This isnt a platform for davewright to speak his mind, you are trolling. CAG is for the vulnerable and those scared witless by the oppressive world that Britain has been allowed to become and its going to get worse. People need to know they dont have to take this carp. By reading Ian's story, others who find themselves in the same situation wll know that it is the shop that has to back any evidence of intent to steal goods, rather than the shopper having to prove otherwise. There is more going here on CAG than you think dave. Very few Caggers will contribute, but this thread and all the others will eventually be read by m

If you attend on Monday to sign you can take the fit note to show you are "not fit" for a 6 week period and can complete form JSA28 to cover you for the period up to Monday that is covered bu the fit note to excuse you from the requirement to be actively seeking and available as per the JSAg. You then specify that you wish to close your claim with last effective date of your claim as Monday 8th April. You then call the contact centre 0800 0556688 to claim ESA from Tuesday 9th April , doing this will make the transition between benefits easier and to make sure you receive a full payment of JSA. Once you have closed the claim for JSA you

it's still ongoing ....... zurich accepted the claim when it went to the Ombudsdman. court proceedings due soon against Zurich after a few years at the Ombudsman. Initial letters to their nominated solicitors were sent some months ago who have offered to settle some heads of claim but not all (and the main damage). I've said I'll accept to settle these heads of claim and move forward to court on unsettled matters but they want all or nothing. i'm even thinking of a judicial review against the Ombudsman who made the decision that the developer is at fault which the insurer accepts and they both put a figure of £200 to the repairs (ag

The Land Registry have just produced a new Practice Guide 76 regarding Charging Orders HERE Of particular interest is Section 5 which at paragraph 3 reads, "Entry of a restriction does not protect the priority of the interest to which it relates for the purpose of s.29, LRA 2002. A charging order affecting only the beneficial interests under a trust is liable to be overreached along with those interests by the operation of ss.2 and 27, Law of Property Act 1925. Accordingly, a Form K restriction will be usually be cancelled automatically, without application, when a transfer which appears to overreach the beneficial interests i

The legal implications are of course HUGE.... we are not talking about paying back Borrowers small amounts of money here (such as ppi claims, bank overdrafts or charges).... remember, investment bankers inflated the market so that house prices went through the roof, Borrowers home loans are massive - not like back in the 80's when you could get a loan for £17K or less on a three bed house..... today, we are talking figures of £100'sss of pounds..... HMLR are not going to take likely to requests for official copies of deeds - but by statute they must supply them as and when requested. Notably they are even misconstruing UN1 applications

You need to be careful to ensure that your Defence is fully particularised and must state your own version of events, as per the court order. Your first defence was inadequate and the court has given you a shot at redemption here - there are some holes in your defence so I think it will help to dissect it, please don't be offended by this. On the SB point, they have already provided a list of transaction records showing you were making monthly payments until March 2007. This would normally be adequate proof of payment and enough to defeat your allegation of SB. Your SB defence is likely to fail unless you do a better job of particularisi

DonkeyB has given you some good advice in the post above. You need to start negotiations with 1st crudite NOW. Telephone National Debtline and ask them to help you complete a Common Financial Statement (personal budget sheet that is recognised by the courts). Then write to 1st crudite via their solicitors (or who ever is acting on their behalf for the claim) and lay out your situation along the following lines. You are a student existing on student grants. Unless you have a regular part time job you cant provide any income details. Do not assume that you will get a part time job. Your priority expenditure such as rent, food

What? You spend your DLA on issues related to your disability? It seems most people assume you spend it on hookers and cocaine. I mean, that's what I'd do if I had some spare cash, right? I'm Daily Mail reader Joe, and I'm in decent health. Not great, but decent. Of course, a few years from now I might be in your situation, although I won't think about that because DM readers are exempt from the vagaries of life. This is because they are reliably informed about the only illness that could kill them: cancer. They are informed about it daily. That's what the DM is for. Well, that and the fact that their house might be worth less soon. Bec

I'll have whatever you've been smoking! Ha ha... If your company Idiot iQor adds charges and fees, then these won't be legal and are unenforceable. DCA's CANNOT add anything they are powerless to do so, all you can do is send out puerile threat letters. Please don't take this advice, 82 posts in 4 years, not a very prolific troll eh. The consumer holds all of the powers, we dictate exactly what we will pay, and you will accept it.

Your employer needs to e careful in precisely 'how' they are measuring your absence. HIV is classed as a disability and consequently, the employer should be using different scoring criteria for measuring sickness absence - in a sense separating 'sickness' absence from 'disability' absence. Not an easy task with a condition such as HIV, as so many otherwise common infections and ailments will be attributable to the condition. That isn't to say that the employer cannot set target levels of absence which take into account your disability, but that these should be more flexible than they would be for another member of staff who isn't disable

It is my understanding that ALL the terms and conditions should be present at time of signature !!

I don't disagree with you. I just hate it when politicians draw similarities between criminals and regular claimants. It's exactly the same kind of spin as the skivers/strivers rubbish, just much more offensive!

From what you have said, it would be pretty obvious to anyone at the assessment that you are a person in great difficulty. Regardless of what we may think of those who are employed by ATOS, I would sincerely hope that they will render you every possible assistance. When you get there don't be shy. Make sure you let the receptionist know of your problems and the help you will need. Whilst it may do little good, I'd be inclined to phone ATOS and let them know you have no-one to accompany you and that you will need their help on arrival. You never know, the message may get through. I'm guessing from your username that the chances of you bei

Ok Pimpy. If a member of staff (mainly security) thinks anything is untowards with a customer whether it be there not fit to be in the shop or they think that a customer hasn't paid for an item then they have a duty not only for themselves but for their employers to make sure that they take the appropriate action. Whether that is removing them from the shop, asking to see their receipt or phoning the police then so be it. As mentioned before if the member of staff thinks that there is a problem then they are there to sort it out. If someone asks me for my receipt then if i think they are a member of staff i will show them without a

RW are passing the buck really they now own the debt and are resonsible for the cra file entries,but you can try approaching Cahoot about it.