Hi I agreed to buy a laptop from Dell but then the laptop was paid using my parents credit card and was invoiced to them. The laptop when received was registered under my name. The laptop is faulty and I am having to take legal action. Does the sale of goods act cover me? Or is it my parents as they were on the invoice? The sale of goods act says: To me I think I agreed to buy the goods but my parents purchased it. Who is covered or are we both? Currently the small claims case is under my name is this going to be a problem?

Most citizens of Great Britain are totally unaware of the 1939 Cancer Act which effectively prevents them from finding out about different treatments for cancer. See here Is the above correct and are we prevented from finding out more? I had never heard of the Act until this morning when it was mentioned to me.

Hi there, In my 2nd year of uni I left in Dec 2001 but received my 2nd grant payment in Jan 2002. I never heard anything about this until I received a phone call about it a few months ago and now a letter dated 30th June 2012 requesting payment in full, £1450. My question is, before I contact them to make offer of payment within my means, is this not covered by the Limitations Act in that after 6 years they cannot pursue me for this date? I am aware that Student Loans post 1998 are exempt, I have a student loan also which is paid through my salary when I am working. However this is a grant. Your advice appreciated. Cheers, Maxine

I took DWP to Tribunal to appeal a Carer's Allowance overpayment. To find out what information they held on me and my husband we put in Subject Access Requests. We received back 2 sets of documents (thick in my husband's case and very thin in mine). I assumed that they had the right to withhold quite a lot of information because my case was still active. My Tribunal was heard (and I'm pleased to say I won). Less than a week after the Tribunal the Data Protection Team in Glasgow wrote to both of us saying in essence, "whoops we made a mistake and didn't send all the information we should have done. Do you still want it?" We didn't - our reason for asking for it had past and we felt like having a rest from DWP and all their machinations. Now I am going through the DWP complaints procedure and this failure to disclose is one of the complaints I am making. Out of the blue we've just received some bizarre letters from the Data Protection Team in Cardiff thanking us for our original SARs (now over a year ago) and saying they'll issue the records ASAP. I think we should probably let them do this but take this to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) once they've sent everything to check that this time they really have sent everything they should have. Is there anything else we should ask them for like compensation or something? and how do you judge what compensation they should make? Should we think about taking them to Court? (we won't get Legal Aid and can't afford a solicitor so we'd have to represent ourselves but it seems fairly straightforward - but are there any bear-traps we can't see as amateurs?) All advice very welcome on this.

Someone I am helping is being taken to court by a party claiming an alleged overpayment of wages relating to payments made to her that began in early 2003. These payments varied in the first year but remained a fixed amount since 2003 until the middle of 2010 when their employer noticed the payment. The former employer admitted that the employee had not caused these payments to be made in any way. Several times, it was pointed out to the employer that payments made six years prior to their discovery were certainly statute barred. They tried quoting the part of the Limitations Act that allows the clock to start from "the discovery of the mistake" but I pointed out to them that could only be the case if the mistake could not have been found, with reasonable diligence, earlier. They have ignored this. The employer are in possession of no more facts than they had when the payments were made. The former employee has not accepted that this debt is owed. In one communication, it was actually asked why this question was being ignored as though it did not exist. In 2011, Ascent are pursuing every single payment. Irwin Mitchell are pursuing the payment. They were advised that the whole sum could not be pursued as this included payments that were made in 2003. This year, the party, took her to court and have unbelievably refuted the Statute Barred defence with their defence that they did not discover the mistake(s) until 2010 and claimed that stopped the claim being Statute Barred. They have never claimed that the mistake(s) could not have been found with reasonable diligence at the times when the payments were made. Although, the individual payments have been supplied, the actual net payments made to her have never been broken down. Only the total net payment has been requested. It gets better, the party who are pursuing the debt are... wait for it ... the one and only Ministry of Justice. There are also other issues that can be had with their claim but I am interested to know about the time barred element of this situation. Am I out of perspective by stating this situations is BONKERS?

