Hi all, First post here, when I was a student I did a semester abroad on the Erasmus scheme. I was in Denmark. While in Denmark I had a flat and took out an internet service. I was there for 3 months but had a 12 month contract, this was in 2014 Sept-Dec . I took out the service with Telenor. The service was around £25 a month. When I left Denmark I forgot to cancel the contract , looking back I can find one email from Telenor from March 2015 (assuming pointing out late payment). I then have an email from Intrum Justitia asking for 2.757,67kr (about £330) this is in June 2016. This seems about right for 9months unpaid + fees + interest. I have not paid, as I have never had the money spare, but every now and again it eats away at me! Is this something to worry about? I have seen that Intrum will pursue debts across europe however I have assumed mine is too small to be worthwhile? Will it be written off or will it just get larger? What is my best course of action here? Thanks all!

I signed up to a Web-hosting contract with 1&1 Internet for a year, because they had a special offer where the costs were reduced for the initial 12 months. After 3 months the monthly payments taken from my card suddenly soared for no reason, which means that after only 5 months I had paid more than the whole contract for the year. I phoned up to be told that this was correct according to terms on their website, which had changed since I signed the deal. Eventually, after many hours, and emailing them my contract, I got them to agree to refund the extra I had paid over the terms of my contract. I had now paid for the full year. I asked them not to take any more payments. They agreed. Fast forward to next month. They took another payment from me at the increased rate. I was hugely busy at work, so I didn't notice. Another month passed and they took yet another payment. Then I noticed. At this point I had now paid more than double the annual amount set out in my contract. I called back but it was like Groundhog day. Hours of calls again. I resent the contract again. Again I get them to agree to refund the extra I've paid and to stop the payments coming out by auto renewal. By now I didn't trust them to do this. Fortunately I was changing my bank account, so the old card was cancelled. Fast forward to next month. They tried to take another payment, which failed because the card had been stopped. After a while they sent me threatening emails: my hosting will be suspended and if I don't pay up they'll pass the "debt" on to debt collectors. I called them back. How much to I owe? I've paid it all, haven't I? How do I stop you from taking payments I don't owe? They wouldn't tell me how much they thought I owed them or how much more they might take out. According to them the system has generated an invoice, which had to be paid. I went through all the previous invoices. I saw I had paid more than double the amount for the whole year, but then I noticed that they got the refund wrong. The had given me back slightly too much, and I still owe them a few pounds. Ok, I told them, I'll pay this if you stop taking auto payments. They refused. They said I need to provide updated card details so the autopayments could continue to be taken. They also said they couldn't adjust the autopayments so it would take out the amount which I'd agreed to in my contract. Apparently, I just had to keep paying money I didn't owe them because there was no way to correct their mistake. Which would then mean months more hassle with me trying to get them to refund money they'd taken. The only option they gave me was that if I updated the card details so they could take the final payment, they would then cancel the whole package, which would definitely stop the autopayments. This meant the year's hosting I had already paid for would end after only 8 months. I just wanted it to stop. So that's what I agreed to do. Incredible. I don't know if the company is legit or not, but I'm going to contact my bank so they can't access my card again.

BT basic + broadband at £10 per month with no hidden extras as long as you are on a qualifying benefit it sounded a great option for me I have been long term unemployed and spend more than that each fortnight on PAYG to search for jobs. I read the website and it mentioned them sending a form out they would need back so I gave the free phone number a ring. So the first person I spoke to asked what benefit I was on, confirmed I was eligible and echoed basically what the website said and the forms would be in the post. 10 minuets after ending the call they rang back told me a date for installation was set up and took my bank details for direct debit. I was taken back to be honest I thought they wanted the paperwork back and assumed they had already made the necessary checks. Obviously happy now I did not have to wait for the forms to filled and returned and a date set for installation I was well chuffed with the service so far. Again everything went well installation complete and the service was as to be expected, finally could jobsearch without too much worry of cost. First bill came and as promised the cost was £10 which went out my account. Whoopee great finally something altruistic on the part of a big business hats of to bt. Then the whoopsie hit the fan. First indication something was wrong was my next bill was £47 and clearly something was wrong here. At the earliest opportunity I rang the helpline and was informed that as I did not return the forms they sent out to confirm I am on benefits and they can check I had been upgraded to a premium service. I never received any form to send back I wrongly assumed it had all been set up. So I cancelled the direct debit (if £46 went out my account I would starve ) then learned bt would add a further charge to my bill £10 for a failed payment, so I had to change my method of payment over to bill which was a £2.50 charge but less than £10 and left with no other choice. Then was told they would send me another form out to sign. I decided I would get in touch with bt support via Email as I could not afford the bill at all, I never asked for a upgrade and believe they should have suspended my service if there was an issue and in my opinion should not have provided me with the service until all paperwork had been completed anyway. I am on low income and would not get credit nor want it. Well all I can say is the customer services was no help at all and just said when they get the form back they will adjust it from the day I got in touch which still would make it impossible to pay and thus lose a much needed service when they cut me off for a missed payment. 8-9 days later and a few emails back and forth as to why I have issues with my post the form finally arrived. Now the catch 22 situation is they want the form back within 14 days and I sent the form back the same day I received it but according to them it arrived late. now I have incurred another months bill at premium rate for something that is out of my control. They have now sent out a 3rd form Wednesday and again so far it has not arrived so if it doesn't come Monday again I will miss the 14 day deadline. As a resolution I would like my bill adjusting back to the plan I asked for but who the heck is actually liable here the phone company or bt or both ?

