No written agreement regarding copyright ever existed, no verbal agreements were ever made. All of the articles I wrote on the blog are attributed to me as the author of them. Whilst the blog owner maintains she "edits" the articles before publication, I've never seen any modifications to my work word-wise, other than perhaps correcting spelling I may have missed.

Hello, I'm looking for a little advice With the usual disclaimers of not being actual legal advice etc. etc...... I wrote regular articles for an online blog, took my own photographs, wrote the pieces, paid for my travel to and from the venues. Generally the articles were always reviews, of food or entertainment. Whilst the blog owner acted properly in disclaiming that reviewers were "guests of" etc.... and fulfilled all the GPRS reqs, and I did indeed receive perceived benefit through the eating, and consuming aspect, I was never paid excepting for just one article, and that was unusual and a one off. As a minor point, when I tot up on a very loose basis the monetary benefits I received versus the costs I incurred, I doubt very much that I was operating at anything like a profit. Most likely a small loss. Some reviews were excellent and the benefit far outweighed the travel and side costs, others were poor and disorganised and sometimes even cancelled on arrival, and a complete waste of my time and money(for which I was never reimbursed). Having fallen out with the owner over certain issues, I realise that I do in fact have a body of work there, which I never signed any contract for regarding copyright etc. Neither was there even a verbal agreement that copyright would remain with the blog owner. Given they were originally a friend, it was generally always, "do you want to do this review?" given that I never agreed to, or signed away any of my intellectual copyright..... ... am I correct in assuming that I can re-use that work for my own ends? Secondly, and a smaller point, and one I hope it doesn't come to but would like to know my rights regarding... . can I request(demand) that my existing work be removed from the original blog? The blog is UK based. It was non-commercial in terms of advertising up until about 9 months ago whereafter adverts were applied. From the point I contributed there were some paid articles or editorial, I received only one. I did receive the benefit of meals, some beverages, and sometimes hotel accommodation. I generally always paid my own travel and side costs, even with overseas travel or flights.

Good afternoon everyone, Currently I have Rundles bailiffs harrassing me for payment of a fine from a council. The offence was a Bus lane violation. To try and be concise, I owned a car and it broke down and wouldn't run correctly. I took it off the road and did not repair it. The tax ran out so I declared it SORN. The insurance then finished on02/09/2014 I sold the car off the driveway to a chap on 30/06/2015 I was concerned that he was driving it away(albeit slowly) without tax etc... and warned him it was his risk and gave him a receipt for the sale. Witnesses were there to see me sell him the car. On 11/10/2015 he, or whoever had the car committed a bus lane violation in the next council area. I had moved houses in the meantime and did not get any letters from the council alerting me. I posted off the V5 as demanded, but perhaps he hadn't sent off his part? Fortunately I had scanned the V5 document before sending it off! It appears the car was still registered to me at the time of the offence, despite me sending off the V5. Rundles bailiffs have been chasing. I found the scan of the V5 and sent it to them, they have demanded other "proof" Today I have had a long but ultimately successful phonecall to my insurers at the time, adn they have confirmed that the insurance ceased in September 2014 "Cessation of insurance" is one of the "Proofs" Rundles seem to require. My insurance company have just sent me a PDF electronically of the cessation of insurance, and confirmation of my no-claims at that point. Should I send this on to Rundles? I have already sent them the scan. They have also asked for "proof" I sold the car saying the V5 isn't good enough. I have searched for the simple receipt of sale I wrote out 2 copies of, one for me and one for the buyer, but have not yet found it. I don't keep everything! I do have witnesses to the sale though, who clearly remember the car being sold. How far do I have to go to jump through Rundles hoops? I appreciate they are a business, and have a job to do, and that an offence was committed, but I don't like their bully-boy approach. Any suggestions as to how I should proceed? Many thanks in advance, this forum has always been exceedingly helpful!

It sounds then that the cashier was slightly misinforming me? Not deliberately as she was friendly and helpful. perhaps she meant' that the "No quibble" part didn't apply but the statutory part still remained?

In desperation for a present for my father in law yesterday, I ended up buying a Sweater for him from M&S. It was reduced from £90 odd down to about £40. Very nice Cashmere mix etc..... perfect! At the till, the cashier told us that the item was "non-returnable" and helped us check it thoroughly. In the back of my head I felt this wasn't quite right, but the sweater was perfect so I bought it anyway. Is this correct? Can a retailer discount an item and call it non-returnable? I'd accept the retraction of any "No-quibble" guarantee on a discounted item, but were it faulty I'd have thought it would still be returnable under that reason?

