We are in the process of taking our builder through the small claims court. We paid him money for a major build which included re-wiring and supply of kitchen. The kitchen was not supplied and we had to pay the supply company ourselves and the wiring was so bad we had to get an electrician in to re-wire the house. The court has asked for the Particulars of the claim but I need to know what legislation is involved and why. All I know is we want a refund of money we believe we have paid twice but legally I don't know what this is. I really need to get this sent off ASAP so any help greatly appreciated! OP

Hi All, I was unlucky to have experienced car accident back in February (other driver liable) where my Audi A1 was written off and I'm going through physio for my whiplash. In March I decided to purchase a used Audi A1 and found one on Autotrader via a private seller. I still have the description of the vehicle which stated what the car came with and also that the car was in 'EXCELLENT CONDITION'. My Dad went to check the vehicle, asked standard questions and took it on a test drive - all seemed fine and we made the transaction via a bank transfer. I received a bill of receipt signed by both parties with date, reg etc. Within 24 hours of receiving the car, The EPC and engine management lights came up on the dashboard and judging by the noise the car was making it was clear it was misfiring. The car was booked into the Audi garage and they advised one of the cylinders was misfiring and it would cost £130 to fix then it should be fine. Within days the problem came back and again I took the car back into Audi. They called to say it would cost £1600 for work to be done to ascertain exactly what was going on (I'm no car expert but it involved removing the engine). Anyway, at that stage I started to research online to find out what my legal rights were in terms of getting either a full refund from the seller OR have them take responsibility for the repairs. Under the consumer rights act 2015 I have no rights as the legislation applies only to traders AND we should have checked the car was fit for purpose. I then found a piece of legislation called the Misrepresentation Act 1967 which states: A misrepresentation is a statement of fact (not opinion) which is made by a seller (individual or trader) before a contract is made. If you relied on that statement when deciding whether or not to go ahead with your purchase, and this then turns out to be wrong, you may be able to claim compensation. There are three types of misrepresentation and your path to redress will depend upon whether the false statement was made fraudulently, negligently, or innocently. I don't know which type of misrepresentation but I thought fraud as the seller stated the car was fine when she knew it wasn't. The general remedy for misrepresentation is cancelling or unwinding the contract so that both parties are put back in the position they were in before they made the contract. Damages will also be available in some circumstances, either in addition to or as an alternative to unwinding the contract. The challenge we have is that for misrepresentation in the advert (in my opinion) is that the seller stated the car was in 'excellent condition' (an opinion not a statement) when we now know that the seller knew MONTHS BEFORE she sold us the car that it was misfiring/lights coming on 'sporadically'. As she knew, I'd argue that she misrepresented the vehicle in the advert. I have evidence from Audi stating the issues (in the cars computer system) were apparent from January and have been sporadic ever since. Thus far we have emailed the seller with the original quote and diagnostic from Audi requesting she cover the costs of repair but no reply so far. I'm guessing we can take this to small claims but of course if I can use the Misrepresentation Act I'd try that first (writing to the seller including all the evidence I have) in the hope she'll cough up the money to rescind the contract (as the law states) or have her cover the costs of repair. I am incredibly saddened that a woman who knew I was in a serious car accident and undergoing physio would blatantly omit information when she must have known (dashboard warning lights and noise of engine). Please can anyone advise or share their experiences? Many thanks in advance

After reading a number of threads I think I have made a mistake. I have 2 debts with Natwest 1. overdraft 1. loan account which they have combined together and I have been paying them an agreed amount .In 2008 I managed to get them to put in writing that they cannot produce an agreement for the loan and further they agreed that all of the money I pay them will be deducted from the overdraft only and it will revert to paying of the loan account when the overdraft is paid. According to their statements they are sticking to that arrangement .I am not paying any interest,and I have recovered all of the charges ,and rather than rock the boat, it is my intention when the overdraft is paid I will then say I am stopping payments as the Loan Account has no Agreement . The threads I have been reading all say banks cannot combine debts . I think I have shot myself in the foot, i s this the case, or can I make them separate the accounts or do I stick with the current arrangement until the overdraft is paid...........................FS

