did buy it.) The police gave me a caution, as it was a first offense etc, and I co operated. (Actually, it's Scotland, so they said they would recommend that I be given an adult warning but because I tried to take 50 pounds worth this may not be allowed, and it might be referred to the Procurator Fiscal, in which case it was likely that a fiscal warning or fine would be recommended. They said a police adult warning would be on police records for 2 years, but not on criminal records, and I have been struggling to find out about the fiscal warning, but a fiscal fine apparently stays on your records for 2 years as well and is meant to be worse. {I'm not allowed to post links, so I'm including in blue information to allow you to find the data yourselves, but I can post them once I've made 10 posts.) Adult warning info: ask the . scottish . police . uk Q562 Fiscal stuff info: victimsofcrimeonscotland - alternatives - to - prosecution I offered compensation at the time, and the store staff gave me a letter saying notice of intended civil recovery. Like others, I do feel I owe something as I did do wrong, and god I wish I hadn't been such an idiot. It makes me feel sick that I did it. I'm old enough to know better, and I don't even understand what was going through my own head. At least I can be relieved that I'm awful at breaking the law- in a weird way I'm glad I was caught, I'll certainly never be tempted again! Weirdly they didn't ban me from the store. (Not that I've been back, far too embarrassed by my own idiocy). They just said they'd be watching me carefully if I ever came back. (I wish they had banned me - might make me feel more like I was being punished.) Anyway, the letter received (a few weeks ago) includes the following paragraph at the bottom: "In principle the Data Protection Act 1998 does not prevent the use of data for civil recovery and employment screening purposes provided that the data protection principles are complied with. You are notified that the personal information held about you may be passed to the Police for criminal proceedings and to Retail Loss Prevention for civil recovery proceedings. Your personal data may be stored and used by prospective employers within client companies to make employment decisions and for the purposes of crime prevention and detection including verifying details on application forms and protection of the rights of this company and other companies as appropriate. We will pass this personal data to Retail Loss Prevention Limited and it will be shared in accordance with data protection law with appropriate commercial organisations and crime prevention bodies. The use of this data will at all times be in compliance with the Data Protection Act 1998." Soooo, the crux of my questions relate to the fact I think I've stuffed my future up by being a complete moron. I am a (mature) uni student, and I had thought to either go into teaching, or a management role, or library work (which usually means spending time with vulnerable adults or children), or possibly social work or if I stuck on the finance ish side of things, becoming an accountant (some friends recently became accountants, they say you don't need a degree in accounting and that you get a great introduction to business.) All of the professions I was considering are probably ones that (understandably) don't want to employ someone who has shoplifted. I looked further and found that in Scotland they have a system called disclosure Scotland. ask the . scottish . police . uk q642 And that the disclosures for the jobs I was considering are all eligible for (I think) standard disclosure, which show spent and unspent convictions (hopefully not relevant) and cautions. (are these the warnings? Does that mean they don't go away, ever?) disclosurescotland information standarddisclosure If you click on the 'eligible positions legislation' the link comes to ssi 2013 /50 / schedule 4 This lists a load of professions who are excluded from the 'rehabilitation of offenders' legislation per the explanation at the start of the thing which says "5. There is excepted from the provisions of section 4(3)(b) of the Act— (a)any profession, office, employment or occupation specified in Schedule 4;" I found the act and section 4(3)(b) says: (3)Subject to the provisions of any order made under subsection (4) below,— (a)any obligation imposed on any person by any rule of law or by the provisions of any agreement or arrangement to disclose any matters to any other person shall not extend to requiring him to disclose a spent conviction or any circumstances ancillary to a spent conviction (whether the conviction is his own or another’s); and (b)a conviction which has become spent or any circumstances ancillary thereto, or any failure to disclose a spent conviction or any such circumstances, shall not be a proper ground for dismissing or excluding a person from any office, profession, occupation or employment, or for prejudicing him in any way in any occupation or employment. BUT:- I am confused. I understand that this means, that (if the above does not apply) failure to disclose a spent conviction or any other circumstances SHALL be ground for dismissing or excluding me from an office/profession/job etc, but is this the case as concerns an adult warning? I don't understand the difference between an adult warning and a caution per disclosure scotland. (I still haven't received anything from the police so don't even now if it will be an adult warning, a fiscal warning or worse.) I think I will ask disclosure Scotland this, but post it up here anyway. Also, this leads me back to the letter from the store RE RPL (the abbreviation I've seen around this site). I have highlighted the bits that ring bells for me. "Your personal data may be stored and used by prospective employers within client companies to make employment decisions and for the purposes of crime prevention and detection including verifying details on application forms and protection of the rights of this company and other companies as appropriate. We will pass this personal data to Retail Loss Prevention Limited and it will