I've found the agreement and its starts on page 1 talking about Zenith as a credit intermediary, then on the top of page 2 it says "fixed sum loan agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974". So, is this a personal loan because it says "fixed sum loan", or does section 75 apply because it specifically states that the loan is regulated by the CCA?

The documentation from Barclays Partner Finance and from Zenith Home Improvements specificaly mention each other, so I would have thought that this constitutes a restricted agreement under section 11b, and thus regulated under section 12b, and thus applicable to section 75. But to be certain, please can you explain how I would tell the difference between an "HP" agreement and a personal loan from Barclays Partner Finance? TIA Banjo

Good point. Thanks for the warning, I'll look that up. (BTW, I knew about the LBA)

Thanks - I'm certain that Barclays are jointly liable for all £12000. The question is, do I have to fly all the way to London for a court hearing, or can issue proceedings locally here in Switzerland? The second question is, do I have to issue proceedings in German, as I live in German speaking kanton? Thirdly, as I cant speak German fluently yet, can I drive an hour down the road and issue proceedings in French in the next town? Its all down to how you interpret article 15 of the Lugano Convention. The contract was for a loan repayable in installments for the sale of goods AND the contract for installation of the goods. Its the service for the installation of goods which gives rise to the breach of contract. Will it suffice for the purposes of the convention that the contract includes the sale of goods? (BTW, Barclay's argument is that the loan is for the sale of the goods only, however it states very clearly in the loan agreement that it is also a contract for installation, so their attempts to evade section 75 of the CCA are futile).

Thanks. I've now found a copy of the treaty http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=13041 Its not clear whether or not article 16 applies "a consumer may bring proceedings ... in which that party is domiciled or where the consumer is domiciled" or article 5 "the place of performance of the obligation" Article 15 makes it clear that if the contract was for provision of goods under finance, that article 16 would apply, but its not clear regarding the provisions of services under finance.

Hi, I took out a home improvement loan with Barclays Partner Finance for £1000 in the UK, and the home improvement company caused £12000 of damage to my property and neighbour's properties. I filed a section 75 claim as well as a complaint to Zenith Home Improvements. Zenith did promise to rectify the problems, but have failed to deliver on those promises. Barclays seem to think that they are exempt from section 75, and have sent a DCA after me. In the middle of the dispute I emmigrated to Switzerland. I see that the Lugano convention states that Barclays are obliged to use the Swiss courts if they wish to enforce their alleged debt. However, I would like to know if I sue them and Zenith jointly for the damages, do I have to file in a Swiss court or UK court? TIA Banjo

Solution: Bournemouth & West Hants Water (SEMBCORP) and myself negotiated a compromise I filed an N244 and when I got to court found out that the process of setting aside bars the plaintiff from resubmission, so the judge wanted to hear a defence and counterclaim on the same day. There were some issues regarding the timeliness of my application, the courts records of the judgement had been incorrectly entered onto the computer, and so the judge requested that we needed a full 1/2 day hearing to be scheduled at a later date. The water companies lawyer said that they didn't want an expensive counterclaim, and that's why they spent the whole day travelling up from Bournemouth to Reading and that they were open to negotiation to avoid another day's costs. As I realised my timeliness put me on a sticky wicket with regards to my counterclaim, so we agreed that if I dropped the counterclaim then the water company would agree to setting aside and thus the court would expunge the judgement from my credit reference file.

