Hi I'll be brief but I do hope I can get some advice off anyone here! I listed my camper-van on ebay the other week. A guy contacted me outside of ebay and asked to come and inspect it. He came to my house, had a cup of tea etc, seemed a nice guy in all honesty. He did an inspection, liked it, asked me how much I wanted for it, said he had £3k to play with - I (I don't know why I'm so honest) said "I don't think it'll go to £3k on ebay, how about £2.5k". He said yes and left a deposit of 1k. He transferred another £1k on the Monday daytime and paid the balance of £500 in cash when I delivered the van to him on the Monday evening (deposit left on Saturday). Now, I've been driving this camper about all over the UK, with and without the family in it, and yes, it sounds rough around the edges, i.e. it doesn't sound like a brand new engine - it's thirteen years old, but it's been ultra reliable, never had one problem with it, even though it's done 165k. On the Monday evening he texts me to say he drove five miles and the engine cut out, and asked me "had it ever done it before?". I said I stalled it twice when I first got it, getting used to the clutch, but that no, in XXXX miles it hasn't missed a beat. He called me today, a very brief call, and says "My mechanic says the engine isn't worth repairing. I'm not going to say anymore but will leave that with you to think about because I'm at work". Then about an hour later, sends me a text to say he's sorry but he's no option but to take me to the small claims court!!! I ask him if he maybe put some bad fuel in, and said that it's been fine in my whole time of having it, and that if the van was broken before I sold it I wouldn't have been able to drive it the 25 miles to him! And I filled it with half a tank of diesel for him, and delivered for free......(why did I bother). The vehicle really has been utterly great, I even drove it 270 miles each way to Essex non-stop a few weeks ago, of course if I'd had any inkling there were problems I wouldn't even have tried that. I didn't, it was ready to drive around the world as far as I was concerned. Anyway this guy is pretty angry on text, and I do actually feel gutted for him, it must be awful. So I offered him £200 as a gesture, non-fault non-admission of fault or anything, if he sends me a copy of the receipt for the first bill he said he's got. He's since come back and has got a bit sweary on the texts, asking me if I have no shame (?). I said that to be shameful I could only be that if I had known it was going to cut out (or whatever has actually happened, he's been a bit vague). Anyway he's refused the offer, I can't give him all his money back because it's already gone to pay off some of my credit card. Plus, at the back of my mind I can't help think he's trying it on. But he seemed a really nice guy, so....argh. What are my rights, it's a private sale from me to him, I didn't offer any warranty, I'm not sure what the outcome of this is going to be if it goes to court. I've been 100% honest.

Hi there, I am writing in short the disgusting things the ex owner(employer) have said. I have worked for about 2 years in a restaurant (part-time) where I have brought very good comments on trip advisor as well as all the customers served were very satisfied with my work.....including the colleagues. One day the Owner had a bad day and was upset and following to what he said I could not go back to work for him.....as to what he promised (raising the salary, paying for holiday,etc) he was turning the back at me...ignoring everything... Anyway time came to apply for another job (within management - full time) but all of them fell through and didn't know anything what was happening behind the scene.... The Owner said to all the new employers that I had been stealing money - which brought much shame to me and my family. Of course it is not true and the Owner was lying without any morals.... As I have found out from a colleague what he has done, and the Owner came to apologise (although I had no idea what he was apologising for) I am about to get legal as I can not believe that I have lost well paid jobs and to say careers paying a healthy salary of more than £30.000 plus bonuses.... What and how shall I go about it?? Any employment Solicitors available with success in the field??? As I would not like to go over the 3 months period I will be writing a letter stating that I am claiming the loss encountered and the Owner to call all the employers to clear my name. Also a letter of apology to be forwarded to myself and my family for bringing shame and defamation of a good and professional name and characters. I really can not believe that I have been treated this way where I have been doing everything I could for the Company and himself. Do please let me know where shall I go to bring him to justice. He is a very mean and greedy person and he keeps lying to everyone just to get good remarks on Trip advisor. An ex colleague, a year ago was writing on the trip advisor that he is stealing the tips of the workers but 2 days later he offered money to him to take it away.... Although he advertised on the menus that the tips go to the waiters everything was going to his pocket and that was in amount of (5000 - 6000 a month...) would you believe it??? dd