A month ago I ordered some supplements from USA to be sent to me in the UK and paid using my debit card. My item never arrived and there is no response from the company to my emails. Have I lost my money?

I am helping a friend/client defend a summons from their former business Internet suppliers. Long story short, they were happily using BT for their phones and Internet for many years, until some Mickey Mouse outfit called them and said they could provide everything BT did at a fraction of the price. They foolishly agreed before talking to me and soon came to regret the decision as: 1. The Internet regularly went down for long periods. 2. One fix suggested by the ISP was too disable the fixed IP and change to dynamic. As they use CCTV and Remote Desktop this was not a great solution. 3. Their business was considerably disrupted due to the constant breakdown of the Internet. 4. They constantly contacted the ISP but the Internet continued to fail. 5. They claimed the same problems would be experienced with BT and yet since switching back to BT their Internet has been problem free. They have received a summons today from the ISP saying the last two months invoices remained unpaid, emails go ignored and have now cancelled the service. I believe they think the application will be left unanswered so they could apply for the award and get the bailiffs in, so I would like to get a reply back as soon as possible. They did warn the ISP that they would need to switch ISP unless it was resolved their reply was "you are under contract." They finally cracked and moved back to BT. I have advised them to dispute the claim in full and defend on the above grounds. If a business totally fails to provide a service, can be just walk away, on grounds of breach of contract/non-performance? This is effectively what they were forced to do.

I have not placed this thread in Insurance, because it is more about experience of using online sites to buy Insurance. Have woken up early and not got back to sleep (annoying) i decided to sort out some Home Insurance. After going through various different sites, Axa, Aviva, Allianz, L&G, Tesco, Halifax, I decided to visit Barclays. Although Barclays use Aviva, the experience of using their site was so much better than all of the companies mentioned including Aviva. The information was so much clearer and the functionality of the site was light years ahead. And Barclays don't rip you off with a high interest for monthly payments and don't have the admin fees that others charge. I saved over £100 a year compared to the other companies and for much better cover. And i can now access my Barclays Insurance details online and if I want to, I can amend the cover, to include extras that I opted out of at the start. I have no connection to Barclays ( don't Bank or work for them) but I am impressed by their online sites. I have always Banked with one of their competitors, but if their Internet provision is as good as the Insurance, I might look at swapping. Ps. I don't use comparison sites, as they are not a very good way of buying Insurances and by using them, you are selling all of your data to them. They will sell your data to any company that has a contract with the comparison site, even if they never offered a quote for your Insurance details.

