I don't know if anyone can cast light on this. I have several friends who have issues with the CSA. The CSA have gained CCJ's against my friends' partners, but they simply do not follow through in terms of enforcing them. One of these CCJ's is now well over 4 years old and there is no sign of one penny being forthcoming under the judgment. With the new regulations coming in, is there anything HCEO's can do that would enable the likes of my friends (there must be many others in the same boat) to get the CSA to enforce the judgments? It seems very unfair that these Mums (though they could also be Dads in this situation I guess) are struggling financially because a properly formed organisation (the CSA) is doing nothing whatsoever to get judgements enforced.

I have just received an email from the Ministry of Justice to confirm that the long awaited Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2014 have been laid in Parliament this morning. This is the second set of Regulations which will underpin the Government's package of reforms to bailiff laws. The first set of Regulations, The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 sets out the procedure that enforcement agents must follow when taking control of goods and were laid in Parliament on 30th July last year. The third and final set of Regulations will follow shortly and will focus on the requirements an individual must meet before they are granted a certificate to work as an enforcement agent. All three sets of Regulations will be implemented on the 6th April 2014. The link to the news Regulations can be read here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1/made

ASA Adjudication on Caversham Finance Ltd Caversham Finance Ltd t/a BrightHouse 5 Hercules Way Leavesden Park Watford Hertfordshire WD25 7GS Date: 12 February 2014 Media: Television Sector: Financial Number of complaints: 1 Agency: The Gate Films Complaint Ref: A13-230773 Ad A TV ad for a repayment retailer. The ad began with on-screen text that stated "Caversham Finance ... 29.9% APR representative". After the on-screen text disappeared, the voice-over said, "At BrightHouse we're making life a little bit easier by giving you the things you need right now and letting you pay for them a little bit at a time either weekly or monthly. We offer quick and simple credit and a price match promise on everything." During the ad, gold coloured blocks appeared which morphed into household products. Issue The complainant challenged whether the ad was misleading because the APR was not sufficiently clear. BCAP Code 1.314.113.13.23.9 Response Caversham Finance Ltd t/a BrightHouse said the ad did not contain an amount of money and did not display any financial information. They said because the ad did not contain an incentive or comparison information, it was not necessary to display an APR. Clearcast said they had reconsidered the ad and accepted that the on-screen text with the APR would have been more relevant if it had appeared later in the ad when the voice-over mentioned payment options. They said due to time restrictions and the amount of on-screen text it would have been difficult to include all features. They said they had received confirmation from the advertiser before the ad was submitted that it complied with the Consumer Credit Act. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted The Consumer Credit (Advertisements) Regulations 2010 (CCARs) stated that, where a credit advertisement included various trigger information, such as an indication that credit was available to persons who might otherwise consider their access to credit restricted, a favourable comparison of their terms of credit to other competitors or any incentive to apply for credit, the ad must specify the representative APR. The CCARs also stated the representative APR must be given greater prominence than the trigger. We consulted the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) who said whilst the APR was clearly shown at the beginning of the ad, they believed the voice-over reference to "quick and simple credit" was likely to be an incentive to apply for credit, and that "either weekly or monthly [repayments]" constituted a comparative indication, and that both were therefore triggers which were given greater prominence than the APR. We agreed that the reference to "quick and simple credit" constituted an incentive to apply for credit and that the reference to the flexible repayment options was a comparative indication, because it implied a benefit available from BrightHouse that would not be available from other credit providers. We considered that information given in a voice-over was likely to be viewed by consumers as more prominent than on-screen text at the bottom of the screen, and that on-screen text at the bottom of the screen was therefore unlikely to be sufficient if the trigger information was given in the voice-over. Although the representative APR appeared on screen at the beginning of the ad we did not consider that it was given greater prominence in the overall presentation of the ad than the trigger information ("quick and simple credit" and "letting you pay for them a little bit at a time either weekly or monthly"). We therefore concluded that the ad breached the Code. The ad breached BCAP Code rules 1.3 (Compliance) and 14.11 (Financial products, services and investments). Action The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told BrightHouse to ensure the APR was given greater prominence than any trigger information in future. We advised them that if the trigger information was given by the voice-over in a TV ad, in general, it was unlikely to be sufficient for the representative APR to be included only in on-screen text.