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 I am taking an Estate Agent/Builder to court because he owes me approx £2.5K. I am told that he has opened and closed a number of businesses and is likely to to close the business that owes me money to avoid paying me. This person committed a criminal act in order to get this business and has already been investigated by Trading Standards. TS decided not to take action against him for cost reasons. I am wondering if I can take out a personal claim against the owner of this business if he does decide to close the business that owes me money. What do you think thanks for taking the time to read this. Any advice you can give me would be welcome.

Hi all, Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read this thread. I'm not sure if I'm posting this in a sensible place, but googling the problem I'm posting about lead me to another similar post in this forum. If there's a more appropriate place to ask this question, then I request that a mod moves the thread. Thanks! I'm writing this on behalf of a friend of mine, in relation to a dispute over the sale of a property jointly owned and the division of any equity such a sale releases. The person in question purchased a property with her partner. They were NOT married. No legal documents were drawn up at the time to determine a specific ownership position for either party, but both their names are on both the mortgage and the deed. He provided the initial deposit for the mortgage, after which time they split all mortgage payments and associated sundry costs (service charges which include ground rent, buildings insurance and maintenance charges for the development) 50/50. After a few years of joint residence, due to irreconcilable differences, they went their separate ways. At that time, he simply moved out and cancelled his mortgage repayments. My friend had to increase her payments to cover the full cost of the mortgage. In the following months they attempted to reach an agreement for how to proceed, discussing both my friend buying her ex partner out, and sale of the house. However, no agreement could be reached on how to divide the equity, which they were advised by solicitors should also form the basis of any buy-out agreement. In other words, that to buy him out she should offer him the amount of equity he would get, as per their agreement, in the event of sale. Those negotiations ultimately broke down and communication ceased. Since that time, my friend has covered the full cost of the mortgage as well as any sundry costs, and her ex partner has presumably paid rent in order to live somewhere else. Several years have passed in the intervening time. This brings us to the present moment in time. My friend has approached her ex partner again with the objective of resolving the dispute once and for all. She has proposed that they sell the house, and they are currently engaged in discussion on how to divide the equity between them. However, I fear negotiations are destined to follow a similar trajectory as last time.... The crux of their disagreement centres around her ex partners desire to treat the deposit as a fixed cash sum which he should be repaid, as if it were a loan, before any discussion on how to divide equity, irrespective of the sale price of the property. In other words, if the equity released from sale only adds up to the equivalent cash value of the deposit (the value of the property has decreased since purchase) then he effectively believes he should get all that equity and she should effectively be left with nothing. If the property were in her name only, and he had provided her with the money to purchase the property, then I could understand this point of view. However, in reality, they have jointly invested in the property and must jointly bear the brunt of any reduction in value. Similarly, my view is that he must recognise that a deposit contribution is essentially equivalent to capital repayments made against the mortgage, and does not constitute a debt which would be repaid first (i.e. like the mortgage itself). My friend has sought legal advice which clarified the official legal position as being that both her and her ex are joint stakeholders in the property, irrespective of how much either has paid, and are consequently both legally entitled to 50% of any equity released on sale of the property. Similarly, she has been told that if they go to court, that will be the ruling, and that costs will likely exceed the equity in the property anyway. So, my friend feels in a difficult position. She has been strongly advised by solicitors not to accept less than 50% of the equity since that is her legal entitlement, but that leaves her and her ex partner at opposite ends of the negotiating table with seemingly no common ground. My friend has proposed ways of calculating an equity split, based on total contribution to the mortgage and property by each of them, but her ex partner is only prepared to talk about dividing equity AFTER he has received his deposit back first. My friend feels as though her ex partner just moved out and stopped paying when he decided he didn't want to live there any more, and now, as a consequence of her trying to do the responsible thing and take over mortgage repayments rather than allow them to default, she is stuck in a position where she can't sell without his consent, and he is unlikely to give it because - as she sees it - his demands regarding equity division are so unreasonable as to be unacceptable to her. Is there any legal remedy she can pursue to compel a sale? Is this likely to be any more or less expensive than going to court to split the equity? Is there any way they can agree to sell the house on the grounds that the equity will be held in trust by a third party until such time as they can agree a fair split? That latter option seems like the best idea to me. It has the disadvantage of fixing the equity in cash terms at the point of sale, but equally, it allows her to move on with her life and doesn't require her partner to accept an equity split he feels he can't, just to get the sale under way. Thanks very much for your time, if you've got this far! I appreciate it's a long and torturous tale Any help you can offer would be much appreciated! EDIT: Anyone know whether I can edit the title of the thread to fix that typo?