Hello, I was in business as a photographer and approached by the above company to carry out Search Engine Optimisation on my web site. We entered into an agreement whereby they would carry out work on the web site and I would pay them £58.50 per month after the initial payments were made. The agreement was for 12 months in December 16 I went out of business and they are now chasing and threatening County Court Action and have sent a "copy" of the Court Summons for Manchester County Court that will be issued on 3rd February 2017 if I do not pay the outstanding balance of £176.40. They have also broken down the charges claimed on the claim form as; Defendant details: My Business name which includes my first and last name and then my business type. Brief Details of Claim: "Failure to pay monies due under contract" Value: "Total value of £176.40 due under remainder of contract plus interest and administrative charges of £64.87. Amount Claimed: £241.27 Court Fee: 170.00 Solicitors Cost: £500.00 Total Amount: £911.27 PoC 1."On 11th January 2016 the defendant entered into a written contract with the claimant. 2.The contract had no condition allowing the defendant to cancel the contract except under very specific conditions detailed in the contract. 3.The defendant is not eligible to cancel the contract. 4.The law does not provide by statute nor require a cooling off period when two businesses enter into a contract. 5.This agreement may be cancelled at the end of 12 months by either party notifying the other party. After this period the agreement may be cancelled by either party giving one months notice to the other party. Notice will be taken from the next payment date unless given on the current payment date. 6.The contract required the defendant to make an initial payment and to make monthly payments of £58.80, the first such payment being due one month after entering into the contract. 7.The defendant is in arrears on the contract. 8.The claimant has now invoked the provisions of clause 4 of the contract. "In the event of the customer failing to make a monthly payment on the due date FirstFound is entitled to take any or all of the following remedies in any order it sees fit: a) Require immediate payment of all monthly fees due during the remainder of the Contract Term; b) Add interest to the debt at 4% per annum above the base rate of HSBC Bank plc from the date due to the date of payment; c) Issue written demands for all sums due, each such demand attracting a fee of £15.00, payable by the customer until all overdue sums are paid." 9.The claimant claims the total of all the monthly fees due during the remainder of the renewal/initial period of the contract (£176.40) plus 3 written demands (£45.00) plus interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% on the sum of £17.71. That is the claim details as written on the document. First of all, the claim is in my business name (I am self employed not a Ltd Co) and not specifically in my name only. Not sure this makes any difference of course. Secondly, The amount they are claiming is £241.27 - this breaks down as £176.40 and their charges and admin £64.87 My reasons for not paying are these; (1) - I couldn't afford to after work dried up and I wasn't getting the enquiries through my web site as much as I was when they took over the work on it. (2) - Apart from adding some text to the web site there was no evidence of any work actually being done. (3) - I spoke to their employee who was looking after my web site and supposedly doing the work on a number of occasions about the fact that nothing seemed to be improving, this was of course all verbal. (4) - First Found sent me a letter chasing payment but also telling me that they were still working on my web site. This would have been impossible as the minute I stopped paying I removed all access to everything to do with my web site and changed all passwords. (5) - I don't know if I am able to do this but I contest the Claim based on the Solicitors Fees £500.00, they seem extremely disproportionate. Can someone help me here please? Many thanks, Committed

I seek advice on the following quandary that I find myself in: I am in a 2 year contract with a mobile internet service provider for just over a year now, another 10 months or so to go. The service that I am buying is mobile access to the internet via a dongle. The data allowance is 5GB per month and the charge is £15 per month. I have recently spotted a deal offered by another provider of 20GB per month for £15 per month. That's 4 times the data for the same price. It goes without saying and putting it mildly that I am a bit miffed about what I am being charged compared to what I could be getting for the same money. My question is: How do I go about terminating my current contract so as to enable me to take advantage of the better deal?

There are so many internet sites out there, but i do like those with webcams covering wildlife, providing there is something going on. At Slimbridge they have thousands of migrant birds that winter there and between 4pm and about 4.20pm you will see them being fed. The birds feed on the fields and around the river Severn during the day, then return before dark for the daily feed. http://www.wwt.org.uk/wetland-centres/slimbridge/experience/webcam/

Over the past 2-3 years I have reported on this forum about the risks that debtors face when taking 'legal advice' from the internet and in being encouraged by the relevant sites to issue proceedings against a bailiff company/and or a local authority. In order to warn debtors of the dangers involved I have provided details of the cases together with copies of the Judgments (when available). I cannot stress the importance of this information given that debtors need to be fully aware that if a claim is instigated against either the company (either by way of an Interpleader, Injunction or Small Claims action) or against the individual bailiff (by way of an EAC2 Complaint) that the enforcement company will always ensure that they provide a solicitor (and many times a Barrister) to represent them at a hearing. So far, that have been no reported cases of a debtor winning a court action. Instead, there are many cases where significant cost order have been imposed against debtors. Unfortunately, yesterday it was being reported that yet ANOTHER two legal legal cases had failed in court and in both cases, the individuals (a lady and a gentleman) had been encouraged to pursue hopeless legal cases by a highly unqualified individual with an utterly appalling history of court failures.