Dear forum members, I am wondering what sort of national and/or European transport regulations apply to Eurotunnel. Following a delay of around 1h30 on a Eurotunnel train recently (on a journey of 30 minutes), I complained to the customer service by comparing the service that we experienced to the transport rules stated by Regulation 1371/2007 (regulation on rail passengers' rights and obligations). Although I did obtain a (small) compensation, the customer service states that Regulation 1371/2007 doesn't apply to Eurotunnel. For any future Eurotunnel problem, I would like to know whether this statement is true, and if it is then what are the transport regulations they need to stick to? I have been searching for the answer of course but can not find anything. The Eurostar website does mention it but not the Eurotunnel's one. Thank you in advance.

DPA filters are a pita and have been removed successfully in many instances by owners without a visible increase in the exhaust smoke emissions. However, New Regulations come into effect in February 2014 that makes it illegal to run a vehicle that was fitted with a DPF by the manufacturer as standard. Garages and testing stations will be required to check for a diesel particulate filter in the inspection of the exhaust system as part of the MOT test (or annual test for heavy vehicles) from February 2014. The vehicle will automatically fail the MOT test if the filter had been fitted as standard but is found to be no longer present

Last week I purchased a mobile phone case described as distressed leatherbut on receipt it was obviously just plastic. I informed the seller, who is a business seller, that I was returning the goods and required a full refund. The seller replied within minutes apologising and giving an address to return it to. I then received an email from ebay a few minutes later saying I had to return the item within the next 2 days by trackable post and that my money would be refunded on receipt of the item. I sent them an email by return reminding them of the DSR and that I would post it within a reasonable time frame as I have no access to a post office for 5 days and that the DSR quite clearly state that the seller does not have to await the return of the item before a refund should be made. Strangely ebay have not been so quick to reply to this email.

I bought a Nexus device from Google Play Store recently, but soon changed my mind and decided to cancel my order. I rang up the Google Play customer service to cancel my order, but they said it was not possible, and was told to refuse delivery instead to get a refund after 14 days - which I did. A refund of the £9.99 delivery charge wasn't mentioned so I queried whether this would be refunded, to which I was told it would not be refunded. Am I not entitled to a refund of the delivery charge as well, under the DSRs?

I have just been informed that the first of three statutory instruments....The Taking of Control of Goods Regulations 2013......which will underpin the Government's package of reforms to bailiff law will be laid in Parliament today. I will post a link later and I will also post further information that I received today. PS: The Taking Control of Goods Regulations will be implemented in April 2014.

These have changed recently - can anyone shed any light as to what the changes are and how they will affect people in debt?

Hi All, Today a mother at the school gate looked really upset and burst into tears when I asked her what was the matter. Having got her back to her home and made her a cup of tea, she showed me two letters from Santander. It appears it's a small world in that she too had a Flexible Loan account with cahoot and it was transferred to the loan account when Santander took it over. She had buried her head in the sand and had not paid them in over 3 years. Her statements had been arriving with no monthly payment amount set etc and had received no other chasing calls, letters in all of that time. She then received a default notice last week dated 30th January and the original balance has more than doubled. She then received another letter yesterday saying that in 28 days, they would register the default with the CRA's if she didn't start paying. I explained to her what had happened to us and that we had written back to Santander a couple of years back, challenged the rate increase and the refund had paid off what we owed. However, when looking at the remedy date, I noticed that there wasn't one! In it's place it said that the remedy date was 14 days from date of service, nothing else! No you must pay by 20th Feb or we may do X, Y or Z. Have the regulations or requirements changed on this as I thought a properly created DN MUST have an actual date quoted for it to be compliant??? In addition, are Santander now playing hardball with refunds on the old cahoot Flexible Loan rate refunds and have stopped paying out? I'm going to help her draft her response etc but wanted to double check on the above two questions first. Many thanks, Bel

Thanks to some excellent advice from these forums I have recently resolved an issue of being expected to pay postage for the pleasure of returning a faulty item. R.14(6) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 places responsibility for bearing said cost upon the seller. I have pointed out the relevant sections of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 with which their Terms and Conditions do not comply in this regard. However, the company in question is still insisting their T&C's comply with all legal requirements but is willing to make a "one time exception" and replace the faulty item without receiving the defective unit (as if they're doing me a favour). My question therefore is: Do 'regulations' count as statutory rights or do they rank lower than Terms and Conditions? Obviously a company's T&Cs cannot circumvent statutory rights so how can they still claim to be abiding by the law?