No Ticket Displayed 9th Feb Ticket issued 19:nn ( car seen 19:nn ) . Car Park Charges cease at 20:00 and the driver ( not me ) did not buy a ticket. ( I removed the minutes to reduce chances of SIP tracing me if they look on here ) I ( as registered keeper ) have received a NOTICE TO OWNER ( NTO ) but my name has been mis-spelt. Like most people I have read lots of information on this but am unsure what to do. The current demand is for £100 , with possible referral to debt collection agency after 28 days ( 9 days to go ). Has anyone got experience of this company and their likely course of action? Company uses SIP , SIP Parking Limited , Stop Illegal Parking as it's name and appears to be registered with BPA as they got address from DVLA. Is it better to respond? ( and if so how ) or merely to ignore ? If I ignore is it likely to go to court ? and then what fees am I likely to incur. Any advice / help welcome please.

This may seem a bit odd so please bear with me. Basically my grandad owned a piece of land 50/50 with his brother, they had a falling out and my grandad said you keep it and **** off kind of thing, But it would transpire that nothing was ever changed on paper, I believe grandads brother sold his half but the question remains about grandads half, Both have now passed away and this has only just come to light. I think this stems from the 60's or 70's, On paper my late grandad still ownes half of the land so it should have been passed on to his siblings after his death as there was no will, is that right, Where can i check who owns what. Could it have been claimed by anyone as it was in limbo and unknown about for 30-40 years.

hi, this is my first visit to this site. on the 31st of july i parked in a car park in govan glasgow for about 3 hrs, which i have done a few times in the past, i returned and drove home. well today i got a threatining letter saying that i now owed £80 because i hadnt payed their fine. there was no ticket on my car when i returned to it, and today was the first time that i was aware of any fine. can i just ignore it, and are scottish laws on this the same as the rest of the uk. should i bother appealing this and threaten them with my trade union lawyers, or just ignore it . thanks

Hi Guys, I am new to this forum room so please bare with me, in February 2013 me and my girlfriend pulled into our local petrol station this petrol station is approx 1 mile from our house, I put £4 0f fuel in the car in order to get us home but that week there had been signs put up around the petrol station stating minimum payment of £10 on a card. we only have £5 in our account at the time and we explained to the assistant behind the counter that we lived down the road we even offered to leave our mobile phone there while we went home to get the cash, the assistant would not let us move of the forecourt not even to park the car down the side of the shop while we walked home, so me and my girlfriend left the car in the forecourt locked it and walked home but before I left I took photos of the car at the pumps. after about 20mins we returned back only to find that the owner of the petrol station had dragged the car across the forecourt with his 4X4, he we very threating towards us so I dialled 999 for police assistance as my car was damaged. the police arrived and said it would have to go through the owners car insurance for the claim as it was his car that caused it. he is now denying he has done anything wrong but he wont provide my insurance company with the CCTV, I have the photos of the car at the pumps and the car after he had caused the damage my insurance company had written the car off as there was damage to the chassis. my insurance company don't seem to care anymore I have made over 30 phone calls to them asking for updates and for them to chase it up but they seem to say the same thing we are waiting for the third parties insurance company to reply. now my question is can I sue the owner of the petrol station and if so what can I sue him for can I sue him for all my costs and expenses and the fact I was with out a car for 3 months and we have no public transport nearby and we live in a rural area, is there anything I can do with my insurance company as this is what I pay my insurance for in order for them to sort thing like this out. Many thanks for you help any help would be appreciated.

