I have had visa card for decades with largish credit limit of around £7000, very light usage, and always paid in full before pbd. The latest Card was issued in 2010 and I did not use it for any purchases but kept it for emergencies only, and was due for renewal at the end of July 2014. However, sometime in Feb 2014 they sent this surprise automatically generated note; “Would you like to keep your Barclaycard account open? We've noticed you haven't used your Barclaycard Classic card for a while and thought your account may longer be needed. That is why on 9 April 2014 we'll close your Barclaycard Classic account for you. This means any credit cards associated with this account will be cancelled unless you tell us otherwise. Don't worry, the other Barclaycard accounts you hold with us won't be affected.” The letter was sent by normal post, dated just “February 2014” and I ignored it because it looked like junk mail. When I found out in July that the card had been cancelled, BC at first verbally said they couldn't reopen the card with original credit limit because I did not appear on the electoral register, then in their final response they changed their story and said that they had issued a notice ending the agreement under the terms and conditions, and that my creditworthiness was not an issue. The FOS just lied about the whole thing in their non-investigation whitewash which I didn't accept. My new visa card has a mighty credit limit of £260! What are the legal viewpoints, breach of contract because no valid termination notice or something else, unfair relationship?

Just a quick question with regards to a new employment contract. I recently changed jobs and I noticed with some astonishment that one clause states it automatically terminates on my 65th birthday. It wasn't mentioned and I didn't ask during the job interview, as I thought I cannot be retired against my will anymore, but my contract states it will automatically end on my 65th birthday. I didn't realize they could do that ? On another note it also states if I wish to end my employment I will have to give three months notice, but if my employer wishes to end it, they will give no more than 1 weeks notice. I also am a bit surprised they can put themselves in a far better position, shouldn't it be the same for both parties ? It is a full time position, 39 hours per week

In past versions of Windows, Microsoft has allowed users to configure how they want operating system updates to be delivered. Those looking for the ultimate protection configure Windows Update to automatically install them, while others may, accidentally or not, disable the feature or postpone installing any updates for a very, very long time. I have seen systems that last had updates installed years before I was asked to troubleshoot them. With Windows 10, however, Microsoft is taking matters into its own hands, by making automatic updates mandatory. This applies to both home and business users, unless the latter group turns to dedicated tools that allow them to have more control over how updates are installed. Basically, you have to go out of your way to keep Windows 10 out of date. The most up to date Windows 10 licensing agreement, from build 10240, says the following: Updates. The software periodically checks for system and app updates, and downloads and installs them for you. You may obtain updates only from Microsoft or authorized sources, and Microsoft may need to update your system to provide you with those updates. By accepting this agreement, you agree to receive these types of automatic updates without any additional notice. Microsoft has confirmed that this will, indeed, be the case going forward, with a company spokesperson saying that "The license terms for Windows 10 require Automatic Updates be enabled as a part of keeping our customers secure and delivering Windows as a service". As I said before, it will be possible for some users to tweak this behavior, but I believe it will be limited to enterprises, which naturally want more control over such things. Personally, I welcome Microsoft's approach, as, based on my experience, there are plenty of Windows users who need to be protected against themselves. Some can be so ill-informed that they will disable Windows Update simply because they do not want to deal with the notifications that pop up when their systems have not been updated in a long time. They will expose their systems and personal data without realizing it, then they will blame Microsoft or other parties for the performance of their system. Of course, Microsoft can expect some Windows users to have a problem with this. There are legitimate cases when having Windows Update download lots of updates can interfere with certain tasks, but, for the average user, this should not be a problem. It can also be argued that some updates need to be "proven" before they are applied, but, again, times when such issues occur can be very rare. Another thing to note is that, by making automatic updates mandatory, Microsoft will be making it easier to keep users' systems current after releasing major Windows 10 updates, not just minor updates and security fixes. If, for instance, there will be a Windows 10.1 in the foreseeable future, it could be possible to have it automatically install right after being made available. Such an approach would make it possible to avoid the Windows 8.x update disaster, where there are still lots of users -- 2.9 percent of all PC users, to be exact, which is more than Windows Vista has -- running Windows 8 despite Windows 8.1 being offered as a free upgrade. This is a problem that Microsoft does not want to deal with again, if it is possible to avoid it (and it is), because it hurts it in the long run. Source: WinBeta