Dear Forum members, I’m new here, so please be gentle. I need some help/advice re dealings with a large bathroom supply company. They prepared some drawings for me and my wife for several bathrooms we needed. They were having a sale, and the salesperson said that if I put down some money, they would hold their sale prices for us after the sale. I put down £3000.00 on my credit card as a goodwill gesture and to secure the offer she had made. Later she gave us a quotation with a list of products they hoped I’d buy from them. My wife told the salesperson that she didn’t particularly like the selection of products made for us, and we would look into alternatives. She went to work on it and decided the drawings prepared weren’t to our taste and we went back to her own drawings done before we visited said company. The selections of products likewise, we could get better prices anyway from other local suppliers and on the internet. We had made no orders or purchases, or agreed any items. The salesperson wrote several emails asking for a deposit which we didn’t respond to as there was nothing on the quotation we wanted to order. My wife informed the salesperson we were changing the designs. There was no good reason to stick with this company for designs or product supply, so I notified the salesperson I would like my money refunded. The salesperson refused and said that on the back of their quotation were Terms and Conditions and they weren’t going to refund my money (I understand from this that they consider that I was/am in a contract with them). This was the first I had noticed of their T&Cs, and they had not been pointed out to me/us or even referred to in the meetings - but I hadn’t placed any order anyway, nor have I signed anything. Their T&Cs state that “no order submitted by the buyer shall be deemed to be accepted by the seller unless and until confirmed in writing by the seller”. The T&Cs also state: “Quotations are subject to withdrawal at any time before receipt of an unqualified order and shall be deemed to be withdrawn unless accepted within 30 days of their date”. The quote was in July 2016 and I still haven’t accepted it or ordered anything from the quote, or from the company. Further: "The Buyer may not cancel the Contract without the consent of the Seller which, if given, shall be deemed to be on the express condition that the buyer shall pay the seller for all reasonable loss, damage, claims or actions arising out of such cancellation unless otherwise agreed in writing”. Have I unwittingly entered in to a Contract without accepting the quotation, without having ordered any goods, without having signed anything and without having been shown the T&Cs (although they were printed on the back of the quotation)? Am I in a position to get my money back from them, or will I have to order goods to the value of the £3000.00 I am in credit with them? Am I under any legal obligations under these T&Cs or under any other consumer legislation?

People who have been prescribed powerful anxiety or pain relief drugs are being warned about a new drug-driving law. As well as outlawing driving while under the influence of illegal drugs, new legislation will include some prescription medicines. But prescribed doses do not exceed the limits for legal drugs, so most patients should still be safe to drive. Those who are unsure are advised to seek the advice of a pharmacist. The new law, to be introduced 2 March 2015 in England and Wales, aims to catch those who put the lives of others at risk while driving under the influence of drugs. If you are taking your medicine as directed and your driving is not impaired, then you are not breaking the law and there is no need to worry. It sets very low levels for eight well known illegal drugs, including cannabis and cocaine, but also includes eight prescription drugs, where the levels have been set much higher. Most of them, including Temazepan and Diazepam, are used for treating conditions such as anxiety. But the list also includes methadone, a heroin substitute, and morphine, a powerful opiate used for pain relief. Robert Goodwill MP, Road Safety Minister, says as long as they stay within prescribed levels, most people will still be able to get behind the wheel of a car. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31306714 New campaign to remind people taking medicines to check with their doctor or pharmacist before getting behind the wheel. The new law sets limits at very low levels for 8 drugs commonly associated with illegal use such as cannabis and cocaine. There are also 8 prescription drugs that are included within the new law. These are: clonazepam diazepam flunitrazepam lorazepam oxazepam temazepam methadone morphine However, the limits that have been set for these drugs exceed normal prescribed doses, meaning that the vast majority of people can drive as they normally would, so long as: they are taking their medicine in accordance with the advice of a healthcare professional and/or as printed in the accompanying leaflet their driving is not impaired https://www.gov.uk/government/news/drug-drive-legislation-am-i-fit-to-drive

Has anyone read this yet? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-legislation-the-taxation-of-pensions-bill

I had cause to complain to the council as they managed to screw up payments being made on normal council tax, which were applied against previous years arrears instead of the current payments resulting in a summons etc. The council have taken the debt back from the bailiffs, cancelled the liability order and spread the outstanding balance over the next twelve months. However, I have spent many hours looking through all the paperwork and ringing/writing to the council who just couldn't understand where I was coming from. The council have stated that and I quote 'unfortunately the legislation does not permit for the payment of compensation in Council Tax so I can only offer you my sincere apologies over the matter'. My question is: is there anything in the legislation to prevent compensation being awarded because it is related to council tax?