HEY THERE EVERY ONE. THE PART OF THE ACT THAT IS IN RED SAYS ABOUT STATUTE BARRED CANNOT BE STATUTE BARRED IF A CREDITOR/DCA DEMANDS MONEY IN WRITING. SECTION 5 OF THE ACT IS SIMPLE CONTRACTS WHICH I ASSUME IS LOANS/CREDIT CARDS STORE CARDS, ETC. DOES THIS MEAN THAT THE STATUTE BARRED TIMER RESETS EVERTIME I RECEIVE A LETTER? MY DEBT WAS A CREDIT CARD. 6 Special time limit for actions in respect of certain loans. (1)Subject to subsection (3) below, section 5 of this Act shall not bar the right of action on a contract of loan to which this section applies. (2)This section applies to any contract of loan which— (a)does not provide for repayment of the debt on or before a fixed or determinable date; and (b)does not effectively (whether or not it purports to do so) make the obligation to repay the debt conditional on a demand for repayment made by or on behalf of the creditor or on any other matter; except where in connection with taking the loan the debtor enters into any collateral obligation to pay the amount of the debt or any part of it (as, for example, by delivering a promissory note as security for the debt) on terms which would exclude the application of this section to the contract of loan if they applied directly to repayment of the debt. (3)Where a demand in writing for repayment of the debt under a contract of loan to which this section applies is made by or on behalf of the creditor (or, where there are joint creditors, by or on behalf of any one of them) section 5 of this Act shall thereupon apply as if the cause of action to recover the debt had accrued on the date on which the demand was made. (4)In this section “promissory note” has the same meaning as in the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

I recently moved cities and duly completed and paid for redirection of my mail. I assumed that this would all be straightforward however.... a few days ago I received a catalogue in the mail from a company that I have not used for about 5 years (sent to my previous address). This company did not have my previous address, rather one from 5 years ago. Then today I received a letter offering me about £400 in vouchers to spend in DFS addressed to me at my new address. (I have never had any dealings with DFS) On the bottom of their letter they clearly state that they obtained my information from the Royal Mail Redirections Database. Now if you look at the RM Redirections forms, Section 8 - "Use of your Data" has 3 opt-out boxes as follows: 1. Royal Mail Group and other selected organisations would like to send you, by post, offers and information concerning products and services relevant to home movers. If you do not wish to receive these, please mark ''X'' in the box 2. I wish also to recieve such communications in email format. (Please mark ''X'' in the box.) and 3. At no extra cost, we can provide your new contact details (of each type) to organisations that already have your equivalent old contact details so they can update their records. (Such organisations include public bodies.) This may help reduce the risk of ID theft and environmental impact. If you do not want this, please mark ''X'' in the box. I had an extremely heated conversation with a young woman who seemed unable to grasp the concept that my personal information was just that "Personal" and that they had no right whatsoever to disseminate it to other organisations (apart from those legally entitled to it such as DSS, DVLA, Police). However after a 20 minute search amongst the thousands of forms that must have come in within the last 6 weeks, she came back to me and claimed that I had not ticked the boxes to opt out and that therefore they were entitled to pass my information on to whomever they wished. What an interesting concept! Am I to take it that we are no longer protected by the Data Protection Act and that because the Royal Mail is such a large organisation that they are feel exempt from prosecution for abusing their customer's personal information? Nowhere in the above do they make it plain that their intention is to make your information freely available to every company in the country (and probably worldwide too) for their marketing purposes. This is a totally unscrupulous and abusive use of personal data held by them and supposedly protected under the Data Protection Act. I have also written to the CEO of DFS, Ian Filby (sent via email) as his is the name under which the letter was sent requesting a copy of the information that they hold on me and immediate removal of my information from their databases. I have also let them know that should I find that they have subsequently passed on my information whether for "Free" or for "Financial Gain" that I will seek damages. Is there anyone or any organisation that can prevent/act on the little person's behalf to prevent abuse of information such as this? plugin-SocialRedirection-1.pdf

I made a claim for PPI through a company, I was claiming against one loan only. I filled out the claim form in my name only and signed the consent/bank authority form. my husband was not mentioned on the claim form, neither did he sign the consent form. When I received the offer from my bank, they had based the amount on all loans dating back to 2003. They sent a breakdown of the amounts awarded for each loan including the loans my husband took out in his name only. Unknown to me, the bank then passed this information to the Claims Management Company. As my husband did not make a claim through this company and did not give his consent for any information regarding his loans to be released to a third party, are the bank guily of breaching the Data Protection Act? In addition to this the company are now expecting me to pay them a fee based on the total amount and not just against the one item I had claimed for, are they allowed to do this as my husband did not give his consent?

I wonder if anyone has any idea about this. I have reason to complain big time to Unison for treating me unfairly as I have a disability. However, reading through the notes that the CAB advisors have been given on this new law, it states that it does not apply to trade unions. Have I got this right? And if so, who, if anyone, regulates Trade Unions?!