Hello, im not sure if i have posted this in the right place but here goes. My mother was renting a cafe from a guy and signed a contact on a 6month lease, but after 1 month my mother was getting in debt with her house, and the cafe as it was not taking off due to location. the owner and my mother was talking last friday and said its not working but they will give it another week. now come today my mother went to him and said its true its not working and she will have to stop (ending it on after today) she was told NO CLEAR YOUR STUFF NOW NOT AT THE END OF THE DAY. Because my mother was not even earning a wage while doing this, she was also not earning the required rent money and as of today she owes them £220, but at the start she paid a £600 bond. she asked them to take the money owed out the bond, there reply was shocking!!! They told my mother that because she ended the lease before 6 months she does not get the bond back. and she will still need to pay the rent. i have looked over this on the contract and the contract does not even mention the word bond never mind not getting it back. is this legal?

I sold my vehicle to a on 11 December 2012 and sent the completed V5 form back to the DVLA. After a few weeks I realised that I had not received confirmation of the change of owner. I then received a letter from the MID stating that my vehicle was uninsured. I phoned MID and explained that the vehicle had been sold. They told me to phone DVLA and find out if they had received the V5. To which I did, and DVLA confirmed they had not received it. They advised me to send them a letter detailing the new owners address details and the date of sale, to which I did on 28th February 2013. I heard no more until April 2013 when I received a PCN from DVLA for having no insurance on the vehicle I had sold. They wanted me to pay a £50 penalty which increased to £100 if not paid in a certain amount of time. There were no telephone contact numbers on the letter just a number to make payment via an automated service. So, I phoned DVLA again explaining the situation. They told me to write to the DVLA Enforcement Centre explaining the situation to them this time. Within a few weeks when I returned from my holiday there was a final notice letter from the Enforcement Centre, even though I had sent back their form stating the vehicle was sold. Plus copies of all letters sent to the DVLA and a photocopy of the V5 which I had kept. The following day I received a further letter from them stating that they had finally received my letter stating the change of owner and I would receive confirmation within 20 days. However, this letter was a generic letter from the DVLA and didn’t respond to any of my queries detailed in the letter I sent to them. They are now demanding the £100 penalty and if not paid they will take me to court! They claimed that as they did not receive details of the change of address until after the PCN had been issued they could not stop the fine. Even though, I sent back the V5 and a further letter in February, two months before they sent me the Failure to Insure penalty! I have tried phoning them, but they are only open 9-5 Monday to Friday and always get put in a ridiculous queue. I am considering making a formal complaint or should I let them take me to court and put my case forward there? There is no way on earth I am paying them any money for a fine. They have the new owner details now and should be chasing him for being uninsured. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