Solution: Council refused me my day in "court" (PATAS) and agreed not to contest the matter after I wrote this letter At the time of parking I was unaware that I was doing so during the operational hours of a no waiting restriction. I do not recall seeing any traffic sign that conveyed this. I have since learned that the location is within a controlled parking zone (CPZ). When replying to this appeal, it will be helpful if the council confirms all those roads where the relevant CPZ entry signage has been placed and when the signage was last inspected and confirmed to be fully present and correct. I understand that a no waiting restriction is regulated by order made pursuant to the RTRA 1984 and consequently a council has a statutory duty under regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place traffic signs that adequately convey the effect of such an order. Where CPZ’s are used then adequacy can reasonably be measured against what the DfT recommends in their publication “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities: Parking Policy & Enforcement”. Annex D in this publication is helpfully titled “Appraising the adequacy of traffic signs, plating and road markings” and paragraphs D5 and D6 provide guidance on adequacy for CPZ’s; D5 The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets D6 Unless unavoidable, they should not be close to junctions on busy roads, where motorists are likely to be concentrating on direction signs, traffic lights and other directional manoeuvring I’m informed that the CPZ I unwittingly parked within covers more streets than what the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable a CPZ entry sign to remain adequate and therefore I believe I am justified in claiming the operational period of the no waiting restriction was not adequately conveyed by traffic signs to satisfy regulations and the standard expected by the Secretary of State. I entered the CPZ by turning right from the A30 onto Knoll Rd which is a busy intersection with a pedestrian crossing. As I had not been to Camberley High St for some time I was not only concentrating on the right turn manoeuvre and the pedestrian crossing, but also looking for direction signs to drive down a highway which I incorrectly believed to be where Knoll Walk pedestrian zone is located. Being that my concentration was quite rightly on the pedestrian crossing I was unable to give my full attention to all 5 highway signs that are within a few feet of the crossing, and so failed to notice the CPZ signs. Furthermore, as I was not intending to park until I reached the shopping streets a further 0.5 mile away, I was not expecting to need to look for signs relating to parking restrictions until I reached the shopping zone. It would be arrogant of the council to disagree considering the publication explicitly expresses the view of Government and was specifically produced to help councils understand what is and is not considered adequate. Had the no waiting restriction been adequately conveyed then I as a law abiding citizen would not have parked where it is prohibited.

Hi, I have read here that any acknowledgement of debt after the date of a default would reset the 6yr limit for statue barring. However, I wrote a letter in 2009 complaining that there was no alleged debt from 2007 and demanded that RBS remove the default from my credit reference file. RBS refused and I complained to the FOS, but was unable to provide sufficient evidence so the FOS didn't uphold my claim. Its now 6yrs since the original default, and Experian have expired it from my file. In 2009 I also wrote to Arrow Global asking them to stop harrassing me for the alleged debt with I told them I didn't owe. Arrow has now written to me again, and I would like to know: If it was clear in all my communications throughout 2009 that I refuted the alleged debt, is the matter now statue barred? or do I have to wait until 2015 because I wrote to them? TIA

I paid them £1000 for lifetime CTL, did change of address effective last year, a few months later applied for a 123-card at which time they corrected the date I moved into my current property to 4 years ago to match electoral role. 123-card accepted, and mortgage division never noticed. RESULT

Don't tempt him! He's the sort of person that would! If he wants to police the speed limit, then encourage him to join the police force. He'd soon learn that there are many more serious offences than speeding.

Speeding and driving without due care are seperate offences. You can commit one crime without the other or both at the same time. Your attitude implies that you dont believe you are breaking the law, and that obstructing the highway is perfectly safe, which it most certainly is not. By infuriating your fellow criminals (by which I mean the speeders) you are more likely to cause them to make mistakes and that endagers people's lives a lot more than they do by just going a few mph too fast. To demonstrate the difference in attitude: the last time I was handed a FPN for speeding, when asked "Do you have anything to say ..." I genuinely replied "It's a fair cop guv". (It made the officer laugh.) Remember "Speed does not kill" - 95.7% of accidents are NOT attributable to excess speed.

That's the sort of attitude that deserves a FPN for driving without due care and consideration. Although technically you are correct, ACPO guidelines suggest allowing 10%+2mph for people breaking the speed limit. It would be interesting to see if ACPO produce some guidelines on length of time in the middle lane, distance from a vehicle in the left lane, and whether or not there is a requirement for another vehicle to need to use the right lane to circumnavigate the inconsiderate so and so's.

I would point out to Sky that as they were in breach of contract by failing to provide service, that they effectively terminated the contract and not you, therefore the clause relating to early termination charges is not applicable. If they refer to a DCA, then just tell the DCA that as a dispute exists between you and Sky, that any action by the DCA is illegal harrasment, and that this will be your only communication with them.

Thanks again 45002 From the LLZ forum I have been given the advice that for tenancies prior to Oct 2010 then the occupier of the premises is the liable person, full stop. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010, states that LL is only liable if they fail to provide the water company with the tenant's details. As my tenancy pre-dates the act, I have quoted section 144(1) of the Water Inductries Act 1991 which states that the occupier is the liable person.