I am obliged to Sir Malcolm Rifkind for passing on concerns about proposed new Crime and Courts Bill and kindly took my concerns up with Helen Grant-permanent Under Secretary of State for Justice. HG included a long report back to him on how the consultation has gone and the future implications. It is a long read. One of the interesting snippets was on the section relating to the Cost of Enforcement Amendments. The majority of bailiff companies agree that the costs would be minimal or a couple of thousand pounds at most. All except one which claimed their costs of implementation would be £100,000. One can only conjecture which company it was but it seems no wonder how some bailiffs think nothing of adding extra fees when their head office sets that example. The assessment by the panel selected a figure of £3000. The Government are attempting to simplify the various laws relating to bailiffs and one of their beliefs is that this should cut down on the number of mistaken fees charged by some bailiffs. Those poor dears who levy fees all day and every day are confused apparently by this rather than them being bad at math.. It will just make those bailiffs more creative in how they describe their fees-but I am an old cynic.

I was in full time employment in 2011 but had anaccident which resulted in an injury to my right shoulder which meant I wasunable to continue doing my job. After the SSP payments expired I claimed ESA. Iscored 0 points on the subsequent medical because I was declared fit for workdespite NOT being fit for the job I was employed to do. Following an appeal my ESA payment was finallystopped on 2nd February this year forcing me to resign in order that I mayclaim jobseekers allowance in a few more weeks. BIZARRE SITUATION DOESN'T EVEN BEGIN TO COVER IT -WHAT AN INSANE POLICY!!

Hi, this is in relation to the use of IBC in the UK. In the UK does an IBC have to display the IBC part in its name. I've searched the internet and cannot seem to get past the adverts for companies that set up IBCs. So if you had Joe Bloggs Limited that was an IBC registered in the Seychelles, in the UK, on applications forms,letterheads etc, does it have to display the IBC bit. Also if it puts its registered address as being in the UK, does this have to be registered at Companies House. thanks

Hi, praticaly all correspondence I receive from my respondent's solicitors is liberally peppered with quoted sections from various procedures and legislation. So much so it does induce a certain amount of word-blindness and unease (which I think is part of the reason it is included!). Are there a few basic pieces of legislation and/or guidance notes that I should be looking at in order to appreciate the overall business of the Tribunal and the responsibilities of both the claimant and the respondent. The tribunal service sent me a few very basic booklets - but nothing that covers the procedural tomfoolery of my respondent's solicitors. Any pointers would be most useful.

Good morning, been a visitor to this site for some time as I handle all parking tickets issued against my company vehicles, thought I'd join in officially. 99% of private charges issued against us are for overstaying the free parking at McDonalds and motorway service stations. Until now we have successfully batted off all private land parking charges using all methods outlined in various threads on this site, however, there was a change in legislation on 05 Oct giving the car park operators the right to chase the Registered Keeper for monies owed if we cannot or will not name the driver? As such can any one tell me where we, Registered Keepers, now stand legally - do these private charges now actually carry any weight. There is no way my company will pass on driver details but also have no intention of accepting the charges as an operational expense. Thank you very much

Hi All I would like to take vodafone to task for continuously harrassing me for over 13 months for call charges made from China when my sim card was lost/stolen. The total charged to me was over 2k. The ineptness and frustrations of dealing with the people at vodafone have been incredible. What I want to do is bring pressure on the government by ordering the mobile phone industry to protect their customers similar to the security my Lloyds bank have in place. When an unusual amount tries to be debited from my card it is declined and I have to ok the release of funds with Lloyds, how simple and effective. Ok the time involved going through Lloyds security is abit of a pain but if it protects my money thats great. If the mobile phone industry are forced to be financially liable for events happening outside their precious terms and conditions and block sudden increases in usage, this will help victims like myself and doubltless other victims who have been bullied into submission. The mobile phone industry would soon get their own security methods sorted if they were hit in their profit sheets. My credit rating was attacked which I only found out when I was refused credit in another national store. Embarassing or what!! I would appreciate any thoughts and experiences, we the people cannot allow this to continue and bring dispair and misery to people who are at no fault but purely victims of a crime.

Will at any point PPC's be able to demand the details of the driver from the registered keeper under the proposed changes regarding parking and private land. I know it was only a proposal a few months ago, but is anything going to change in favour of PPC's or clampers?