The developer has issued a claim against me. The developer is also the manager and owner of the private road on which we live. I intend to fully dispute the claim. The date of service is today, 3rd May so I have a little time to get things together. He is claiming £265 for what he states in the POC as "charges incurred by our company on behalf of the residents of XXX which is a private road owned by our company. There are clauses in the sales contract for each property which allows us to pass on the charges and make a charge for management costs. The 10 other residents have settled their accounts in full." The charges are for a Pumping station and the Electricity that runs the pumping station. But he's charging us nearly £700 a year to "administer" these bills that come in annually. Right, so let me just say that the accounting system he uses is a mess, so I need to show that in court. He has been charging VAT at 20% on the electricity even though he only gets charged 5%. I have paid all the bills that he has incurred but I will not pay his extortionate management charge. But what I am looking for is a bit of help to really nail this once and for all. I can show the court that I have paid all charges in full EXCEPT his management charges. I am not paying any management charges because, 1) He has raised the management fee for the 11 properties from £395 to £695. Now obviously I only pay one eleventh of that, but our clause in our sales contract he talks about states that all charges should be reasonable. The reason he raised the charge by £300 was to recuperate money he lost taking another resident to court for a similar matter. He has been talking about my personal situation with other residents. Is he in breach of Data Protection Laws? He has deliberately mixed up the payments I have made and apportioned them to the wrong bills, making it look like I haven't paid one of the at all. The accounts that he has submitted in his POC are different to the ones he has given me. How do I get back the money I am going to lose in defending this? Do I just ask the Judge to award costs, or do I have to counter-claim? In short, I have paid my share of pumping station charges and electricity, but owing to the 40% rise in management charges and no justification or reasonable excuse for it, I haven't paid any management fees. I just want to pay what is fair and reasonable, I am not his personal cash cow. If anyone could help me, I'd be very grateful.

Hi, I'm trying to resolve this issue with a PCN that has gone to Bailiffs for parking without a Blue Badge issue, (because the BB fell from the dashboard) on behalf of my partner and i would like to know if anyone is able to clarify 1- Who has the actual responsibility over this PCN under the law... Is it the Owner, Keeper or Driver? and 2- point me towards the legislation and/or case law that supports this? I am asking this because 3- i was wondering if it is still possible to submit a late TE9 appeal to the court on the basis that the notice to owner and/or PCN was never actually served to the owner? 4- And has anyone tried this before? Thanks in advance for the help.

My 20 year old daughter recently bought a car on HP and the finance agreement is in her name. For some reason her (new) boyfriend sent off to be the registered keeper. I'm not sure of all the details but he is the registered keeper but she is the legal owner. The finance is over a 4 year period and I'm really not sure what the boyfriend's intentions are. I'm thinking he is going to sell the car leaving her with the burden of repaying something she doesn't even have access too. I've also learned that he has restraining orders by his 2 previous girlfriends which is why I would like my daughter to cut all ties with him, this is also what she wants. Question is how can we get the car transferred to her name? We have possession of the car and also have the V5 logbook. Many thanks in advance for your help.

Hi Guys , new here and have a question regarding a Notice to owner. I was parked in a Barnet (london) Council carpark on the 28/11/12, I usually do Pay by phone but had forgotten, until about 9am ... when I did pay the usual amount... I have today 3/1/12 received a Notice to Owner, with a £60 fine saying my car was parked there at 08:39 on the 28/11, which Is fair enough it was before the time I had paid ( as I think charging starts at 8am ). My questions are as follows : i have not received a parking charge notice ever, just this notice to owner. Their website says theres a 50% discount if the PCN is paid within 14 days, but I have not received a PCN , just this Notice to Owner. So I cannot not get a discount which I think is unfair. My second question , is that I read somewhere that the PCN has to be issued within 28 days of the incident. Or it is invalid .... Is this true ? ? Ive tried to look on tha patas website but find it all very confusing ... The dates on my notice are DATE OF SERVICE OF PCN 28/11/12 DATE OF THIS NOTICE 02/01/13 Any advice appreciated ...... Many thanks

I want to buy a car for my daughter's partner to keep and use and make it clear that I retain ownership. They live elsewhere so he needs to be the registered keeper and the insurance be in his name. I know 'the registered keeper is not necessarily the owner' but how do I go about making the distinction clear?