be shared in accordance with data protection law with appropriate commercial organisations and crime prevention bodies." Obviously, my concern is not with re-offending, so, whilst I'm unsure of the use of them passing my data to crime prevention bodies, I'm less concerned about that (though I don't understand what that means). As it says specifically "within client companies" does that mean just the retail companies that employ the firm, or anyone that might want to do pre employment screening? What do they mean by "appropriate commercial organisations?" A lot of the work I want to do is within the public sector, not commercial. I'm not to concerned about not being able to work in retail at the moment - I would be crazy to apply to the company this happened with, anyway, and I would hope if I end up in retail in a few years, that it didn't come up? I didn't know that only the police had the legal right to all my details, so they have my full name, address, date of birth, everything. I had to give it again to the police later. I'm basically wondering if I should write off ever getting one of the jobs I'd like, because of this stupid thing. I think the social work registry goes through disclosure scotland, teaching definitely does, and I don't know if accounting or more commercial things. And, as I'm nearing the end of my degree, I was looking at applying now, so everything would definiitley be within 2 years, so even if the warning goes away after 2, it would still be on my disclosure now if they do it, if it's a fiscal fine at least. And that's before even considering if they are letting anyone willynilly check their data which according to the website ( integrity screening uk) they do. (Though I don't know if any of the areas I'm working in would be checking whether I'm subject to civil recovery proceedings.) I also checked the company name (cireco) and it is not on the data protection public register, although rlp is. Interestingly, the 'purposes' for data processing are listed as "We process personal information to enable us to provide investigatory services, to trace debtors and purchase debts and to collect on behalf of creditors. We also process personal information to maintain our own accounts and records and to support and manage our employees." None of the above purposes relate to my situation, or this 'integrity database' being maintained to sell details of my integrity. What they say they will do with my data id not what they say they are doing with it per the register. Additionally, I understand from reading this site that I am not a debtor - that they cannot charge me a fixed fee for my wrongs. (I would be much happier paying the company directly an apology piece of compensation.) They also say they share the data in this way: We sometimes need to share the personal information we process with the individual themself and also with other organisations. Where this is necessary we are required to comply with all aspects of the Data Protection Act (DPA). What follows is a description of the types of organisations we may need to share some of the personal information we process with for one or more reasons. "Where necessary or required we share information with: voluntary and charitable organisations ombudsmen and regulatory authorities business associates and other professional advisers associated companies suppliers financial organisations credit reference, debt collection and tracing agencies police forces private investigators courts and tribunals government traders in personal data family, associates or representatives of the person whose personal data we are processing; current, past or prospective employers examining bodies" I think this is a misleading statement. They say "Where necessary or required" but I do not see any circumstances where it would be necessary or required for them to share the data with traders in personal data, and I think sharing it with anyone who might be a prospective employer is highly irregular, they're obviously making money off of a horrible situation, and why have a disclosure system if someone can not be found guilty of a crime and have their whole future wrecked anyway? I don't know what to do. I think I need to write to the information commissioner about this as well as disclosure Scotland. As concerns the credit statement issue, I know I'm going to need a credit card at least temporarily as I have an overdraft that will be reducing following graduation, and at least at the moment I have not got a job that pays enough to cover my rent. As you can tell this has been bothering me for ages! I still haven't decided how to respond to RLP, and I'm so worried about the possible implications. Some of the jobs I've applied for already are ones in the public sector etc, but no one has asked me for a disclosure, and I think you need to give permission for a disclosure to go ahead. I have kept applying for jobs in areas I'm interested in and I have kept volunteering for kids groups for which I have already got a PVG (this is a disclosure to work with kids and vulnerable people) but I think I should tell someone about this, or it might get worse. I don't think I'm a danger:- I mainly help tidy up and split up arguments and suggest games for the teens and kids to play. I certainly would never suggest anyone break the law. I'm wanting to wait to say anything to find out whether I get a warning or a fine... and to work out what the implication would be for all of this before I say I can't volunteer anymore! I also do office work - and I don't remember there being any disclosure for that job, but we do look at financial info sometimes (for paying for services and buy goods) but I don't do any processing of the payments or anything. I know that if I was convicted they would fire me as even if I don't deal with stuff, it would look bad on the company to have me there. But obviously I'm terrified that if I don't tell them and leave that retail loss prevention might contact them and I'll be fired, even if I do pay them the money. Please help with any advice. I would really appreciate it. I can't believe how stupid I've been.