A site as good as this always deserves a little something given back - I hope this helps. For those who don't know, all acts of parliament can be found on http://www.legislation.gov.uk. Traffic Management Act 2004 Part 6 Notification, adjudication and enforcement - Section 79 (5)The regulations shall provide— (a)that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if a current disabled person's badge is displayed on the vehicle; The Disability Discrimination Act 2005 Part 21B The Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 CHAPTER 44 The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 PART 3 IMMOBILISATION OF VEHICLES – Regulation13.— (1) An immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if there is displayed on the vehicle— (a)a current disabled person’s badge; or (b)a current recognised badge. THE LAW Disability Discrimination Act 2005 - Public authorities Section 2 21BDiscrimination by public authorities(1)It is unlawful for a public authority to discriminate against a disabled person in carrying out its functions. --------------------------- 21DMeaning of “discrimination” in section 21B(1)For the purposes of section 21B(1), a public authority discriminates against a disabled person if— (ii)unreasonably adverse for the disabled person to experience being subjected to any detriment to which a person is or may be subjected, by the carrying-out of a function by the authority; and (b)it cannot show that its failure to comply with that duty is justified under subsection (3), (5) or (7)©. ---------------------------- Part VII Section 57 57 Aiding unlawful acts.(1)A person who knowingly aids another person to do an [F1unlawful act] is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as himself doing the same kind of unlawful act. ------------------------------ Public authorities Section 3 - Public authorities Section 3 - Duties of public authorities ------------------------------- TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ACT 2004 79 Immobilisation of vehicle where penalty charge payable (5) The regulations shall provide— (a) that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle if a current disabled person’s badge is displayed on the vehicle; and (b) that if, in a case in which an immobilisation device would have been fixed to a vehicle but for paragraph (a), the vehicle was not being used— (i) in accordance with regulations under section 21 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c. 44), and (ii) in circumstances falling within section 117(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (use where a disabled person’s concession would be available), the person in charge of the vehicle commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (6) The regulations shall also provide that an immobilisation device must not be fixed to a vehicle in a parking place in respect of a contravention consisting of, or arising out of, a failure— (a) to pay a parking charge with respect to the vehicle, (b) properly to display a ticket or parking device, or © to remove the vehicle from the parking space by the end of a period for which the appropriate charge was paid, until 15 minutes have elapsed since the giving of a notification of a penalty charge in respect of the contravention. (7) In this section— “disabled person’s badge” has the same meaning as in section 142(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984; “parking device” means a parking device within the meaning of section 35(3B) or 51(4) of that Act; and “parking place” means— (a) a parking place designated by an order under section 45 of that Act, or (b) an off-street parking place provided under section 32(1)(a) or 57(1)(b), or under a letting or arrangement made under section 33(4), of that Act. ------------------------------- Road Traffic Act 1991 - Part II - Parking in London - Section 70 70 - Exemptions from section 69.(1)Section 69(1) of this Act shall not apply in relation to a vehicle if— (a)a current disabled person’s badge is displayed on the vehicle; (Section 69 is ‘Immobilisation of vehicles in parking places’). Anyone who can add to this, please do!

just wondering about people opinions on weither its being obayed our local corner shop has been advised of the new rules but insist its their right to clamp and still proudly display the clamping sign how about around you?

Please could someone help me find a piece of legislation, not anecdotal, which shows that alcohol dependence should be treated as a sickness by employees? I know it should be but I can't find anything to support this. Also any help with demonstrating it should be capability not conduct

Can any one summarise what will be happening regarding parking on private land, i.e. supermarket car park etc? Will PPC be able to enforce their "tickets" as from October? Will clamping be totally outlawed except for councils? If you are parked on a NHS car park and exceed your time, can a "ticket" be enforced through the courts? Many NHS car parks now require a BB holder to pay a parking charge so what happens if they don't pay for a ticket or exceed the time after October?

I started a tenancy in December 2009 and my annual rent equated to £30,000 per annum. At the time of signing my contract in December 2009, the legislation stated that my deposit did not have to be registered to a deposit scheme eg mydeposits.co.uk because the rent is above £25,000. The legislation changed during my tenancy on 1st October 2010 to say that any tenancy with rent below £100,00 per annum had to now be protected. My landlord did not protect my deposit from this date, is this breaking the law? If so then i know i am entitled to my full deposit plus compensation through the courts. The main confusion is that the legislation changed mid tenancy. It has now been 4 weeks since moving out and i am nowhere closer to getting my deposit returned as the estate is holding it. Any help will be much appreciated. I have spoken with mydeposits and the citizen advise bureau. Thanks in advance.