Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but just been on the Universal Job match website and saw this : Universal Jobmatch will be replaced by the Find a job service on 14 May 2018. Important: If you have an existing Universal Jobmatch account it will not move to the new service. Save any information you want to keep, like your CV, cover letters and application history by 17 June 2018.

Important information for DVLA customers: DVLA services READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/important-information-for-dvla-customers-online-services

A retired lawyer by the name of Robert Ransome has published his research into the planning consents or lack of them for all the private car parks he knows exist. It is clear that in most of the places no PP exists and is required by law so the arguments we have used here have been reinforced by his work and the ParkingPranksters commentary on the whys and wherefores. There is alos some clarification over whether retrospective permission can be given and the answer is NO so those who got caught out by Parking Eye's lies have recourse to remedy if they wish to choose it. the problem is that you have to get the local trading standards people interested and they rarely look into matters that are of little concern as far as things like public safety go but it is always worth getting a compaint lodged so they can collect the data for the future. The research is linked to the parking pranksters web page ( the dot com, not the blog) but is linked via the blogspot. My first fight with a private parking co was with Parking Eye over a NTK issued at Lidl in Addiscome Rd Selsdon more than 7 years ago. I took them on regarding the lack of PP and was helped by the fact that Lidl's main car park used to be the pub next door they flattend but failed to tell the Valuations Agency and the local council so a relatively easy victory it set the scene for how the parking companies hide behind the skirt tails of the landowner when they are threatened with having to pay business rates for being there ( Lild forgot to tell the council and VA that they had turned the pub into a car park so the land hadnt been assessed for business rates). I know the upshot was that PE just passed the buck and Lidl landed a bill for another £50k on their rates becasue they denied that it was a separate business. I suppose Lidl paid up as they could then give PE the boot if they desired to do so but my gut feeling is that the contract was so poorly worded they didnt fancy testing it. So, look up the relevant place and even if your ticket is from a hotel or residential development the law is the same, they need PP, even if it is given on the nod upon application.

I have just found out something worrying via the Credit reference agency's and just wanted to see what other peoples views are on this matter, if any. In my opinion this is worrying because I don't think many people know that information that may be needed in the future is lost in the past If you the public do not act. let me explain, Recently I asked Experian If I could see my credit file for the whole month of September 2009 as I believed that a certain company had been doing some wrong things to my credit files and I needed to prove that they were unlawfully readjusting a default date, a tactic they do all the time to lengthen the time the default is on your credit file. Upon asking for this information I was shocked to be told that because I myself haven't generated the file on that specific date ( logging into Experian and having a look) that there is no records to show me, that they just do not exist. Which basically means that if you don't look at your credit file you will never be able to see what's been going on with your file in the future. I wonder if company's get to know who and who doesn't generate their file. Any thoughts... BB a4v

Disability Rights UK Factsheet F13 has now been updated as of the 13/01/2016. this is a very useful tools which is very comprehensive. This fact sheet actually covers so many topics it will just be simpler to allow you to find your section. Then if need be to start your own thread.. So for the fact sheet 13 follow this links below... See here >> http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/benefits-checklist#sick or here >> https://tinyurl.com/hh7var8 This factsheet is free for you to download. We are committed to providing free information on our website. This is an interactive factsheet designed to give you an idea of the help you can get. It includes links to information on benefits, tax credits, housing grants, independent living, education and other help, including help provided by your council/local authority. Select the situation which applies to you (you may fit into more than one situation). Each situation has a list of the help available. These link to further information or a factsheet on the subject. If you just want to find out about a specific benefit go to benefits in that section... Since there have been a number of posters wanting to appeal against the Decision Makers (DM) award or lack of it you can read up on the appeals process here >> http://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/how-we-can-help/benefits-information/factsheets/appeals-factsheets Or here >> https://tinyurl.com/jpa9cph Correct as of 13/01/2016 I am really sorry for the very long read but this is going to be of use to you if you are disabled. Also sorry if this has already been posted previously.. MM

http://my.meaction.net/petitions/pace-trial-needs-review-now

Hi. I am currently going through with a DRO (debt relief order) and it's taking longer than I would wish, plus the guy from Citz Advice is not really helping at all. I get back tonight and 2 letters. One is from Collectica, saying I now owe them £215, £140 of the remainder of the fine and £75 for their BS fees. I have been paying this weekly, missed a week here and there but generally up to date, it was for a motor fine with courts. This is not in the DRO as fines can not go in dro. However the 2nd letter is off CCS Collect. Saying I owe upto £300 for variou HMRC stuff. This fine is in DRO. They have 'threatened' with action if I do not pay them etc. They say 'our clent hmrc has authed us to recover full amount due. we regret that if no payment in 7 days or an offer to pay etc we will advice cliebnt to litigate amount due with court costs and court fees. This is in the DRO so what's going on? Can anyone shed light on these 2? I have been working in the library on new business ideas all day and the last thing I want to come home to is this ****!