Hi, I have been fighting a company for a year and a half in regards to a CCJ they issued in my absence. Finally after I sent them a subject access request and finally got a court date to set it aside the company who issued the CCJ wrote to me enclosing a copy of a letter they sent to the court. In the letter the creditor wrote they communicated to the court that they are happy for the CCJ to be set aside and the they will not continue to chase me etc. they are in effect dropping their case. My question is this; I have a court date to set the CCJ aside in a week however the creditor wrote to the court in the first week of November. Do I need to still attend court in order to ask the court to set the CCJ aside or will the court update the registry in my favour and remove all trace of the CCJ from my credit file automatically? I have checked my credit file which checks all three credit reference agencies and the CCJ is still there. Just keen to get it off my file ASAP. Any help most appreciated. Happy new year everyone!

So your told to take your break at the end. And you have had various discussions with management about that because you’ve been feeling light headed and dizzy before the end of the duty. It also states in the contract that breaks must not be taken at the end under any attendance a 30 minute break is due and it must not be taken at the end ...(health and safety)(company policy)... .Although the duty itself is not normally scheduled at over 6 hours and does not total 6 hours (legal point where you are required a break in uk) it is still company policy however that break should not be taken at the end . But the manager has said break will be taken at end no matter what. He has no real regard for company policy’s and demands break at end so that there is no need for him to wait back any longer.(crafty) According to ACAS It's extremely important that workers take breaks. Studies have shown that heavy workloads and stress can make workers less productive, increase the risk of mistakes, and affect health. and should have their break at some point during the middle of there shift rather than adding the break to the end or beginning of work. I can safely say u was stressed and feeling less productive and my health was being effected. You are sent to do a job without the proper training to efficiently do the job and there had also been additional work for you to do before you leave which is not normally your job which means you have got out of the office later than expected. Although you are expected to inform managers if you will be working overtime there this would not be possible as you have not done the duty before and had no idea how long it will take so it would be an impossible argument to make with a manager (usually if you go into overtime its not a problem there is a flexibility agreements that states that is ok ). Because you have never done the job before it takes you longer and it is basically common knowledge that it will take you longer on the day.This is something the manager was not prepared to consider before or after the duty.Negligence? So you are doing your job in the knowledge “break must be taken at the end” which you already know is against the contract but you don’t want to annoy your manager to much about it and just deal with feeling dizzy .mainly because you done get a lunch break and it’s a very physicall exhausting job. But you have now gone into overtime which has always going to be the case under the circumstances and it is soon approaching the 6 hour mark which it your legal right to have a break. You have returned to the office with the job incomplete and there is a procedure in place that as long as you indicate to a manager that the job is not been completed then it is then down to them to deal with the problem. Although they later argue I should of informed them “earlier” .But that was impossible to know as i did not know. Now you decide that because the law states at 6 hours into a duty you will take your break among other reasons for having to return to the office “which must be taken at the end of your duty” therefore if you had came back with the job incomplete and they asked you to go back out with it to complete the job.Which would run well beyond 6 hours. remember break is at end so no time to stop. There are no instructions or training with regards to what to do if u hit the 6 hour mark. May i also point out that the legality of the break working 6 hours is that u must not take your break at the end also. so not sure how that will come into it.I was therefore already suffering from the symptoms of not having a break. You would be working past your legal right to a break at 6 hours of work so you refuse and go home break at the end of duty remember.… And since you have informed then you have followed procedures. Basically there is no “break” your just paid for the break at the end that u do not actually get. Its not like your actually on a break if you know what I mean. You have basically exercised your legal rights to a break and have acted on health and safety grounds. You come in the next day and are suspended, conducted and then dismissed. Not only that they also refuse to pay you the overtime you done.(which includes “break at end”) Is this this automatic unfair dismissal for attempting to enforce their legal right to a break and dismissed for acting on a health and safety issue with there only argument that I should of informed them at a random time of “earlier” so they could of done something about it. As soon as you know you will be later (which is impossible to judge on a job u have never done the job before) all jobs vary in size and length . Would u just accept your sacked with a gross misconduct and have this on your CV for a job that u worked for over 10 years in. Ps the manager has continued to say the break must be taken at the end during the dismissal when I pointed that out to them -contradicting company policy’s. But ignorant to there own policys. Ps people doing new duty’s that returned with jobs incomplete did not receive any conduct .As they did not know how long it would take them to complete the job and they was only prepared to work contracted time. And not do overtime. Is this disrimination? Would you bother putting in for unfair dismissal under these circumstances? Thank you