https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/03/petrol-food-prices-uk-rising-2017 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/10/food-prices-rise-inflation-returns-supermarkets/

Hello helpful people. First off a huge thanks to all who have posted here, you have helped this long-time "lurker" to a successfully upheld claim with the Halifax for my credit card PPI. My card has had a largish balance on it for nearly all of its 15 years and my average PPI payment per month has been £28, with many payments £30-£35. My situation is thus. The SAR came back with ALL statements and payment details going right back to the issuing of the card in June 1999, so there should be no guessing or averaging on the part of the bank. I painstakingly input all the details into the spreadsheet posted on this forum (The running credit one titled "FosRunningPPI v102.xls") twice! and got the same settlement figure order of £26K both times. Halifax have now written to me upholding my complaint and made a final response offer of almost £16K. They are saying that I have 28 days in which to accept the offer, or to call them if I am unhappy with the decision. How accurate is that spreadsheet above in terms of how the account should be reconstructed? Could there be any other reason for such a discrepancy? I'd would like to contest the amount if it is wrong but don't want to end up like that guy who was offered £22,000 and ended up with £3,500!! Thanks for any help and advice. Much appreciated.

Hi all, I have searched the forum and found lots of good advice but not the specific detail I am looking for hope you can help. I work in manufacturing as a shift manager, I have always got into work early and often leave late (versus contracted hours) however my employer is now expecting this and planning meeting etc out with contracted hours for myself and all my colleagues. On discussion my direct Manager says that it is "expected for us to do additional hours" I now have a problem with this attitude, but before I dig my heels in I would like to know where I stand legally. Thank you in advance, I should have added that I don't get paid for the extra hours.

Hi, I am going to cancel my car insurance as I have found it cheaper else where, I’m currently paying £3120 a year (£260 on the 16th of the month) I have found it for £1160 a year. I phoned up my current insurer and asked them what I would be charged to cancel, they told me it would be £467.19p to cancel surely this can’t be right, the bloke on the phone assured me that it was the correct fee and was nothing he or I could do about it and said if I needed to I could pay it off monthly over 2 years with no interest. Just wondering if this seems correct and if not what I should do about it. Thanks, Steven.

I have recently been investigating a consolidated loan that was taken out in 2005 and have today received a copy of the credit agreement from GE. The document is headed igroup and GE have confirmed that this is there company and that Loans.co.uk brokered this loan. I am now in the process of starting my PPI complaint as it was a single premium of £4320 on top of a loan of £35k. The interest was 16.25%. At no time were we given any advice or options i.e. monthly PPI. I have only just established that the PPI only covered 5 years of the loan which was taken out over a 15 year period. Therefore it appears that the PPI was inappropriate. I do feel that we were completely mis-sold and forced into this option to secure the loan. GE have told us to make the complaint to Loans.co.uk as they were the broker. Am I correct in thinking that due to this being a single premium PPI there is a case?

I have 4 accounts with Vodafone (1 personal, 1 work, 1 data and 1 for the wife). When I took out the contract with Vodafone I have recently moved across from overseas and did not have an established long term credit record. As a result the sales person requested that I pay a £20 fee for the new contract - something I was willing to do as the contract was a good deal and I would get further discount through the employee advantage scheme. I signed up for the employees advantage scheme and got notified that it was active and looking back at my bills the discount had been applied. I received a message from Vodafone that they are upping my data allowance to 5Gig from the 3Gig per my initial contract. No mention of any change in contract or termination of the employee advantage benefit. Per the terms and conditions it reads that if "you" change your package then you will need to reapply for the discount. I did not change my package, my monthly amount is still the same and Vodafone simply decided to increase my data allowance, this was done without my request or authorization. I noted on my bill during June that the employee advantage discount was no longer applied and contacted the customer service team on 14 July (within 30 days of noting the discount being missing). They indicated that I should have reapplied for the employee advantage scheme due to a contract change - something I did not request and received no notification whatsoever that my discount which I have applied for would fall away. I would like to see if a Vodafone customer care representative on this forum would be able to properly resolve this matter as I don't believe this was an honest move by the company and the employee advantage scheme was the main consideration as it made the total cost of the package the most favorable.

Hi guys, I'm hoping someone on here can help me, I have a nissan primastar van and the gearbox is on its way out. My question is what is a reasonable mileage to expect from a gearbox for a commercial vehicles gearbox. My 2008 van has done 70000 miles and has a full service history. I am aware of the sale of goods act and that it should be fit for reasonable use, however 70000miles for a commercial doesnt seem to be right. Does anybody know of any claims or law suits against any vehicle manufacturer concerning gearbox lifetimes that i can use as evidence to back up my claim to nissan, or any kind of promotional material claims a gearbox should last for xxx miles. So far nissan have been completely dismissive and rejected my claim. Thanks for your help, Tim

Comes as Lloyds announce they are to set aside a further £1b for PPI claims,bringing the total for them to £5b http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20164521

