Requested a water meter, the property is a house converted to flats. Have since retrospectively found out a communal tap comes from my water supply, and as such I could not control its use. I'm therefore wondering if I should try cancel the request. Main reason for requesting is the hope they refuse and I can be put on an assessed measured charge. But if I end up with one fitted I'd rather avoid the onerous task of telling neighbours not to use it or coming to some agreement for paying for its use. Even if overall I'd probably still save money. My supply is on the right. Many thanks.

So far as I am aware LL does not live in the UK, but do not have contact details in any case. Besides, rent is not much above local housing allowance set by the Council so not like there's a financial issue. So I guess money overrules not leaving people homeless because they don't have anyone to be a guarantor. And you all wonder why there are "types of people" who prefer to live their lives on benefits, pfft. Makes me wonder if it was really worth all the effort of trying to do better than my underclass background and making some effort by going to University after leaving school with nothing, then overcoming the difficulties of my disability to get a job. Some people can't be privileged enough to just lay back and watch the money roll in as every law protects their investment returns, and tenants have few real rights. There's a good lesson people. If you live on a Council estate with your mum, just stay there and keep claiming the benefits. The world is just full of greedy self-entitled insensitive people.

Currently have an AST due for renewal. Have paid £70 for the letting agent's "contract fees" for 12 months renewal. However, since this me and my partner, whose father was guarantor, have split up. She has moved back with her parents and is looking for her own place, and we have mutually agreed that I can continue living in the property. The contract has not yet been signed and needs to be done soon. The main problem is I have no family who could act as a guarantor, and the letting agents insists on one. My ex partner's Dad has said he would be a guarantor on a 6 monthly basis. It's a nice gesture, but to be honest I'd much rather not put my ex partner's Dad under that sort of potential financial obligation. I'd much rather be splitting any such ties. Should I just sign for 6 months with ex partner's Dad as guarantor? Might not signing and going on a rolling monthly contract be an option? The letting agent has not touted this as a possible option, I guess because of the revenue they make charging contract fees for 2 minutes work. So I suspect the letting agent will be against this idea. Many thanks for any suggestions. Edit: probably appropriate to note in terms of employment, I am almost guaranteed a 12 month contract from September 2013, but a permanent position is a strong possibility.

Did you pay any upfront fee? Sorry I don't have much knowledge here, but my train of thought is if they took the money while knowing they would reject the application, then there *might* be some means to reclaim this via small claims track. So far as discrimination, the relevant legislation would be the Equality Act. Page 31 onwards starting with below text may be of interest http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/service_providers_business.pdf Note that pregnancy is a "protected characteristic" under the meaning of the Equality Act. http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/protected-characteristics-definitions/

I know this is an old thread now, but thought I might provide an update on employment in my life, as someone with Aspergers. It seems my last contribution to this thread almost became an epic novel, and wasn't well written. I'll keep this short. I applied for a job at another Civil Service department, and passed a written test. As I expected, I failed at interview. The main reasons they gave were similar to those I have heard before, teamwork etc. After the rejection I emailed their diversity officer asking if I could get some work experience. I was given 6 weeks unpaid (travel expenses), and after that they took me on for a year. Have been there about 6 months now and it's been good. Although it is unusual to think that I only got there with positive action on part of some people within the organisation, and would struggle to get a minimum wage job after an interview elsewhere.

Stabiliser links, glow plugs, changing and flushing oil and filter, and replacing exhaust - are all normal wear and tear, or things you expect to change on a car through normal servicing. Particularly on a 12 year old one. It's the same with tyres, they wear out because they roll against the road. IMO your only possible complaint is that there is excessive rust, and the windscreen seal was not seated. It is also normal for MOT testers to refuse to test a diesel for emissions if it is unclear when the cam belt has been changed, or inform the owner it is at their risk. Again, having the cam belt changed is a normal servicing issue.

Have not received any response or acknowledgement from ZF. As far as I can tell from a bit more digging, Euro Car Part's part numbers changed from being KME springs, to being Sachs. This suggests that KME springs suddenly became re-branded as Sachs, and at best all I have is a newer one and an old stock one. AFAIK Sachs do not make springs themselves. This suggests the branding is merely used to increase the perceived value of the product. I think Sachs focus more on shock absorbers and clutches.

I fear this may actually be a common [problem]. Almost bartering after the sale has been completed. Unless there were any proof provided (I suspect not), I suspect the car was actually in perfect working order.

Yes it is the case. If you go onto the comparison sites, you can compare the prices yourself by going back and changing the details. It could be a whole lot worse if they chose to refuse you insurance - something you would have to declare to all insurers in future, and your insurance would sky rocket even more.