Hi there, I hope I am asking this question in the correct section (Admins please change if not) Can someone help me understand section 147 employment rights act 1996 ( in plain english) with regards to what it says about "initiating rights " to claiming redundancy. my partner's job role as been made redundant. There is an interim post on the table ( not very appealing) and also a "voluntary" redundancy package ( which is basically the minimum redundancy package) on the table. My partner is wanting to understand the mortgage protection cover she has in regards to the above "voluntary" redundancy package. The exclusion policy states.... you will not receive monthly benefit for unemployment in the following circumstances: unemployment caused by or resulting from: ii) any wilful act by you;or iii) resignation or voluntary unemployment- for the avoidance of doubt this shall exclude voluntary redundancy where you initiated your right to claim redundancy under section 147 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 time is of the essence as a decision will need to be made early next week.. and this information will have a bearing on the decison Many thanks in advance,

That would leave us with Belarus and Kazakhstan as the only European countries who haven't signed up for human rights. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/ampp3d/uk-scraps-human-rights-act-4350443#ixzz3EtmaLEIP Wishful thinking I think.

Hi All Can anyone offer me advise on the following: Thames Water have accepted responsibilty for incorrectly billing my business for 13years. So far I have negotiated a 45% discount on the money owed and they are adament that in line with the Limitation Act1980 they can back charge me 6 years. They quote: Time limit for actions for sums recoverable by statute. (1)An action to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any enactment shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued. As no bills were sent for 13 years, and TW did not discover there error until June 2104 - does the cause of action start in June 2014 when they discovered the error or June 2008 the 6 years prior they say they are entitled to backdate? There had be no communication from TW prior to June 2014. Any thoughts? thanks DEC

Hello Does anybody know if the SoGA covers who should pay for collection costs for a faulty item of furniture? If so, which clause of the SoGA covers this? The retailer has agreed to make a refund for the faulty item, minus a fee for the cost of collection. Thanks

I wonder if you can help. I purchased an item from Laura Ashley online. It was very heavy and I couldn't lift it, when it was delivered. The delivery driver placed it down and it did not move after his delivery. I booked a handy man for three weeks after I placed the order (the time they said it would take to arrive in the order confirmation email) It arrived earlier than that, but I couldn't change the date of the handy man When he arrived we unpackaged it together, too heavy for just one person. It was broken. Laura Ashley wont do anything, they say they will not replace it. The sale of goods act when I ordered it stated a reasonable time of 3 - 4 weeks to claim for damage. When I stated that to the customer relations manager, I was informed that halfway through this month the act changed to 14 days, and as such I am out of time, so goodbye. Can anyone advise me on this. Yes perhaps I should have opened it earlier, but I was in danger of damaging it if I did it on my own. They are just wiping their hands of me.