Is this the first time you’ve heard about SID? No worries. The video below will brief you on what it’s all about, focusing on this year’s theme“Play Your Part for a Better Internet”. More Than an Invitation, It’s a Challenge In 2015, Insafe, the organization behind the SID global campaign, came up with the slogan “Let’s Create a Better Internet Together”. Although the current and previous themes are essentially not that different, the former’s tone and scope have indeed changed from merely inviting, which anyone can easily turn down, to challenging and reminding Internet users that they can make a difference, no matter how small the effort. We think it is the perfect message that can drive one to respond with greater seriousness and vigilance in taking care of not just what we say online but how we, as privacy- and security- conscious citizens of the Web, should generally respond to the growing sophistication and prevalence of digital threats like exploits and ransomware against businesses and consumers of all ages. Threats in the UK: A Brief Review To help further foster this call for UK citizens to get involved in creating a better and safer online experience, let us refresh ourselves with a four-point list of worrying security findings from previous months that hit the news: •A report in mid-2015, our friends at Symantec named the United Kingdom as the most targeted and cyber-attacked nation in the whole of Europe, with a third of them targeting small- to medium-sized businesses. •The National Crime Agency (NCA) revealed that the UK lost £16 billion to cybercrime and cyber-enabled crimes. One of the main concerns of the organization is the rise of mobile malware due to the increasing number of apps being used for financial transactions. A rife market of users depending on the Internet to procure of goods and services online also proved to be attractive to online criminals. •Speaking of mobile, Ponemon surveyed hundreds of individuals in the UK and reported that majority of Brits would prefer losing their wallets than their smartphones—not because of the value of their device but what is found in it. In fact, they have assessed the data in their smartphones would cost around £6.5 thousand. Although they put great value and importance to their devices, 47 percent of those surveyed don’t think that having data protection features on phones are needed. •In November alone of 2015, the UK was attacked by 1,200 types of malware families. Topping the count were variants from the Kelihos Trojan, the Necurs backdoor, the Bedep Trojan, and the Conficker worm. To add more to the above, our telemetry data has showed that in last 12 months, a total of 154.5M malicious files and 138.2M potentially unwanted program (PUP) have been detected from machines based in the UK. Read More

Microsoft has ended technical support and security updates for older versions of its Internet Explorer browser. The changes, which will affect versions 8, 9 and 10 of the browser, were announced in August 2014. Some estimate that these older browsers account for more than 20% of web traffic while Computerworld claims that only 55% of IE users are using the latest version. Browsers are often targeted by hackers and experts predict a crop of attacks. "Beginning January 12, 2016, only the most current version of Internet Explorer available for a supported operating system will receive technical support and security updates," the software giant announced on its website. "Microsoft encourages customers to upgrade and stay up-to-date on the latest browser for a faster, more secure browsing experience." It is continuing to support IE 11 and Edge, which is the default browser for Windows 10. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35291938

Veterans World Magazine promotes awareness of help, advice and support available to the veterans community. From issue 36 (latest issue) the magazine is now only available digitally via the internet as they are no longer producing a paper version. Read More Here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/veterans-world

The internet activity of everyone in Britain will have to be stored for a year by service providers, under new surveillance law plans. Police and intelligence officers will be able to see the names of sites people have visited without a warrant, Home Secretary Theresa May said. But there would be new safeguards over MI5, MI6 and the police spying on the full content of people's web use. Mrs May told MPs the proposed powers were needed to fight crime and terror. Follow the latest developments on our live page The wide-ranging draft Investigatory Powers Bill also contains proposals covering how the state can hack devices and run operations to sweep up large amounts of data as it flows through the internet, enshrining in law the previously covert activities of GCHQ, as uncovered by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The draft bill's measures include: Giving a panel of judges the power to block spying operations authorised by the home secretary A new criminal offence of "knowingly or recklessly obtaining communications data from a telecommunications operator without lawful authority", carrying a prison sentence of up to two years Local councils to retain some investigatory powers, such as surveillance of benefit cheats, but they will not be able to access online data stored by internet firms The Wilson doctrine - preventing surveillance of Parliamentarians' communications - to be written into law Police will not be able to access journalistic sources without the authorisation of a judge A legal duty on British companies to help law enforcement agencies hack devices to acquire information if it is reasonably practical to do so Former Appeal Court judge Sir Stanley Burnton is appointed as the new interception of communications commissioner BBC

Hi All, We use Virgin media business 150mb. We moved on the 28th of Oct and really need broadband for our business. However, they are saying they cannot install until the 19th. We need to be with Virgin as we are still in contract. I find it really hard to believe that they would expect a business to survive almost a month without any internet. Does anyone have any feedback on this?