@Bang! - Yes you're correct, and of course the Fabia isn't a great handling car as standard, even in the VRS or 2 litre guise. However, for whatever reasons I chose to spend a little extra, £7.20 per spring, on better branded ones. If I got ones which would otherwise have cost £7.20 less, then I want my £14.40 back. @Conniff - thanks for rooting out those UK contact details, I only found the German ones. Have sent an email to all 3 email addresses now. If no contact soon will give them a ring.

Just purchased 2 rear Sachs coil springs - at least that's what I ordered, from a well known on-line retailer. They are rear coil springs for a 2002 Skoda Fabia Hatchback 1.4 8v (engine code AQW). The Sachs part number I gleaned from their catalogue is 996 657 (OE equivalent part number 6Q0 511 115 K). One came in a Sachs box, the other in a KME box. KME, as far as I can tell, are not affiliated with Sachs, Boge, or the parent company ZF. I queried the different box at the time, but the sales man just said it was the same spring in a different box. If what I have is a Sachs spring in another box I'm happy. If I've paid more for Sachs and got two of the cheap ones with one in a Sachs box... The ends are jagged, and not cut straight and flat - although they are covered with the black coating. The one in the Sachs box, it states 74351 T268567. The one in the KME box says 74351 T324524. There is no branding or other markings. Found this picture of a Sachs spring. I notice it clearly identifies the brand, and the ends are cut straight. Now the thing is what to do if they are not genuine. I'd hate the retailer to get away with it. Suppose there's nothing I could do other than request a refund, contact trading standards, and the manufacturer? TIA

As stated in first post. Employer considers adding images from previous sessions to a CD a customer purchased to be theft. No previous disciplinary action, although the one to which the CD issue relates they made a nice long list of things they thought she had done wrong - but the CD was the thing that resulted in the decision. As you say I think they had it in for her anyway. Thanks for your other points. Will discuss writing an appeal with her. I doubt they'd offer her her job back anyway. Appealing to a company which has made its decision seems a bit pointless, but if it will help a tribunal case... The thing that gets me is at the disciplinary hearing the area manager, after calling head office and being told the only action was to dismiss her instantly, said they were parting on good terms, and she would give her a glowing reference. "Gross misconduct" is hardly "good terms". Certainly the Job Centre don't think it is anyway when it comes to JSA. The store manager seemed somewhat unprofessional. Apparently they have been happy to divulge personal details of other employees to customers, and when calling in sick gave the unprofessional response along the lines of I don't want you here, don't care when you come in - and later moaning a holiday had to be cancelled, can't see partner who is abroad etc, due to my partner being off sick. Another point is that the order was sent to head office on which she had put notes on what she had done, yet even after they found out about the supposed crime - someone else in the company happily burned the CD and returned it to the store to be passed on to the customer.

