Hi, this is my first thread on here although I have been signed up for some time now and follow many of the threads and articles with interest and often finding extremely sound advice. Now I find myself in a position of needing specific advice for a problem of my own. First, a bit of background is needed to understand my situation. I started with my employer back before I needed to shave in June 1999 and remain with them to this day. However, in August 2000, I became seriously ill with a rare blood disorder that required very aggressive chemo threatment. I was off work for over three months, but finally, before the end of November 2000, I was able to return to my job. Over the following 7 - 8 years, I carried on working full time, although with many periods off work for chemo or serious flare ups of my illness. The company I work for have been amazing since day one, treating me fairly and with kindness throughout. Unfortunately, my conditioned continued to worsen with severe damage to my sinuses, short term memory loss, diabeties, seizures, sleeping problems, hearing loss and more. So in the October of 2008, a few months before the birth of my daughter, my employer suggested that I speak to my GP and hospital consultants about getting signed off on long term sick leave to give me a chance to recover. The GP and my consultants all agreed. I was, for the first time in my life, no longer working. My position with my company was, and remains to this day, open for me should my health improve to the point that I am able to return. Being off work meant that I was only paid the standard SSP amount although my company have been continuing to pay employee contibutions in to my pension fund. After a six month battle, the Job Centre Plus finally acknowledged that I as entitled to Incapacity Benefit, which meant with the SSP and some housing benefit and tax credit, I was able to afford the cost of living whist off work. Now, as of two days ago, the whole situation has changed. Following a 'fitness to work assessment' in May, I was then out of the blue sent a letter telling me that I WAS able to work, based on the decsion of someone who had not even heard of the name of my illness until that day and against the judgement of healthcare professionals, some having dealt with me for over a decade. I contacted them by phone to try and understand the reasons for the decsion. I was told that because I am able to walk up to 100 metres, lift an arm above my head, open my own post and climb a single flight of stairs unaided, that I was fit to work in at least some capacity. I tried to explain that it was only on the 'good days' in terms of health that I was able to do anything at all. The bad days, I am pretty much confinied to bed with even the simple task of getting to the toilet exhausting me but they seem unable or unwilling to grasp the concept. Effectively, I have been told that I have three options: 1. My employermake changes that mean I can do my job despite illness - impossible. As a sales rep, my job involves covering two counties which there is no way I can do when on the does of pain killers and other drugs that I have to take on a daily basis and the fact that I cannot tell from one day to the next if I will be well enough to come in and work for a set period, if at all. 2. Quit my job and apply for job seekers allowence. Basically, make myself intentionally unemployed, lose my ongoing pension payments and apply for jobs despite the fact that no one in their right mind is likely to consider employing a worker who cannot give them any indication at all of when they could work. And I would be gambling that the advisor I spoke to was correct in that an exception would be made in my situation if I were to quit, whereby they the 'intentional unemployment' would not be considered as such. I only have his word on that and nothing in writing to confirm it. 3. Carry on without the incapacity money and pray that I am able to live on such a drastic drop of household income with a family to support but with the knowledge that if I do get well enough, I have a job waiting and will continue to receive pension payments. I continue to have chemo at regular times throughout the year, I take tramadol or morphine 3 - 4 times a day to keep the pain under control alongside anti inflammitory medication, anti sickness tablets and antibiotics daily to compensate for the supressed immune system resulting from the chemo. On an average month, there are maybe 5 or 6 days at best that I can even function to anything like normal levels, with more days that I simply cannot function at all. None of which seems to have been taken in to account, despite being clearly stated in writing and at the assessment. I apologise for the rather lengthy comment but I am desperately in need of advice on how to proceed and understandably, very worried about my financial furture - all stress that I really don't need on top of everything else.

I used to find junk mail a huge pain in the rear. Until I began working in the paper industry 15 years ago. Now I figure that the more they send out, the more paper I sell to printers! It then goes straight into recycling. As for the issue with trees, almost all paper sold in the UK (very few exceptions) come from either recycled material or a sustainable source. The sustainable source is simply a large area set aside where the trees are grown to be harvested - like any other crop, just with a longer cycle. So no worries about destroying forests etc.

In fairness, the article does say that the vests are being issued to staff that are being sent to the homes of people who are in enough debt to warrant a pre pay meter being fitted or where there is evidence of tampering (energy theft). So stab vests for dealing with individuals who are desperate due to debt or simply a criminal not wanting to pay, the protection seems like a sensible idea. The big six are still very much over the top when in comes down to price and they have no concept of customer loyalty. Times are changing however. With the dawn of sites like CAG and similar, coupled with many new, smaller supplies, consumers are far more aware and able to access better deals. It will take time, but if things keep going as they are, the big six will feel the pinch - possibly even to the point where they have no choice but to address the issue.

I think the best solution would simply be to have barrier car parks everywhere apart from roadside spaces where it would not be possible. That way, no one could ever overstay their time as they would simply pay for the correct amount of time upon leaving. This will never happen though for the following reasons: 1. The extra money gained from people paying for more time than they need. 2. Because they would no longer have any need to issue penalties so again would lose money. 3. Money again - the pay and display machines almost never give change, so a lot of people will put in more than they need to 4. The fact that they would then have no need for car parks to be maned, besides someone at the other end of an intercom at the barrier. Basically, they would lose enough money and staff to seriously effect them as a business, something they would surely want to avoid. As to the case in question, I personally think that Beavis has done more harm than good. The fact that he was almost a full hour late (56 minutes I believe was the figure given) to a car park directly opposite his place of business. So assuming that all the correct signage was displayed (which I assume to be the case, else it would likely have be used against ParkingEye from the beginning), there would be no excuse for not knowing the penalty or for being so late. Had he been parked in a car park somewhere away from his own business and been 5 or 10 minutes late, then this would have probably won the first appeal and helped motorists everywhere. As it is, I expect that there will be a definite lack of sympathy from any judge or magistrate due to circumstances. And should this case lose the further appeals, it is likely to set a precedent for other private parking firms who will now be able to cite this case, encouraging them to pursue monies that they would have previously deemed as not being worth the effort. So should this case go in favour of ParkingEye, then motorists beware!