ECJ Gender directive. Background. Draft Directive on Equal Treatment On 2 July 2008, under its ‘Renewed Social Agenda’, the European Commission adopted a non discrimination package including a proposal for a new directive on equal treatment. This proposal prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief outside the employment sphere, in the areas of social protection, including social security and health care; education; and access to and supply of goods and services which are commercially available to the public, including housing and transport. The new directive would come on top of four other directives; one on discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, both within and outside the labour market; one on discrimination in the labour market; one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to employment; and one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to and supply of goods and services. On the 2nd April 2009 the proposed directive was adopted by the European Parliament. The Government Equalities Office ran a 12 week public consultation from 5 May to 28 July in 2009 on the Commission’s Proposal. It has since published a summary of the responses. Negotiations on the Directive are continuing in Europe. Gender Directive Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive allows Member States to permit differences relating to gender in respect of insurance premiums and benefits if gender is a determining risk factor and that can be substantiated by relevant, accurate, and regularly updated actuarial and statistical data. st On 1 March 2011,in its final ruling on the Test Achats case regarding the opt out in Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive2004 the European Court of Justice(ECJ)declared Article 5(2) to be void with effect from 21 December 2012. As of this date, all Member States must consider the provision to be invalid. The ruling applies from December 2012,however its impact on insurance contracts concluded prior to this date and on those that remain in force beyond it is not yet clear. Test Achats, the Belgian Consumer Association, originally brought their case, before the Belgian Constitutional Court in 2009. They argued that the opt out provision in Article 5(2) was contrary to the principle of gender equality as enshrined in primary Community law, and in particular to article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union**. The Belgian Constitutional Court referred the case to the ECJ. The Advocate General gave her opinion to the ECJ on 30 September 2010 that the derogation should be annulled. IMPLICATIONS; Car Insurance,Over a long period,Insurers calculated premiums based on whether a driver was male or female.although statics showed that there was little difference in the amount of accidents occurred between women and men,there is evidence to show that costs to address incidents by women for the Insurers were significantly less. Young and new drivers are expected to be hit the hardest and already face high premiums. Traditionally,drivers with no history gave women an upper hand as they were rated as a lower risk than male drivers. A report from one leading Insurance company in July 2012,has revealed that insurance for a new male driver averaged £1060 more than that of a female in the 17-25 age group. The new ruling means that this mode of decision making will be unlawful. It is expected that young womens policies will rise,whilst young mens will fall slightly,and could see a 10% benefit. Young women meanwhile could face increases of up to 25%. As the December deadline approaches,It is a good idea for those women likely to be affected to sort out policies ASAP. Another way of softening the blow is for drivers to consider telematics (Black Box technology) which give scope for young drivers to prove their abilities as safe drivers,and enjoy discounts as a result. LIFE INSURANCE The ruling is likely to impact on life and health insurance too,since women have longer life expectancy than men. Whilst there is not much information available at the moment,it is accepted that womens premiums are expected to rise,although not by the 25% expected in the case of young womens car insurance premiums.Index linked or guaranteed policies are unlikely to be affected. Variable premiums however,could see an increase or decrease. Some experts are suggesting that those with variable policies should think about switching to a fixed one,but consider that prices could go either way. As always The CAG suggests that you seek independent expert advise before making any decisions. HEALTH INSURANCE Little changes are forecast,since women and men already pay similar rates,although women could see a small drop in payments for Income Protection Policies,which pay out for sickness,with men seeing a slight rise in policy payments. Looking around for a better policy before December is an option for those who think they may benefit.

The second wettest summer on record has blighted UK harvests and will lead to food price rises, farmers and retailers have warned. Wheat yields in England are down by almost 15% on the five-year average, the National Farmers' Union (NFU) reported, with some areas in the west of England suffering worst from the summer rain. The world price of grain has already been rising in recent months following a heatwave in Russia and the worst drought in 50 years in the US, which destroyed 45% of corn and 35% of the soya bean crop. Read more here :- http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/10/food-prices-rise-wettest-summer?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038 Farmers are taking the first hit as feed wheat and compond foods for stock have risen by £50 a tonne this month !!! Lex

Lowell have been on my back for £903 which they say I owe Home shopping. I accepted responsibility for £650 which is the actual amount. For months they have refused to lower this figure to the amount I readily accept , and insist I pay them the £903. I have told them on many occasions , (never by phone , but by email only) to GFT's. Following advice on CAG , I contacted them , again by email , and told them that as we are on full benefits , I will pay them £1.00 per month. I recieved a email from Lowell yesterday saying that they will accept £1.01p a month over 900 months if I agree to the £903 that they want. That would take 75 years to pay off!!. Should I accept their offer ? It would be very nice to get these of my back , but if I agree their terms , would this mean that if I accept that I would have agreed to the £903 they say I owe?. They also say I could pay a one off fee of £700 to settle. I can honestly say I never expected Lowell to agree £1.00 a month !!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-19384548

Hi I'll try and keep it short. I'm currently in receipt of sickness (longterm) related Income Support and Housing Benefit. Anytime soon I'm expecting a lump-sum payment which will take me over the £16k savings criteria (I assume this is still the max limit) which means I'll no longer be entitled to receive these benefits. My query is what actually happens to my current claim? Fag packet maths say I'll be below the £16k in around 15 months time where I would be entitled to some benefits. I dont expect my health to improve during this time. Is it a case of starting afresh or will my existing claim be continued/re-opened?. It's something that scares the hell out of me and really wish I wasn't receiving this money. Thanks.