Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. casey

    casey

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      256


  2. maroondevo52

    maroondevo52

    Site Team


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      27,807


  3. MrShed

    MrShed

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      6,919


  4. locutus

    locutus

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      4,392


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 21/09/10 in all areas

  1. Very nicely argued Djhutch. My advice would be to bang in an ET1. It will take so many months to get a hearing (if it comes to that) that you will have time to refine the argument. Then start digging and digging. I will bet that you will find that the employer actually has a training agreement for this post with someone - to provide the job with training, and I will lay bets that the NVQ is probably paid for already as part of this deal. To be honest, I don't know whether the argument you have put (and any others you dream up) will fly. But I do like it and I think it has legal merit - which o
    1 point
  2. Speaking to the phone drones won't solve the problem, they will continue to ignore anything you say, as they will assume that you are lying as that is the mentality of 1st Crud. They fail to check that the person they are attempting to intimidate and threaten, is in fact the correct person, by responding to one of their phishing letters only serves to encourage them to send more deforestation, even by sending them a letter stating that you have no idea of this debt, will encourage them to harass you further, and to ring them will prove fruitless, as they don't have a response on their scr
    1 point
  3. The relevent passage relating to split claims is: County Courts Act 1984 Part II, 'Miscellaneous provisions as to jurisdiction', Section 35, 'Division of causes of action' 'It shall not be lawful for any plaintiff to divide any cause of action for the purpose of bringing two or more actions in one or more of the county courts'. Which suggests that you have to actually apply for both parts of the claim to be in the wrong. When they apply for the first part - you cannot prove that they intend to apply for the rest. However if you defend the first claim and loose, paying the small amoun
    1 point
  4. why cant all companies follow lee at vodaphone customer service skills its allways better to use sugar rather than vinager
    1 point
  5. Like I say, I cannot see how the carpet can be pulled for your FIL in this scenario. I would have a read of this thread over on LLZ (which I posted on 5 years ago when a much more naive landlord! ). Unfortunately the links within are dead now, but the thread gives some interesting reading for you: http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=817
    1 point
  6. Let us know when that happens, I'm sure a mod will mark the thread resolved and add it to the ever growing list of success stories!
    1 point
  7. Hi Lee, Still no response from Phones4U - will probably have to go back to manufacturers as the local branch don't seem to want to know. He's now bought a new phone - a Samsung Galaxy S and it is so much better than the HTC - in fact I'm quite tempted myself. Another three family members/friends have also said they're going to get one - naturally they'll avoid Phones4U so really they've lost a few customers.
    1 point
  8. Make it a final warning to comply or you will apply for a court order to produce the documents.
    0 points
  9. Yes, without the added bit after the yours sincerely. Don't mind me, I'm in a weird mood tonight. I'd better be orf to bed anyway, long day tomorrow. Night night and remember your mantras before you go to bed. 8-)
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...