Having booked a holiday for May this year with Thomson we found out (not from the holiday company) that there is substantial building and refurbishment work ongoing at the property. After lengthy arguments Thomson gave us two options, move the date of our holiday or cancel with the stipulation that we had to cancel within 3 days. We moved the date of our holiday and now feel that this was a somewhat knee jerk reaction. Having had time to think we now feel that we should have cancelled as the property will be much different than what we were led to believe. We have actually stayed at the same property 3 times before and the expansion will increase its capacity by about 1/3rd. We understand that we have a contract for this holiday but our feelings are that a contract is a two way thing and Thomson are in breach as what we will be supplied with is not what we bought. Would section 5 of CPUTR 2008 cover this ? Or is there anything else we can do ?

Hi, Working in the creative industry, I recently decided to become a freelancer using an umbrella company. I have been offered a one month assignment by a recruitment agency. However they require me to sign a conduct regulations 2003 opt out form Can anyone explain what this is? Not sure if it´s just some bureaucracy or something I truly should worry about? Advice is very welcome! Thanks, Mia

Found this, not sure if it has already been posted but thought some may find it interesting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21287323

http://mylegal.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=frontline&thread=724&page=1#1888 I'd strongly recommend anyone who has to fill in those dreaded forms keep a copy of this!

Hi Caggers, Just a quick question. Can a mail order company ignore the provision of The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 just because they have hidden in their T & C's that they can? I thought the right to a refund including delivery charges for goods was absolute

In June we ordered a sim card only online from O2 and it came with a 12 month contract and got the email to say that a sim card will be sent within the next few days. Waited and nothing arrived so we assumed that we had failed the credit check for whatever reason but weren't too bothered about it. No DD was set up on our account either. At end of July we got an email to say that our bill was ready and that it was zero. No problem we thought. However at end of August we got another email stating that our bill was zero. I contacted O2 via their chat line and after being passed around from pillar to post got to some one who said that they would look into it. I told them that I wanted these emails to stop because as far as I was concerned I had not received the goods. They told me that if I wanted the contract terminated I needed to pay them £93! As I never received the card I told them that I had never activated it and that there was no usage. This seemed to go over their heads and they maintained that a termination fee was due! We were also advised that they activated the card when they sent it out? In essence if someone starts using the card, we would be liable? Seems crazy. We no longer wish to use O2 as we made alternative arrangements when we thought we had been rejected. Surely if I never received the goods at the very least DSR apply, never mind the fact that they never completed the contact in the first place. All I want them to do is to cancel the 'contract' and to stop billing us! Please advise as we went around in circles trying to get across to them that no sim card, no activation, no usage, no contract! Thanks.

The Ministry of Justice has published a consultation to change the rules for Claims Management Companies (CMCs): https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/cmr-rules-consultation-cp15-2012 The consultation proposes rules requiring firms to obtain written, signed agreements from consumers before charging any fees. Currently contracts can be agreed verbally. The consultation states: “The provision of a written agreement would provide consumers with more protection, by allowing sufficient time for a consumer to read and understand pre-contractual information before agreeing a contract.” Under the proposals, claims chasers must also provide “unambiguous” information about ombudsman schemes and other forms of redress. Firms are already banned from implying that consumers can get a more favourable outcome by using them rather than going to the Financial Ombudsman Service, Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority or the Housing Ombudsman Service. The MoJ has now added the Financial Services Compensation Scheme to that list. The MoJ is concerned the use of its branding makes consumers believe firms are endorsed by the Government, so it is proposing banning the use of its name in promotions. It says firms should only refer to it as the claims management regulator. The consulation also proposes rules that will require claims firms to keep customers updated by informing them of any variation to, or suspension of, their authorisation status. Under the proposals, regulated firms could face action if they work with unregulated introducers that break any MoJ rules on advertising, marketing and soliciting business. Cold calling by firms will be addressed separately to the consultation. The MoJ is working with the Information Commissioner to deal with unsolicited communications such as text messages. The consultation closes on 3 October. The MoJ will publish a summary of responses in December with the aim of implementing new rules by April 2013. http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/regulation/govt-proposes-tougher-rules-for-claims-chasers/1056679.article

Hello I'm 18s years old and received a letter from First Capital Connect last Monday stating they were in intending to prosecute me under 5.3.a of the Regulations of Railways Act 1889. Basically, I was an idiot and purchased a child's ticket in order to get to College for an interview. Upon getting to the ticket station I realised I was without the money to buy an adult ticket in my rushed state purchased a child's one instead, figuring it was better to pay something than nothing. Upon getting to the station I then panicked further and stated I bought it by accident before admitting the truth on the form. I desperately need 3 things answering and would appreciate any help given. 1: What is the maximum possible sentence for violating this part of the act? 2: What is the likely sentence? 3: What should my course of action be? Should I attempt a settlement letter? Thank you