I enquired about joining BT in December. While I was still with TT they kept sending me 'don't leave, speak to our loyalty team to see what they can do' messages...so I did. 28 Dec - agreed a new deal 10 Jan - not heard anything so rang them. New deal hasn't been processed because I'd 'missed Jan's payment' (it's DD so it's their fault they didn't take it!) made me pay Jan's bill there on the phone. Couldn't talk about new deal because payment hasn't been processed 12 Jan - they rang me back & agreed new deal. Later that day I received confirmation email of package....it's completely different to what we agreed on the phone!! 14 Jan - they stop my internet & phone. Turns out they've 'processed a cancellation' from the beginning of all this mess.. .even though I stayed with them!!! I've paid Jan's bill for them to cut me off!!!! The new deal I've agreed starts on 26 Jan - and I keep getting letters emails about the package I'm having and they're all different!!!!!

A recent house purchase left me very surprised when I discovered that our conveyancing solicitor was freely giving info about the progress of the sale to the vendors estate agent, including our mortgage status etc. I wondered if any Caggers could let me know what the legal staus of this is? Does the estate agent have any right to our information? Should the solicitor be freely giving information to the agent? Shouldn't the solicitor just stick to discussing things with the vendors solicitor?

Hello All, kind of a strange question, I've just received an e-mail from my local council, Brent in London, asking that I reply to them 'urgently' to check/update my details regarding a homelessness date suitability form. Firstly, is an e-mail actually considered a formal request and thus demands a reply? Secondly I'm very wary of opening any uncalled for attachments, I'm not obliged to bear the cost of an internet connection and I doubt the Council will ever admit that their attachments have been preloaded with anything malicious to a PC. I'm tempted to think this is a cost cutting exercise, which was why I've been moved out of borough anyway, I'd like to play straight with them but am uncertain about what constitutes 'formal' communication. With thanks, Peter

On 12th August I posted that BT had negligently deleted 9 years work by deleting my emails and the complaint went through the BT 'in house' complaints procedure which did not comply with their published 'rules' and maladministration took place. I then sent the complaint to the Ombudsman Service-Communications(OSC) to review, they are the appointed Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) expecting that they would review the procedure only to find that the maladministration at the OSC was worse than that suffered from BT, I then complained to the Independent Assessor(IA) who found in my favour. The OSC decision is final and cannot be appealed even thought it has been found to be legally flawed and based on nothing more than false assertion, this has all taken 18 months to discover which has delayed any 'due process'. It is clear, I now understand, that the OSC are not equipped to deal with complaints about BT when the complaint is about 'negligence', 'maladministration' or 'misinformation' as they are more guilty of these topics than BT are which is why BT are and will remain the most complained about Internet Service Provider in the land. The OSC is a private company and as such have no obligations under the freedom of information rules and it seems they are also exempt from Ofcom control/regulation which came as some surprise after the event, Ofcom were told that, in my opinion, that the OSC were showing signs of 'incompetence' but showed nothing more than passing interest even though the IA was less than complimentary about the OSC and BT do not follow guidelines that Ofcom do have control over. I will be interested to hear from others with similar experience of BT and or the OSC.

Has anybody had issues with this lot! They don't seem to know what they are doing ! They don't answer letters and when they do their responses make no sense ! If you write back they just ignore you. [edit] Red

My contract is an AST. The tenancy started on 30/09/2013 and ended on 29/09/2014 as per contract. 2160 pounds paid as deposit at the beginning. An inventory report was apparently taken at the beginning of the tenancy, however it was not signed by me and was not provided to me until 25 days after my move in date. The deposit is held on a TDS. Now to my problems: The contract specifies that " The agent must tell the tenants within 10 working days of the end of the tenancy if they propose to make any deductions from the deposit". The 10 working days deadline has obviously passed but I have not heard back from the agent nor the landlord. I finally managed to get in touch with the agent on Friday 24th of October and was only told that he is waiting for instructions from the landlord and he neglected to answer my question regarding them being in breach of contract. 1) Are they legally still allowed to make any deductions to my deposit considering the deadline for doing so is passed? 2) My communications are through scanned letters emailed to the agent and phone calls to their office. Are these sufficient enough should the issue come to any legal actions? 3) What is the penalty for breaching this term of the agreement? Another point here is that according to the contract " if the tenant intends to dispute any of the deductions, should inform the agent in writing within 30 days after the termination of the tenancy. Failure to comply with this time limit is a breach as rule of TDS". 4) What action should I take now considering how they are not giving me any sufficient information, time frames etc? Deadline for my possible dispute is on 29th of October. And the last point of my inquiry is regarding the inventory check in/check out reports. As I mentioned an Inventory check in report was provided to me 25 days after the start of my tenancy and I was never asked to sign it. Per contract, a check out report was also taken that was paid by me and was arranged through the agency. The quality of these two reports are incomparable! The check in report rarely mentions any details and does not include any photos while the check out report is stating every single bit of deficiency and includes loads of photos and the smallest details. 5) Is this a valid basis of argument for any possible dispute? 6) Can I deny the applicability of the check in report considering everything I just mentioned? Your input is very much appreciated. I apologies if this is too wordy.

