I have watched this programme and depending on when they filmed each series certainly the one prior to the latest, maybe even this series will have been filmed after a change in law http://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2015/11/17/new-nightmares-for-landlords-using-high-court-sheriffs-to-evict-tenants/ Nicholas v Secretary of State for Defence, High Court, Chancery Division, August 24, 2015 Which they now have to give advanced notice about HCEO's being instructed to carry out evictions CH5 conveniently appears to have omitted this fact Also the methods some of DCBL staff (del & son) used to gain a questionable" peaceful entry" yes door was open but man standing next to it blocking entry further into property yet del's son still enters blocks door from being closed (surely this is illegal)? series 4 episode 11 i hope But this is the sort of thing if I'm correct that misleads people and causes confusion it's time that tv companies /broadcasters et el, were legally bound to report facts based on laws not fudging stuff for entertainment value, many of those featured are very vulnerable as are some who maybe watching these so called documentaries

I have been suspended from work on pay. It has been over two months now and I was invited in to work last week for an investigative (fact finding) interview. I had already prepared a statement of fact which I presented at the interview. I also answered all questions asked of me. I completely deny the allegation set out. I am extremely stressed and anxious by the whole situation and I 100% know I am innocent of the allegations (I know, that's what they all say..). I have said all I need to say - I have given my side of the incident and do not wish to say anything further. Do I have to go in for this further interview? I really feel they're just going to try and trip me up (even though facts won't allow it but that's not the point). I'm not confident in their ability to carry out a fair investigation. What are my rights to not have to give my account a third time?

Hi lads and ladies i'm new here so first a quick HI! Now a quick question I'm a union rep so like to play with facts not hearsay and tales. Ok the question. A guy/lady is called in for an investigatory meeting on suspicion of X/Y. At this meeting they are not suspended and then a few days later get called back in front of the boss who subsequently fires the person. Now it's an understanding that if someone has not been suspended and gone to disciplinary the employer should not / cannot then dismiss? However, others say they have not suspended someone from work and then dismissed them without the suspension? So who is right? Should a person be suspended prior to disciplinary and dismissal, as you would assume that if a person were sacked it would be serious enough to warrant suspension? Or can an employer keep someone at work without suspending then dismiss them after say 5 days? Just an interesting scenario that came up in conversation. Cheers Bill

I won my employment tribunal claim for discrimination a couple of months ago and am awaiting a remedy hearing at the end of the year. I have re-read the judgement whilst preparing for the remedy hearing and realised that there are several findings of fact that are wrong and are easy to point out to the Tribunal. These findings of fact would not have affected the liability judgement but may be relevant in the remedy deliberations. Can I get these errors corrected and if so, how?

I am not saying that this has actually happened. I don’t know. I am just enquiring if anyone else has heard about it? Whilst in the pub the other night, I over heard a conversation that went along the lines of: The Bank’s and Building Societies, had before the crash, been allowing home owners to get into difficulties so that they could reposes their homes, purchase them cheap at auction via a 3rd party and then sell them on for full price via the 3rd party thus depriving the owners of their home and equity, making themselves a nice profit. I wonder if anyone else has heard of this. I can easily see how these institutions could have looked on with envious eyes as equity soared for the homeowner and not for them. After all they had a mortgage invested in the place. Nothing would surprise me these days; this would be yet even more rich pickings from the cash cow that we members have become? I don’t normally listen into conversations, only I couldn’thelp it as they were standing right behind me and I couldn't help it.

It is clearly stated on my p60 that i receive every year that i pay no tax at all on my benefits the dwp states that as my benefits are below £16,000.00 a year that i am not liable to pay any tax at all however the p60 shows a sum of some nearly £5,000.00 and one of £9,000.00 i recently contacted inland revenue who advised me to contact the dwp but i could not get any reasonable sense from either when margaret thatcher came to power and inflation rates soared to 23% she stated then that benefits would in future be taxable income so as we were only given an increment of 4% this would then mean that since she stated this that i am in fact paying 19% tax on my benefits she even stated at the time that the queen would also have to pay tax Can any one else advise or inform otherwise:???: robjlee64

DECIDE FOR YOURSELF 1. Back in 1961 people of colour were called "Negroes". So why / how can the Obama 'birth certificate' state he is 'African-American'when the term wasn't even coined or used at that time? 2. The birth certificate that the White House released Lists Obama's birth as August 4, 1961, and Barack Hussein Obama as his father. No big deal, right? At the time of Obama's birth, it also shows that his father is aged 25 years old, and that Obama's father was born in Kenya, East Africa." This wouldn't seem like anything of concern, except the fact that Kenya did Not even exist until 1963, two whole years after Obama's birth, and 27 years after his father's birth. How could Obama's father have been born in a Country that did not yet exist? Up and until Kenya was formed in 1963, it was known as the " British East Africa Protectorate". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenya 3. On the birth certificate released by the White House, the listed place of birth is "Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynaecological Hospital". This cannot be possible, because the hospital(s) in question in 1961 were called "KauiKeolani Children's Hospital" and "Kapi'olani Maternity Home", respectively. The name did not change to Kapi'olani Maternity & Gynaecological Hospital until 1978, when these two hospitals merged. How can this particular name of the hospital be on a birth Certificate dated 1961 if this name had not yet been applied to it until 1978? http://www.kapiolani.org/women-and-children/about-us/default.aspx 4. Why hasn't this been discussed in the major media? Perhaps a clue comes from Obama's book on his father. He states how proud he is of his father fighting in WW II. Unfortunately, Barack Obama's "birth certificate" says his father was 25 years old (or 27 as the case might be above) in 1961 when he was born. That should have put his father's date of birth approximately 1936. Now we need a non-revised history book-one that hasn't been altered to satisfy the author's goals-to verify that WW II was basically between 1939 and 1945. Just how many 3 year olds fight in wars? Even in the latest stages of WW II his father wouldn't have been more than 9. Does that mean that Mr. Obama is a liar, or simply chooses to alter the facts to satisfy his imagination or political purposes? Wedding ring is in for repair Since when does a plain wedding band need repairs, along with your watch, for a whole month? Another piece falls into place. In a press conference last week Obama was not wearing his wedding ring nor was he wearing his watch. When noticed, his staff said his ring was out for repairs. No reason was given for the missing watch. So it's just a coincidence that Muslims are forbidden from wearing jewellery during the month of Ramadan? Can't possibly be that, because although he hasn't gone to a Christian church service since entering the White House, we know he's a committed Christian "cause he said so during his campaign!" ........And I've got a bridge to nowhere to sell you also. This is the same president that spent the Christmas holidays in Hawaii to avoid religious obligations as PRESIDENT at the White House. His children do not receive Christmas presents. Let's just face the facts and quit trying to distort the truth, we have a Muslim for president in the White House, and he has no knowledge of American history. DONALD TRUMP YOU MAY BE ONTO SOMETHING ....!!!!!