Apple who owns the icloud have such weak security that they are being hacked and users of their cloud are having personal files stolen. Typical 'We don't have malware problems' Apple. Why does anyone pay up to 10 times what other companies charge for goods and services and put up with this amateur couldn't care less, company. The theft comes two years after a host of celebrities, including Hollywood star Jennifer Lawrence, fell victim to a hacker attack on the iCloud - which stores private photos from phones and computers online - which saw images posted online. You would think once bitten twice shy, but not Apple. They are a 'give us the money and push off, we don't care' company obviously.

Big stink in the US house http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/paul-ryan-endorses-donald-trump/ Steven Hawking says its 'really bad man' http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/stephen-hawking-angers-trump-supporters-with-baffling-array-of-long-words

This is a funny one, Money Shop & PDUK now make you give a valid reason as to why you are paying your loan early?! I was browsing through something with a friend today who is paying off a small loan to Money Shop and in order to clear it, it made you give a reason as to why you were paying it off early. I wonder... Has the word gone Barmy?

Hi, I have been working for a contract company since Sept-13, I was employed on a fixed term, 12 month, term time contract. When the contract expired we were waiting to find out if the company had won the tender for another year but it was dragging on and on so the manager said our contracts would roll on. Apparently all staff are only ever offered 12 month contracts which I understand, and this is fine. However me and the girl who started with me and on the same terms, have been "let go" because apparently we are "the only temporary staff". I can't understand how this can be the case, surely all staff are the same? Also, I work a set amount of weeks per year and they restarted the count after my 12 month expiry and so IMO it was implied I would continue to work there for another year. We were told even if current company did not win the contract we would transfer to the new one over TUPE. Turns out they didn't win the contract and our details were in the TUPE paperwork but we've now been told we were temporary (news to me) and no longer required. There is an element of nepotism here as the boss' son who worked PT has now been given FT hours (he wanted this) so basically, how can they say I was not required when they've given him my hours? Conveniently this is just in time for the new company taking over. He has worked there for 3 years and he changed his job role/hours a few months ago which boss denies (?!) Can anyone give their thoughts on this? I think this is very dodgy and I'm not sure it is legal?

Hi, I don't know really what I can expect to achieve however the basic gist is that my mother and myself are currently on the council waiting list for a more suitable property for her needs without going into detail this would be a single story 1st floor property preferably a Bungalow or House with a downstairs loo which could be converted into a bathroom. Having spent months eagerly awaiting new properties to be added to the list of available housing each week (and then registering an interest in the ones which appear to be suitable) we have observed a worrying number of the most suitable properties are not available to for us to register an interest as they are being let under a new government scheme which allows the housing association to charge up to 80% of the retail market value, because of this they also implement other caveats such as employment & minimum earnings etc. Now our feeling is that the housing association should not be letting Bungalow's or smaller property under this scheme, surely these types of property should be set aside for the elderly or tenants who have long term medical conditions making other property unsuitable? My understanding is that this scheme was devised to allow housing associations to garner more revenue to then pump back into building new homes, however surely they should then be focusing on large family homes to rent under this scheme? As then their is a higher likelihood that those types of tenants will be able to meet the higher rents and minimum earning stipulations written into the tenancy agreement... Can anyone suggest a course of action to take regarding complaints etc. and who we might make traction with on this matter? Many thanks,

Help needed CAggers! I've got a situation on my hand that I need some advice with - I'm a tenant and have been for a few years under a periodic tenancy or month to month. I receive housing allowance and have paid that to the landlord in excess for the years that I've been in residency. The landlord is saying that I owe arrears however, based on the lease we signed when I moved in, the rent I pay the landlord is far in excess to the lease. The landlord wants to serve me notice to say that I am arrears (a section 8) but he claims he wants my employers to pay the arrears as my housing allowance is given to me by them. I find this proposed action a bit of a threat, considering my lease is not signed by my employers but by me! I have already written a LBA but he just keeps harping onthat my housing allowance increase is a rent increase! What do I do now? Serve a claim for my money? All attempts at negotiating has failed.

CAG or a cooperative of members should start there own DCA. We could collect on behalf of people on here. Imagine all these accounts that have been in dispute due to no CCA etc. These have been sold on and passed from one DCA to another. Nobody is paying yet they go round and round being sold at something like 10% of the outstanding balance. Meanwhile people have defaults etc. for 6 years. Supposing a new DCA approached the latest holder of these accounts and offered to buy them for 12%. The DCA would accept as long as the account had been uncollectable for some time. This new DCA would already have an agreement with the account holder that they could pay the 12% charge for the account. The account would then be in this new DCA's name and the record including any defaults etc. could be removed from the file. Even if this was done by a private company, if they agreed in advance and charged say 15% for an account that cost them 10% then they would make 5% risk free. The account holder would be free of the debt and any bad history and the previous DCA would have got rid of an uncollectable debt. What do you think?