it appears you are unwilling to accept any responsibility whatsoever for the situation you found yourself in or the findings of the independent arbitration process that you went through. You have even stated that the arbitrator did not do their job properly by not requesting witness statements. The arbitration service is there to consider the evidence that each party presents and it is not for them to request witness statements or offer advise to either side. You have placed the blame for your own failings at someone else`s door and it is quite apparent to me that no matter whatever response you get if it does not concur with you then you believe it has to be wrong. After reading this post again I am sure there is a lot more than you have revealed. The mention of the racism term that you refer to and that you believe you were subjected to has not clouded my judgement but it is quite clear to me that it has clouded yours. As I previously stated you could have registered your complaint at the time the police attended or if you did not want to make a further scene in front of your son other than the one you already had you could have done it after the rest of your party had jetted of without you.

My views were based on the events that you described. The fact you have not revealed everything in your posts leaves everyone only able to offer an opinion on what you have posted. I would disagree with your view in that the only thing that the whole thing began was because you did not want to pay for the excess baggage that your party had and I am quite mystified as to what trading standards or CPUTR 2008 that you feel may have been broken. I am a regular and seasoned traveller and I can say I have witnessed people of all origins being subjected to excess baggage charges `without losing their rag`. What is clear from your previous post is that you did directly accuse the check in staff of being racist and if indeed that is how you felt at the time you had the perfect opportunity to register your complaint when the armed response unit attended. I am quite sure you are aware racism is a very touchy subject and I am also sure you know that some people use it for their own purposes, however what that tends to do is dilute any legitimate complaint of racism that someone else may genuinely have.

Sorry to say but having read this thread I cannot believe that the OP thinks the situation he or she found themselves in is anyone`s doing other than their own. It states quite clearly when you book a holiday what your baggage allowance is and most tour operators offer the facility of booking extra baggage at the time of booking which is typically an extra 5Kg. Considering the party size the situation could quite easily have been avoided by utilising that option. It seems to me that the OP took it upon himself to be the spokesperson for the party and in their own words `lost his rag was vociferous and assertive`. I fail to see how in the OPs words he can `indirectly` accuse someone of being a racist without it being a directly implied accusation for what I suspect was for the ground staff to be subdued to his or her requests and far from being bullied it appears to me that they were the one trying to bully their way through. I would suggest the OPs options are to accept that they were in the wrong and move on or alternatively as they are so adamant that they are in the right they have the option of letting the courts decide

the wife had a bad reaction after eating a tesco burger she is now in a stable condition

They might want to know what size the wellys are!

It is an option if you are unlikely to be able to work again and there is no age restriction as to when it can be paid. As for any financial advantage I could not say but I would be very careful how any agreement is worded as voluntary redundancy you are making yourself unemployed and that could have implications for any benefits you may be able to claim in the future.

You could also enquire with the company about ill health early retirement instead of redundancy/compromise agreement.

What is the distinction between a "registered charge" and a "charge"?. Are they the same thing or does one have more bearing than the other. Reason being my son has a "charge" in favour of welcome finance but there is absolutely no enforceable agreement.

Very interested to know what the answer to this thread is. If anyone knows or the original poster could update please.

I would ask why it does not include the account history from its start date considering it is supposed to cover a six year period and its inception date was 2008.

Its what they call Interest

Or it could be you have a dodgy agreement and they might want you to sign another one thats watertight

As said previously if insurance was not optional it cannot be included in the Amount of Credit. It is to be treated as an item entering into the Charge for Credit. (Total Charge for Credit)Regulations 1980 s4©. That being the case The Amount of Credit is a Prescribed Term and as your Agreement pre dates April 2007 from what I have read on various threads on this site I believe it may render your agreement iredeemably enforceable. You should be aware that some Creditors are admitting to have missold insurances for pre 2007 agreements and asking you to sign new agreements in the Knowledge that the courts have no discretion to enforce before that date, however if you do sign a new agreement basically your goosed.

If I am right and you need to check. If as you say the insurances were not optional and you had to take it to get the loan then it becomes a Charge For Credit. If it is then added to the Amount of Credit it is a Misrepresented Prescribed Term. Also you need to check but as I understand it being a multiple agreement the repayment terms for the insurances have to be seperated out from the principal sum. As far as I know they can be added together for collection but have to be itemised seperately. As said do your research but if I am right your agreement pre dating April 2007 if you have not signed anything else is iredeembly unenforcable.

As I understand it there are 2 different distinct types of Fixed Sum Credit and what it appears to me is that welcome have combined what they want from the 2. Type 1 Having given people essentially what are personal loans on the agreements it specifies the amount of repayments and intervals between repayments whch is under paragraph 9(a) of schedule 1 CCAR 1983. This is then qualified in Schedule 6 (prescribed terms) para 5. As I read it having specified the amounts and intervals of the repayments and the charge for credit it is a fixed agreement and should also state the total amount payable as per para 11 of schedule 1. Type 2 This is under paragraph 10 of schedule 1 CCAR 1983 and qualified under para 4 Schedule 6. Type 2 is more akin to running account credit or a credit card agreement where you are charged a monthly interest rate. As I see it what welcome do is people having a Type 1 agreement have interest applied on a monthly basis as if it were Type 2. I cannot find anywhere any legislation that allows welcome to combine the 2.