Beware of this company Good Egg creative communications D J Higginbottom. We paid them via a website to carry out some design & print work. The work was never carried and this company failed to respond to any emails. We left a negative review on the website Good Egg creative communications simply deleted there profile and re opened a new profile with a slightly different name. This guy is definitely not a Good Egg he is a rotten EGG.

Plans to monitor the contents of everyone’s head came a step closer today with a proposed amendment to the government’s draft Data Communications Bill. Under the proposals all beliefs, intentions and ideas will be gathered using the very latest brain imaging satellites and then stored for 12 months in a vast government database at GCHQ, Cheltenham. ‘There is absolutely nothing sinister about monitoring people’s thoughts,’ said Home Secretary Theresa May. ‘If people aren’t thinking anything wrong then they have nothing to hide.’ The proposed Data Communications Bill already requires service providers to store people’s activity on social network sites, webmail, internet phone calls and online gaming. ‘This is all very well,’ said Mrs May, ‘ but it still leaves open the possibility that people may be secretly storing information inside their heads. All we want to do is close this loophole.’ The proposal already has the support of Director of Public Prosecutions Kier Starmer. ‘Research shows that the vast majority of crimes start off life in somebody’s head,’ he explained. ‘Of course defendants will still have the right to remain silent, but in future anything they think may be taken down and used in evidence against them.’ Civil liberties campaigners are outraged by the proposals. ‘This is a gross infringement of people’s privacy,’ said director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti. ‘Monitoring the contents of people’s minds is totally mental.’ ‘Yes, we know these people are outraged,’ said Mrs May. ‘They don’t need to tell us. We’ve already seen what they have to think.’ Responding to criticisms, Mrs May insisted that all proper safeguards will be put in place. ‘Access to people’s thoughts will be restricted to official government agencies,’ she assured, ‘The Police, the intelligence services, HMRC and, to save time, anyone working for News International.’ However, there still remain security concerns following a pilot study of the system in which a civil servant accidentally left the entire thoughts of Nantwich on a train. ‘These are just teething troubles,’ said a Home Office official. ‘We checked the records and nobody in Nantwich had thought anything interesting for a year.’ Mrs May rejected claims that the proposals would end up creating a ‘Thought Police’. ‘This is typical paranoid scaremongering,’ she said. ‘The important thing for people to remember is that the Thought Police are all in their minds.’

I contracted with Vodafone in August 2011 for mobile phone services for a period of 12 months. In late March 2012 I wrote to Vodafone cancelling my contract as I would be required to move overseas in June. I requested a final invoice so that I could settle the account, fully understanding that I would be paying off the remaining months on the contract. I got no reply from Vodafone despite efforts to clarify the situation, and duly traveled in June for a period of six weeks. On my return, despite not having made any phone calls I received a bill from Vodafone including a whole host of roaming charges for internet usage. I am disputing these charges as I cancelled my contract because I wanted to avoid incurring such charges, but Vodafone simply ignored my instructions. On my return I have tried to resolve the matter by talking to persons in store, emailing various departments, sending complaints, phoning them and writing more letters. Over the past three months I have not been able to get a response from a single individual! Instead Vodafone simply passed my account to the collections department, who I wrote to inform that the amount was in dispute, and they then just passed it on to a solicitor to litigate. I am very disappointed in Vodafone, there seems to be a strategy employed which is to frustrate any communication with them, whilst moving aggressively to recover funds regardless of the outcome of any dispute. Any advice is appreciated

MIDLAND COMMUNICATIONS DISTRIBUTION LIMITED ( NOTTINGHAM ) ( ORANGE DISTRIBUTOR ) Hi Does anyone have an account with Midland in Nottingham. We want to know if they are any good. I have seen reviews etc on this site and others which are not very good. Does anyone work with them?.

I have just checked my credit file with Experien and noted that Arrow Global Limited has applied a default to my credit file for "communication". I have discovered that Arrow has purchased the debt portfolio of Orange PCS with whom I had a dispute with some 4 years ago and that was resolved by the intervention of my Solicitor. My credit file shows the Orange PCS entry as "settled" and is dated the 17-Jan-2007. I have informed Arrow and their debt collecting arm - Fredrickson International of this have sent them a copy of the entry. However the default remains. I have spoken to Experien and they cannot remove it unless their client confirms the entry they have made is incorrect. The procedure is for Experien to write to Arrow who then have 28 days to respond etc. This could take months. Meantime I am left with a default on my file that has no business being there. Any suggestions about what I can do to get this removed immediately? Your help will be appreciated.