Vodafone Customer Relations Manager Vodafone Limited The Connection Newbury Berkshire RG14 2FN Ref: Mobile No. ********** Dear Vodafone, Supply of Goods & Services Act 1982 I was sold a Sony Xperia Z as part of a 24 month mobile contract in July 2013, which is not of satisfactory quality, fit for its purpose and as described when I made my agreement with Vodafone, which is classed as mobile mis-selling. During the week prior to 6th September, 2013 my Sony Xperia Z phone needed to be charged more often than usual even after disabling apps etc and the battery charging area was (unusually) extremely hot. On the 6th September, I took my phone off charge, touched my FB icon on my homescreen only to see that there was a crack underneath 2 screen protectors to the lower right of where my charger goes in. After touching the icon, the crack spread rendering the screen unresponsive! In shock, I went onto the internet to research if this was a common problem with Xperia Z’s. *I was surprised to find various forums, facebook pages, complaints and even an online petition to prove that Sony had sold these phones as faulty. The following are just some of the links that I had found: (cant post due to being first post on here - many posts complaining about the phone) If you read the links, it is quite clear that since the Xperia Z has launched there have been various reports of people suffering from cracked display issues. What has been worrying for some is that these issues have occurred randomly even though the phone has not been subject to an accidental fall. In anger and shock, I immediately contacted Sony who told me that the engineer would charge me to fix the phone. I informed them of my findings online and they told me to contact my service provider and refused to believe me or care about my problem. On 7th September I phoned Vodafone and explained my situation. I informed them that the phone had not been dropped, crushed or mishandled in anyway and that the screen breakage occurred during use which led me to believe there was a fault with the screen. I further explained about the many complaints online and was met with one of your operators being rude to and he even laughed at me and said “Why did you buy a phone which you knew was faulty?” *I was appalled at this and couldn't quite believe his attitude. *He then told me that I would have to send the phone off to their engineers to be reviewed, with the quote of £190! I was so upset and in tears that I waited to contact you again when my partner came home. I then phoned back and asked to be put through to customer loyalty (after having to explaining my situation again) and stated that I wanted to cancel my contract. *I then got put through to another department that quoted me £600 to cancel! No consideration was taken for the fact that I was upset and you totally disregarded my situation. *It was at this point I broke down in tears and explained that I had post natal depression, a new baby and a broken phone and passed the phone over to my partner, who was then put through to Abraham. *He was the first operator that actually demonstrated great customer care and loyalty. Abraham eventually said that Vodafone would waiver the cost of fixing the phone. See below a text message sent through to say you would pay for it: (cant post photos as its my first post) I said that I was worried that it would happen again and he said they would also put it on their system that if it happens again, after fixing it, that they will also pay again for it to be fixed (I found out later that this was not put on my file!) You did inform me that even though you would fix it, you would not replace the phone. You also refused to offer me another phone as part of the contract despite my concerns. Below is a brief timeline of events that I noted down: 14th September Sent my phone off to Vodafone with the promise of them paying for it to be fixed. 19th September Got my phone back from Vodafone, fixed, for free. I still do not understand why they are giving me back a phone that is known to be faulty. I'm just going to wait for it to happen again, in the meantime I will still be contacting Watchdog. 20th September Emailed Watchdog 28th September £190 was taken from my account on 28th September, leaving me with only £22 in my account! This is with a young baby at home! This caused a lot of issues for me rent, shopping etc. I rang Vodafone, in tears, AGAIN! Eventually, they told me that they could credit me within 7 to 10 days. I explained my situation and again, they told me they couldn't refund me straight away! 21st October I phoned Vodafone I asked for the money to be returned to my account immediately but was told "Credit cannot be immediately transferred back into the bank. *Vodafone apologised, but did not offer compensation for leaving me without the money. 