Grace v Black Horse , it was decided on 30 October in the Appeal Court that a lender is not entitled to register a default if the agreement was officially found to be unenforceable. This could have implications for anyone who disputes an entry and the lender cannot come up with any proof that there was an agreement let alone an unenforceable one.

I really dont know where to start here but i will try and explain as best i can. The main reason for the post is to find out if the repossession is legal which is only the tip of the iceberg here. A financial adviser is contacted to source funding for a small residential development. The adviser contacts a company who happen to be a broker. The broker sources funding from a lender and charges £1,000 app fee. The application is made to LENDER which was successful, no issues. The name of the company at the top of the facility Letter is lets say "The Lender" There is no address or contact information of any kind within the contract other than the name of the company at the top. As the contract was to release the funding in stages, the first stage was released and work carried out to complete all underbuilding work. Not further funding was released after this due to the lenders demands outwith the contract. One thing led to another and the issue was unable to be resolved. The lender decided it was time to both serve a calling up notice and subsequently a court writ to repossess the partially developed land. This is where things start to open up and i find out who is who The issue is that the pursuer is a Limited Company, the same Limited company that the broker was a trading name of, effectively what this guy is saying is, the broker and "The Lender" were both trading names of the Limited Company- How was i to know that when the Financial Adviser requested £1,000 app fee payable to the lender and also there would be a £1,500 fee payable to the broker for sourcing the lender? Effectively it now looks like the Director of the limited company not only charged me to find the lender but HE was the Lender. Now, to make things clear. The Limited company using the two so called trading names had a Consumer Credit License (Legal Formation: Body Corporate) (Nature of Business- Mortgage Broker) (Category-Credit Brokerage) this is very clear from OFT. "The Lender" also had their own CCL as a separate entity,(Legal Formation: Partnership) (Nature of Business-Mortgages) (Category- Credit Brokerage and Consumer Credit) this is very clear from OFT. "The Lender" from the mass of information i found out about them has been a Partnership company for many years but the Limited company who is pursuing the repossession has only been set up for over a year. I am of the thinking that, as nothing mentioned in the contract about a trading name of the Limited Company (which would be a breach of the Companies Act) if it were the case. The limited company did not hold any CCL to be a lender. The Partnership was established at least 10 years prior to the Limited Company being set up, and most importantly, there will be litigation against the lender for breaching the contract it is simply a move to limit the liabilities to the Limited Company that seemingly does not much in the way of liquid funds. Another slight twist is that, the broker and lender have no association whatsoever with the Limited company now they are now trading names of two other Limited companies this guy has set up and the CCL status of all companies is that they are Mortgage Broker NO MORE BEING A LENDER! Again, just to add a little spice. the three individuals who own the Partnership/Limited companies have between them Dissolved over 40 companies within the last 8 years or so. Should it not be "The Lender" named within the contract pursuing repossession. Should i be suing a company not named on the contract and also unauthorised to lend? As i mentioned, this is the tip of the iceberg, Thanks in advance

I have kept putting off filling in my ESA 50 form, I had a month to do it and now it's near the time I need to send it. But over the past few days I've been looking up things and a lot of people are saying you need to send medical evidence with the ESA50 form, even though they say it isn't mandatory. It has to be there by the 5th December, so I need to send it soon. I phoned my doctor and the secretary said that ATOS / DWP would get in touch with them if they needed evidence, but I said that sometimes they don't seem to do this. She said she would see my gp about writing me a letter, and that she would phone back today...which she hasn't done yet so seems unlikely. I'm not sure if I should send the form off now to make sure it gets there, or wait to try and get a letter. Or would it be possible to arrange with ATOS to send the medical evidence after I have sent the ESA50? And would I need to state that on the form? Getting a bit stressed over this and really would like to avoid having to go to an assessment.