Really interesting article about online right to forget issues. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/when-should-the-internet-forget-20151031-gknt4w.html I think people do have rights to wipe internet records about historic issues, but not sure who should Police this. Surely it should be subject to an application to an official body and anyone who would have interest should have ability to lodge an objection. There should be a noticeboard somewhere on Google or elsewhere showing right to forget applications, so that those against an application can register an objection.

Someone raised the issue of assumptions being made by companies, government and people that everyone has the internet. This is obviously not the case and to those that don't have it, there will be frustrations caused when told that they need to take an action online. Today there was some announcement that Skype was down around the world, as if it was a big inconvenience. We regularly see computer problems meaning that services are not available. I want you to imagine that tomorrow you woke up to find that the internet was no longer available and would not be available again. How would this affect you, the business you work for and the world economy ? I think the world would be as devastated by internet disappearing, as it would if hostile aliens invaded the Earth. So much is now invested in using the internet for every aspect of life, that any major issue affecting it would have a massive impact.

So you phone up your local authority for the latest news within your area, to be asked 'oh have you got access to to the internet' which you may or may not have. In the case that you have, the information may not be correct so are in fact none the wiser. In the case of having no access to the internet for what ever reason, is one still not entitled to receive up to date information via an alternative mode eg, (through the post). Not everyone has access to the internet and how much is the one liner, 'do you have access to the internet' being used simply to pass the buck ?

Over the weekend all newspapers carried reports that the Ministry of Justice would be seeking to change the law about 'internet trolls' and increasing the prison sentence from 6 months to 2 years. Below I have provided links to three documents from the Ministry of Justice. One is a news item that was released today together with a Fact Sheet and the second link is to the updated Impact Assessment (from July 2014) that was also released today. One change is to amend Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 so as to extend the time for prosecutions of offences. But the main change is to : Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. This section covers the sending.....delivering....or transmitting of any letters, or electronic communications (on forums, blogs or any social media etc) or any other article which could include, for example,photographs and recordings that are indecent, grossly offensive or which convey a threat or: information which the sender knows or believes to be false. It also covers the sending of such articles which are, in whole or part, of an indecent or grossly offensive nature. Crucially, in each case there must be an intention on the part of the sender (or person writing the article to “cause distress or anxiety” to the person who receives the communication. At present, an offence under section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 of sending certain articles with intent to cause "distress or anxiety" is a summary-only offence with a maximum penalty of just six months imprisonment, a fine of £5,000, or both. Most importantly, at present, prosecutions must commence within a very strict time period of just six months from the date of the offence being committed. This short period of time is to increase and the Ministry of Justice stated yesterday that this will allow for police investigating internet offences such as 'trolling' to obtain "evidence from internet service providers based abroad"* The changes to section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act have been brought by amending the Criminal Justice Bill to make the offence in section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 an 'either way offence' and increasing the maximum penalty to 2 years imrisonment or an unlimited fine, or both. In 2012, there were approx 750 proceedings under Section 1 of the 1988 Malicious Communications Act and of those proceeded against nearly 10% were given immediate custodial sentences. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/internet-trolls-to-face-2-years-in-prison https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/321285/malicious-communicationss-impact-assessment.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/322204/fact-sheet-malicious-communications.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/21/woman-dies-after-taking-diet-pills-bought-over-internet If you read that, you should be shocked. This is closer to home for me than the girl in the report above, my niece also died 10 days ago, (and will be buried tomorrow), from diet pills bought over the internet, she was just 25 years old. Please people, especially women, you have no idea who are making and selling these pills. The adverts are all lies and the pills are filled out with anything that comes to hand. They use a web address ending in .co.uk to make it seem as if they are local and in the UK where the regulations are strict. The makers don't give a damn that the ingredients are deadly poison, most of them originate from China so it doesn't affect them. If there was such a thing as diet pills, your GP would give them to you, so stop being stupid and take proper advice.

We recently used Zen Internet to provide our business broadband service, however the service was extremely slow, unreliable and connection randomly dropping / losing connection. After 5 days and several hours of speaking to the tech support we gave up with the faulty service and cancelled. We have been charged £160+ for installation / activation which we have requested to be refunded. Unfortunately they are not willing to refund our money and have implied that the service provided was satisfactory and working. I managed to get them to email me the call log history notes for all of the support calls we have made and the tech support state several times there are different faults on the line and the 'speeds look exceptionally poor' Being B2B I presume we are not covered by the SOGA, would we be covered by the Supply of Goods and Services Act?