Hello everyone, I am asking on behalf of my partner, who was instantly dismissed for gross misconduct following a disciplinary hearing. She worked for a large company taking portraits in a studio for customers. The issues are quite wide ranging, so I will try and stick to the most pertinent for sake of brevity. She was never given an employee handbook or copy of contract. She worked for the company just over 2 years. The gross misconduct consisted of putting images the customer had purchased from previous portrait sessions onto a CD, as well as the most recent. for a customer purchasing a CD. The employer claims that this amounts to theft, as the CD for each session should have been sold separately. Some points in respect of this: She felt she was putting a loyal repeat customer who had spent lots of money with them first. The company insists that when dealing with customers they should be super-sized, which is what she felt she was doing. She was never given the same training others doing the job were. She had previously worked within another division of the company and been made redundant, and the training for that division consisted of 2 days at HQ, whereas those doing the job in the part of the company the new job was for received 2 weeks training at HQ. The company has only been selling CD's a year and a half, and little if any training or guidance was offered on how they should be sold. CD's were not available at the time the customer purchased prints on at least one of the previous sessions. The studio manager has also burned images, both purchased and not purchased (as prints), to disc for a number of customers previously. This would obviously be one's word against the other's. The manager burned them in the studio, and my partner sent it as an order to head office. The company literature states "Get a CD of all your purchased images" and makes no reference to exclusions for pictures previously purchased. Company policy is that pictures should be wiped from the system every 3 to 6 months. If policy were followed, the pictures would not have been on the system to put on the CD, or to make money from extra prints. The company claimed the theft consisted of loss of money, that could potentially have been earned from use of the images as print or CD. Work conditions as they were she was thinking of quitting regardless, hence she made little effort to defend herself in the disciplinary. She was asked if she thought she was doing wrong and said yes. Area manager asked why she had not asked her if unsure. She answered truthfully, the idea had never crossed her mind. The mistake had been made on a week when she had returned from sickness absence of 2 weeks, and was trying to do her best by the company by returning while still ill due to staff shortages. The Police have apparently not been contacted in respect of the "theft". Any thoughts or advice would be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Took no further than sending the questionnaire, and receiving their response. I admit I have not fully read all the information they provided (just quickly skimmed), as I feel bad enough about my existence, that to read negative information about myself that I have no control over will only serve to make me feel more depressed or worse potentially suicidal. One issue that put me off taking any further action was that it would have involved travelling to the nearest location to the employer to bring the issue to an employment tribunal. Chances are, even if it was easy travelling distance, I would have gone no further anyway. Having looked at their list of candidates, it is clear they selected the best one in terms of previous experience. I suspect at the time of the interview they already had a preferred candidate, the interview was merely a formality - and I had no real prospect of being employed anyway. That would tie up with the fact they told me I was last to be interviewed. I hope that through posing the questions and them taking the time to respond, they have begun to consider issues which they might not have spent a great deal of time thinking about previously, and that in itself can only be beneficial. In the mean time I did manage to get a job, but since sort of quit it. It was a case of minimum wage factory slave labour work, assessment consisted of a simple written English and pre-GCSE level mathematics test, with no interview. The assessor clearly did not understand the concept of BODMAS, and was interesting to see how one or two people tried to correct her, only to back down very quickly afterwards. The work was in a cake factory making Christmas cakes, temporary until Christmas, and the thing I did most was to press a mould onto icing. This was quite physically involved and I believe I got RSI. One of the supervisors talked down at (or perhaps better described as shouted at) employees in a rather negative and condescending manner - suppose it should have all been "water off a ducks back", but it antagonised me nonetheless. She also had a rather distinctive voice I found particularly difficult to understand, and although I quickly learned anything she said was not worth hearing, it still aggravated me. A fellow worker regularly poked fun at her voice behind her back. Another issue that bothered me was they expected us to do overtime willy nilly with no prior warning, and we had no say in the matter. It came to a head when my partner wanted me to attend her friend's wedding over 300 miles away. I didn't really want to anyway (guess the reasons are obvious). This meant leaving on the Friday straight after work to travel, so I rushed to pack my bag Thursday evening before I went to sleep. The disarray meant I could not find my keys in the morning, as I placed them in a different location than usual. Eventually I found the keys and worked out I would be 10 minutes late to work. They had not yet provided me with a security pass so I would have been unable to gain access until someone let me in. I decided I couldn't deal with the hassle, that I did not want to spend another day hearing that woman's voice, and didn't bother going to work - nor the wedding. I did not have a phone number for the company. In fact, I understand their landline phone was broken and were operating from mobile phones. Even if I did I probably wouldn't have phoned anyway, as I wouldn't have wished to claim I was ill when I wasn't. They phoned numerous times at the beginning of next week, and I did not feel like answering. The job lasted nearly 2 weeks in all. If the wedding did not happen I might well still be going, just to get something to put on my CV (as it stands will omit it), but my wrists would be aching like crazy right now, and I would not be enjoying it. Interestingly, the highlight of the factory job, for me, was the interaction with fellow workers. Even if I did come across to most of them as unusual/shy - and found interacting somewhat unnatural, stressful, and fraught with a couple of faux pas. The actual work itself I found it hard to take any pride in as it was so fast paced that I couldn't pay the attention to detail I would have liked. And to have some annoying woman pick minor faults when you have been doing the same thing all day long on thousands of cakes, and I doubt she would have been doing any better. When asked to switch to the task of putting jam on the cakes, she would shout "put them in the middle of the tray - that isn't the middle is it". I found the combined task of putting jam on to an appropriate consistency, and placing it onto a board quite difficult, so she took over. It amused me that her attempt at placing them in the centre was no better than mine, which amused me. Noone there to shout at her. If I might be able to help in any way with your endeavour, or you have any further questions, don't be afraid to ask

And herein lies where the discrimination is. There are adjustments that can be made if you think out of the box, such as contact via email - which in fact people at most workplaces do anyway. Even just a little consideration could go a long way and is a reasonable adjustment. There are numerous published books on the types of adjustments that can be made under such circumstances. Plus it is only the employer's opinion such skills are important. These skills are included as default requirements for almost every single job ever advertised. Plus I feel there is also the issue of a range of ability. Someone with less ability may still be able, and it would be unfair to go for the most able in every situation. Particularly if the less able person is so because of a disability. It would be like demanding someone have a racing driver's license and F1 experience to be a taxi driver. It just doesn't make any sense as a reasonable requirement for the position. It also brings to question why an employer would interview someone who may be unable to do the job. If someone declared they were a wheel chair user and applied for a job which required them to be able bodied, such as window cleaning, marathon running etc - then it would surely be a waste of time to interview them?!