21st October Phoned my bank and told them my situation. *They were immediately helpful and offered to file an indemnity claim against Vodafone. I received my refund via my bank! 12th November - USB charging point The night before I put my phone on charge before I went to bed. *I woke up in the morning to find that my phone had not been charged. *I then put my charger back in and made sure it was plugged in, and still nothing! I assumed it was the charger at fault so used the USB lead to plug into my laptop to find that it was not recognised on my laptop. *I looked at the charging pins on the phone to find that it was loose. I contacted Vodafone and you proceeded to tell me that it was user abuse, which I knew full well that it wasn’t! You told me that I would have to send my phone off to be repaired and investigated. *You also told me that there would be another charge of £190 if the fault is of my own. *I was then told that I would have to back up my phone because the engineers would wipe it to factory settings. *I broke down in tears at this point as I have a 4 month son with photos and videos of him in the phones memory. *You said you were sorry and I have a few days to figure out how to get my data off whilst you send me out the returns package. *Not once did you tell me that I could have ordered a docking station to receive my data! I, (like you told me to do) had to figure this out for myself! * I ordered a docking station, which charged my phone. *I then decided to forget about this until my phone decided to stop charging my phone completely. **I could not understand this as in the notes you sent back to me with my fixed phone, it said you had added or fixed the battery. I could not believe the way I was being treated and most of all ignored! I then continued to do my own investigation into the phone and found that there is also a fault with the charging pins on the phone. The following link is just a few sites and if you Google it you will find forums with complaints: It was at this point that my partner went out and bought me a second-hand phone to use and to just leave this well alone because of the stress it was causing me. 23rd May 2014 I finally received an email from Watchdog regarding my complaint in 2013. *They asked me to provide evidence of circumstances and photographic evidence of the phone. *They said they would be using my details on the episode dated: 28/5/2014. 28th May 2014 After all of this time, Sony have finally admitted a design flaw in the Xperia Z. 29th May 2014 Below is the conversation I had with Vodafone. I would draw your attention to the following articles as I will be pursuing this via your complaints channel and then through the Ombudsman. "If your phone forms part of your mobile phone contract, your claim would be against your mobile phone service provider" "Fit for purpose means both their everyday purpose, and also any specific purpose that you agreed with the seller (for example, if you specifically asked for a printer that would be compatible with your computer)" Please be advised that this is now an official complaint and I will be terminating the contract on grounds that you have breached the contract by NOT supplying a phone of suitable quality. I am demanding compensation for the period of time they you have charged me whilst I haven't had use of the Sony Xperia Z phone. It is my understanding that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. Section 4(2)says that goods must be of satisfactory quality and section 2A says this means meeting the standard that a reasonable person would expect taking account the description of the goods and the circumstances. Therefore, in essence this means that I *bought a contract with a new phone and the phone should be expected to last a reasonable period of time. *I would argue that 3 months is not and it is arguable that a phone should last the length any contract! Since this has occurred I have lost all trust with Vodafone since I have been with you for 10 years! This has caused me a great deal of stress, unneeded expenditure and a complete mistrust of Vodafone. If you are unable to resolve this then I will contact the Financial Ombudsman and we shall go from there. I am also fully prepared to use the small claims court, however I would like to try and resolve this amicably.

Does anyone happen to know what Limitations there are in the netherlands off hand? Lol, i was going through an ancient email address which I hadn't used in over 10 years and noticed an old bank statement where I owed fl. 6000 (now about €3000) lol!

Hello, This week a BAYV rep called at my home to speak with friends who are visiting me for a short time. The BAYV rep spoke with my friend and then spoke with myself. The BAYV rep said he would get the police to let him in the house if I did not let him in. The BAYV rep freely discussed my friends personal business with myself as well as letting other people outside hear. There was even slander - the slander was that I am a criminal and that I had just assaulted the BAYV rep! I just laughed at the BAYV rep when he said this and again said to him that I am asking him to leave and adding that everything is on CCTV, so, if he would like to make a complaint of assault then I would have the CCTV to show that this was just a lie, made up by himself. When the BAYV rep finally decided to leave, I called one of my German Shepherds outside to underline the fact in bold that the BAYV rep would not enter my house. BAYV will not confirm that they will stop their visits. What is the next step I can take? I do not mind taking this to Court etc, injunction? Any help appreciated, thanks! Since reading this site today, I have learnt that other people have been accused of assault by BAYV! I have sent emails to BAYV requesting that they stop their visits. They have replied to my emails saying that they can not confirm that they will stop the visits to my house as they need to speak to their customer. They have also stated that this is their final response.