I've received a Notice to owner letter from the council demanding for £130. I didn't even get the original ticket. Can i appeal the notice to Owner? Thanks

Hi people in need of some help . I sold a van about a month ago and have had three pcn sent to me from camden . I have not had any thing back from the dvla to say i am no longer the owner/ keeper. The new keeper says he has the v5 in his name . My question is do I have to provide all the documents they are asking for on the back of the pcn i.e name and address of the person to whom the vehicle was disposed of.copy of the invoice dvla letter confirming there records have been changed and insurance documents . Or would a copy of the new log book be sufficient ? It all seems a bit much . thanks

Hi Guys I was involved in an accident a couple of months back, where a lady driver reversed into my parked car. We exchanged details etc, but a few weeks later I got a letter from my Insurance company suggesting that the 3rd party driver is claiming the accident was my fault and that she is also pursuing a PI claim (Typical opportunist)! The investigations are ongoing and I have defended my case, providing my insurance company with pictures of her vehicle etc. and so far it is my word against hers... However, yesterday I received a letter from my insurance company saying that my insurance is in doubt and could be voided, due to them recently finding , via DVLA, out that my car's registered keeper and the main insurance policy holder are two different people. i.e. Registered keeper lives in Oxford, and Main Insurance policyholder (Me) lives in London. They are correct. The registered keeper is my Cousin brother in Oxford. BUT, does having registered keeper and policyholder as 2 different people void my insurance??? That is my Question! and why did they search now?? My suspicion is that they are trying to worm their way out of 'paying out' on the claim on the above recent accident!!!! and this would be a real concern, as not only will they void my insurance and I will not get my insurance money back, but also in the event that the ongoing accident claim settles n Her favour (e.g. if she produces fake witnesses etc) then does this mean that I wasn't insured at time of accident and therefore could become a police/court matter??? Please Help, I am really worried! Advice required!!!!! John

Just after a bit of advice. I parked at an out of order machine, which was also covered in substance (so you couldn't read the sign). This is obvious from the photo. My appeal rejected on the basis I "probably had a phone and could have paid that way". No problem, wait for the Notice to Owner and appeal formally. No Notice to Owner arrives and the Council claim they sent it to the correct address. I'd already written my appeal, and there is no way it got "lost" in the post. They just didn't send it. Anyway, it will be registered with the TEC and I will complete a Stat Declaration that it didn't arrive. I note some advice that they need to believe you - my concern is that it is my word against the Council, they have a record that it was posted (by ordinary mail), all I have is the two residents at the address confirming it was not recieved. It seems the more common scenario is it being sent to the wrong address. Does anyone know the liklihood (or have any experience or suggestions) of my Statutory Declaration being sucessful (or not successful). And anything else to throw into the Stat Decl to improve our chances (e.g. no history of parking contraventions/appeals of this sort). As a seperate note - I think the way the council mislead you (i.e. convince you the baliffs will be knocking on your door in days) is a disgrace, how many people must just pay out of fear and being misled is awful!

I own a flat with a family member and we have a joint mortgage. For the last six years I have been out of the country and she has been paying the mortgage herself. It is a two bedroom flat and she has been renting out my room. I did the same when she was out of the country. I moved back in November 2011, and in May 2012 she moved out. I found out 4 days before she left that she was moving and was renting out her room. I was annoyed but asked that I be able to choose who to live with from her short list and she said fine. Then the day she was moving out she told me she had found someone and they were moving in the next day and there was nothing I could do about it. The only thing she said was that they wouldn't be having people over all the time as she knows I don't like that. The new tenant signed a contract with my family member and is paying her the rent monthly, and gave her a deposit. It has been nearly two months and things are not going well with the tenant. He has his girlfriend over 2 to 5 times a week and when I complained says that he's entitled to live their as he pleases. There are many other problems and I am wondering where I stand if I want him out. He signed a 2 month contract with my family member which is up on 12 July, and then there were going to extend it or stop depending on how things turned out. As you can tell I am not currently in contact with my family member, but could I give the tenant notice even though I didn't sign the contract, and am I perfectly within my rights to find someone my self to rent the room to? I can't think it is fair that as the owner in residence I am expected to live with someone I didn't agree to. Any advice would be much appreciated. Sorry for the essay.