Hi I received a letter from a County Court Bailiff called Mr Morgan. The letter says "I am holding a very important document for your attention. You must call " The letter then goes onto say, if you ignore this document you may be committed to prison for contempt of this court but at no point in the letter does it say what the document is. Does anybody know if i'm obliged to respond to this? Particularly as the letter doesn't state what the document is. An advice would be much appreciated. Thanks

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21942544 "Thousands of job applicants will no longer have to face their criminal past being disclosed to employers, under changes announced by the Home Office. Old and minor cautions and convictions will be filtered out of the information revealed in applications for jobs in England and Wales. It follows a Court of Appeal ruling in January that blanket checks did not comply with human rights laws. All serious violent and sexual offences will continue to be disclosed. The Home Office said the system would be implemented within weeks, following Parliamentary scrutiny. In 2011-12, more than four million people applied for a criminal records check. The changes follow a Court of Appeal hearing concerning a job applicant, known as T, who had to disclose police cautions he had received at the age of 11 over two stolen bicycles when he applied for a part-time job at a football club. Tougher criminal checks were brought in after mistakes were made with child murderer Ian Huntley The Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, said the disclosure of old convictions and cautions was designed to protect children and vulnerable adults. However, he said, "requiring the disclosure of all convictions and cautions relating to recordable offences is disproportionate to that legitimate aim".

First I must say sorry for the length of this but was given it today From 22/10/12 the law is changing. The amount of benefit you receive will not change. However, if at any time in the future you fail to meet the conditions attached to receiving JSA, the way benefit is affected will change. To qualify for JSA, you must: : be available for employment : be actively seeking employment : have current Jobseeker's agreement : comply with any reasonable conditions that your adviser asks you to do. From 22/10/12 if you do not meet the conditions you are asked to do, without a good reason, your benefit could be affected. : You could lose your benefit for 13 weeks, 26 weeks or 156 weeks ( 3 years ), if you : Leave a job voluntarily or lose a job due to misconduct on your part : Fail to take part in a mandatory work activity programme : Fail to take on a suitable employment opportunity : Refuse or fail to apply for a job which your adviser has notified to you. The length of time will depend on whether it is the first, second or third time you have failed to meet any of these responsibilities in the last 52 weeks ( one year ) of the prevoius time. You may loose your benefit for four weeks or 13 weeks if you : Fail to attend an adviser interview : If applicable, fail to take part in a particular employment programme ( such as the work programme ) : Do not take the opportunity of a place on an employment programme or training scheme : Refuse or fail to apply for or accept a place on such a programme or scheme notified to you by your adviser : Fail to attend or give up a place through your own misconduct lose a place on such a programme or scheme : Fail to comply with a Jobseeker's Direction The length of time will depend on how many times you have failed to meet any of these responsibilities in the last 52 weeks Your benefit will stop and you will no longer qualify for JSA if you : Do not actively seek work : Are not available for work If you reclaim following such a failure your new award may not be paid for up to 4 weeks, if your benefit was stopped on more then one occasion in the last 52 weeks, any new award may not be paid for up to 13 weeks. What to do if you lose your benefit You can ask for an explanation of the decision to stop your payments, ask for it to be reconsidered, and /or appeal the decision. Even if you lose your benefit because you have not met your responsibilities ( as above ) you must still continue to be available for employment, take steps to actively seek employment, and come to the Jobcentre for your fortnightly appointment to verify this. If you do not, you may lose your entitlement ( and your claim will be closed ) More Help If you lose your benefit ( and you have no other sources of support ) you may be able to claim hardship payments. You will have to show that you are suffering financial hardship, the hardship officer or your adviser at your Jobcentre can explain how to apply for a hardship payment. Your benefit will ONLY be affected if you do not meet your responsibilities.

On 31st August 2012 we went to the Post Office to send a very important letter to Cardiff by registered post for a signature. This concerned a possible benefit overpayment which we wanted stopped as soon as possible. Unfortunately another payment has been made in the interim. On checking the tracking number again today, it is states is being progressed through the network for delivery. It stated the same on 01/08/2012! What is the point in sending stuff registered mail for a signature if it doesn't happen? Is there anything we can do to chase it up in the meantime? Thanks.

Thanks Martin for the links, since this news broke I've been wondering how this has affected me as I have a Libor linked secured loan. The grauniad article helps to answering this. So on balance it probably didn't affect home owners much. Another BBC article suggests that while Barclays were trying to manipulate Libor, they weren't very good at it, and at most only managed to massage it a few basis points each way.