Many thanks, am just about to email and post the appeal, so this is very useful. I'll report back as things progress.

okay, this is sounding pretty hopeful! We will appeal the pcn tomorrow. Is there a particular set of words, or wording I should use in doing so? Should I make any mention at all of the correct contravention (21), or does that come later, with us presently just appealing on the base of the contravention (02) not occuring?

So to be clear, the PCN contravention marked on the ticket, which says; "(02) Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force. Band A. .... is incorrect?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]50475[/ATTACH] The sign says, verbatim; Parking suspension 08.00hrs on the 28th of March 14 until 17.00hrs on the 20th of june 14 7 bays outside 44 to 34 contractor works keep clear My Father in law always places the Blue badge regardless, and sets the time too. Whether it's actually needed or not, habit more than anything. I spoke to the bouncer on the door of the "Free house" as I was looking at the sign. He pointed out that the sign was actually covering a 3 month period, rather than from 8am to 5pm daily bewteen those dates as I was getting confused! He said loads of people were getting ticketed every evening and he felt the council had worded it deliberately that way and given themselves a licence to print money. If you try to read the sign without attention to how I've just described it.... it does indeed read as a daily limitation backed up by the numbers of people mistakenly contravening. The word "Between" after "parking suspension" would go a loooong way to make it clearer what the suspension is, rather than the unclear sign presently there.

The Car was parked roughly outside the "Grill shack" 44 is the "Free house" and 34 the "Croydon pharmacy" So the car was roughly in the middle. Sorry I'm not quite understanding....... The car was in a pay and display bay outside of normal operating hours. The yellow sign affixed to the post outside the "Free house" (which is the end of one set of times) appears to suspend the 7 bays bewteen itself and the "Croydon pharmacy" of which the car was roughly in the middle. Does not the yellow suspension sign(Ignoring the lack of clarity in it's wording) overide the normal hours of operation? Or is the PCN alleging a different contravention?

PCN [ATTACH=CONFIG]50473[/ATTACH] Sign, sorry for quality! [ATTACH=CONFIG]50474[/ATTACH]

Ok, thanks for the info, historically was it ever a requirement? I was under the impression that it used to be, but it's years since I dealt with a PCN now. I will post up pics of the PCN and the sign shortly if anyone can take a look and see if there's anything worth commenting on..

Hi everyone, My Father in law very recently got a PCN for parking in a suspended bay. To put it in a nutshell, the council had suspended 6/7 pay and display bays along a stretch of road in South Croydon, for the use of "contractors" working on some pavement improvements on the opposite side of the road. There were signs up which were in my opinion deliberately confusing, as they stated hours between 8am and 5pm, but didn't make it particularly clear that this was a continuous suspension between two dates over three months. Signs were up, but poorly displayed, twisted around or back from the road on shopfronts etc. My Father in law is 86, and pretty with it on the whole, but has a disabled wife who was with him, and he displayed the blue badge as he always does. To cut to the chase.... the PCN says Green...... the Logbook V5 says Blue! no two ways about it! Where do we stand? has the misidentification anulled it? Or will that not stand?

Yes, we are making enquiries today. It appears that the person we're dealing with is an advisor rather than a qualified person, so we are hoping it's just a mistake through confusion at the complication rather than anything serious. However, there is such a fuzz of opacity held over house buying and selling and the mortgage companies that we are keen to know the legalities of it all so we can respond appropriately. We are, as a lot people are... heading into a slight corner time-wise with these sales and buyings, and we don't want to have anything that might slow the process down, so are keen to hear anybody elses experiences or knowledge.

My Girlfriend is selling her house, and her parents are also selling with the intention to move in together so we can care for them. Ownership would be 60% my girlfriend, 40% her parents. The parents are mortgage-free, My girlfriend's mortgage would be carried over to the new property, and form approx £130k of the house's worth of £770k. Her bank has just asked for a seemingly unfair if not impossible requirement! Her parents are to sign that they don't own any portion of the house. The house will be in My girlfriends name as she has a mortgage running on it. However, the parents are also required to sign to guarentee the mortgage should my girlfriend default? This just seems wrong from both ends? It's also possible to extrapolate from this that if they were to sign that they have no ownership of the house, then they would have gifted my girlfriend their 40% which at £300k plus would entail a taxable sum? Surely it can't be impossible to have two owners of a house and one source of mortgage repayment? Especially given that the mortgage forms 35% of that owned share? It also seems wrong that the parents should sign away ownership and yet still be liable for default? Has anyone seen this situation before or advise if it's correct or wrong? My suspicions are that with the complication of selling two houses, then conjoining into one with shared portions, someone in the banking process has assumed that the parents are not contributing financially and as such must state they have no claim on the house? Thanks.