Hi. I signed up to sky in Dec 2014, and was offered a galaxy tab 4, which I received. On top of that, because I was referred, the referee was told that they, and I, would receive a £50 voucher (tesco, sainsburys or M&S). Neither of us received them in mid Jan this year, so I called up on their behalf (as I was there), and enquired. They authenticated themselves with their personal details, and I confirmed what they wanted (the £50 tesco voucher) and confirmed what I wanted (the £50 sainsburys voucher). A month later, they received their voucher as promised and I didn't. I called to enquire and was told that "this offer isn't available if you took another offer i.e. the galaxy tab". I called up the customer response team, which promptly told me that I wouldn't be receiving it. Part of me moving to sky from who I was, was this offer (and referee offer) in the first place. They told me that you can't have two offers, just one. My question is: 1) What can I do about this? I'm now stuck with a company which has horrible support, slow and iffy internet; which I was told is the "norm" by their own staff 2) Do I have grounds to leave them for another company based on the fact that they did the "bate and switch" on me when it came to offers? Any advice would be helpful! Cheers, A

Hi I hope it's OK to post this here but i really need to make contact with current Santander customers. My story starts a couple of weeks ago when I logged onto Santander online banking. They were changing the login process and asked me to choose an image and a word, which I assume was to overcome people loggin into a fake site. I now see the image and the word to prove the site is legit. Prior to this change I would login to Santander internet banking by inputting my: Customer Id Passcode Registration number I would then have to choose one from three images Click a drop down list (the arrow) and choose from a range of options. I can't remember them all except the one I would choose which was Travel & Leisure. I believe these two things linked to each other. I would then be logged in. This part of the process wasn't about ensuring the site was legitimate I would say it was about me proving I was legitimate. And my guess would be that the drop down list had the same purpose of the images but was there for people with visual impairments. So I made the changes and on we merrily go a couple of weeks later, when I try to login and the website tells me it doesn't recognise the computer I'm login in from - which i found decidedly 'Big Brother' Next it asked me a question, which was: Q What is your fathers middle name? This threw me a bit because my dad didn't have a middle name After login back in a couple of times the question it asked had changed to: Q What is your mothers middle name? Again completely confused because my mother didn't have a middle name. So I had no option but to ring Santander and I got through to the most arrogant, rude and obnoxious person I've ever had the misfortune to have to speak to! He told me I had given my parents middle, which is ridiculous because neither of them had one. He said I had given them the details when I first joined internet banking - well that was some years ago as I've been using a computer since the early 90's and would have taken advantage of online banking from Abbey National as soon as it became available. I asked was providing my parents middle names part of some process where I wasn't allowed to move on without providing one so had to put something. The man was just so rude. Then I can't remember how but we got on to the change of the login process, he told me I was wrong that choosing an image and an option from the drop down list had never been part of the banks loggin system. That this system had been in place for a long time and it must have been years since I logged in - is he insane I use my online banking almost every day. I made a complaint to Santander and the letter they sent me back agreed with him that I was wrong chosing the image and the phrase from the drop down list has never been a part of their login process. I'm feeling really offended now, they are treating me like I must be a daft person who can't remember what happened a couple of weeks ago. Please someone tell me that you agree with me, and fingers crossed someone remembers the date that the new login system changed. I really am outraged that they are telling me what I know to be correct is wrong and I don't know what I'm talking about.

Virgin Media Internet access is down for the whole area I live in, spoke to them a few hours on the phone, they said they are 'aware of the problem' and it should be fixed soon, this was over 5 hours ago! I'm at my sisters using her internet to post this on here, what can be done for Virgin Media to get off their backsides and fix it?

I am looking at changing internet security software and wonder whether anyone has any recommendations. A lot of people say that they use fee anti-virus software such as Avast or AVG, but in the past I have used paid for software believing it offers best protection. But given that the subscription renewal is more expensive than I can buy the product from elsewhere, I won't be doing it that way. It is F-secure which costs £25 to renew or I can buy it from Amazon as a download for £11.99. Norton is one of the best for protection, but it does slow down your system and internet connections. That is what I am finding with a free trial version.