Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Leaderboard

  1. Bigredbus

    Bigredbus

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      1,947


  2. Flyyyte

    Flyyyte

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1

    • Content Count

      55


  3. SOD'EM

    SOD'EM

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      1,243

    • Content Count

      1,248


  4. debbbbsy

    debbbbsy

    Registered Users

    Change your profile picture


    • Points

      842

    • Content Count

      1,497



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/02/12 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I doubt very much that new successful applicants are only told their band grade and no information about minima/maxima or average salary in the grade. If I extrapolate, I would say that their grading is probably fluctuating and maybe not a true reflection of the market. To some extent I understand their reason, or reasons, as they want to retain the best of their workforce without creating an ambiguous atmosphere within which employees would start questioning their salary in comparison with the national market.
  2. 1 point
    I'm not sure about that, SG. The usual situation is that a solicitor goes bankrupt and is then suspended because of that bankruptcy. His / her practising certificate may be restored by the SRA on application by the bankrupt solicitor. But Crossley isn't a 'usual' case: his bankruptcy occurred in the midst of an SRA investigation and was incidental to the reasons for that investigation. Of course, it might be -- and what a delicious irony! -- that Crossley's bankruptcy was astonishingly convenient for him in light of the data protection breach and the otherwise massive fine he would've had to pay. Given what is already known about his personality and character, it's not difficult to imagine him smiling with relief that the ICO imposed such a modest penalty. That relief would doubtless have been compounded by the finite nature of his suspension: only two years. But ironically, it's the bankruptcy itself which is going to prove more critical to Crossley's downfall than anything else, because regardless of the finite 2-year suspension, the SRA still won't let him practice after that. . . because he is a bankrupt (and has creditors including no less than the SRA itself, to whom he owes £76,000.) So although Crossley seems to have but one suspension to contend with, requiring only that he must sit out the next couple of years, there's actually a second and concurrent suspension that hasn't been publicised by the SRA but which kicked in automatically with his bankruptcy. And it's that second suspension which causes the longterm problem because it has no fixed end-date: he has to apply to the SRA after being discharged from bankruptcy in hope they'll let him practice again. The SRA is fully aware it will look more like a circus clown than a regulatory authority if it proceeds to re-licence a legal practitioner who owes it £76,000 in costs for previous disciplinary offences. It also knows it will have everyone from MPs to journalists to forums such as this crawling all over it should it approve Crossley's application, because the SRA is duty-bound to abide by its own procedure in a matter such as this, viz: 1) It must be satisfied that the applicant is of good character, and: 2) It must be satisfied that the applicant is capable of honestly and efficiently managing client accounts and client monies; and: 3) It must be satisfied that the applicant is now capable of running a practice whose financial and accounting procedures are consistent with SRA requirements. Even if it is satisfied, the SRA may only grant a 'restricted' licence, the terms of which would prevent the applicant from becoming a sole trader (as was the case with ACS:Law) and would instead insist that he/she serve only as an employee of a practice with no access to or control over that practice's client accounts / client funds. Where (1) is concerned, it's going to be incredibly difficult for the SRA to pronounce favourably on Crossley's character bearing in mind the damning public criticism he received from the judge in the failed Norwich Pharmaceuticals file sharing case; where (2) and (3) are concerned, the SRA will need no reminding that previous to Crossley's recent troubles, he had already been censured by the SRA for an, er, inability to run a law firm in a manner consistent with the requirement to exercise good accounting practice. The situation would therefore seem to be that Crossley's bankruptcy has saved him from the full weight of punishment by an utterly supine ICO but has simultaneously plunged him into much deeper doo-dah as far as the SRA is concerned. Technically, he can emerge from bankruptcy after one year (though outstanding liabilities will have to be addressed during those 12 months if Crossley was to earn anything, from any source) and yes, his credit history will be 'cleansed' after six years. But really, that all seems pretty academic. Though I still think that the SRA behaved in the most idiotic fashion imaginable by suspending Crossley rather than striking him off, the problems arising from his bankruptcy -- not his conduct -- are such as to mean his future prospects in the legal profession are not so much slim as downright grim. After all: even if the SRA consents to him returning to Law after he is discharged from bankruptcy, he wouldn't be allowed to start up as a sole trader anyway but would have to be an employee in another practice. And though I've no doubt that there may well be a law practice somewhere which couldn't care less about being judged on the basis of the company it keeps, it's clear that the vast majority certainly do care. I seem to remember Crossley saying some time ago that what he really wanted to do in life was play the guitar in a rock band. Although he was so demonstrably out of tune with what the legal profession expects, there is, perhaps, some band somewhere touring regional pubs for Saturday night gigs that might wish to chuck a few bob his way. But of course, Crossley would have to make damn sure that the band paid fees for performing the work of others -- he is, indeed, a man of principle . . .
  3. 0 points
    A young couple wanted to join the church, the vicar told them, 'We have a special requirement for new member couples. You must abstain from sex for one whole month.' The couple agreed, but after two-and-a-half weeks returned to the Church. When the vicar ushered them into his office, the wife was crying and the husband was obviously very depressed. 'You are back so soon...Is there a problem?' the vicar inquired. 'We are terribly ashamed to admit that we did not manage to abstain from sex for the required month..' The young man replied sadly. The vicar asked him what happened. 'Well, the first week was difficult... However, we managed to abstain through sheer willpower. The second week was terrible, but with the use of prayer, we managed to abstain. However, the third week was unbearable. We tried cold showers, Prayer, reading from the Bible....anything to keep our minds off Carnal Thoughts. One afternoon my wife reached for a can of paint and dropped it. When she bent over to pick it up, I was overcome with lust and I just had my way with her right then and there. It was lustful, loud, passionate sex. It lasted for over an hour and when we were done we were both drenched in sweat,' admitted the man, shamefacedly. The vicar lowered his head and said sternly, 'You understand this means you will not be welcome in our church.' 'We know.' said the young man, hanging his head, 'We're not welcome at Homebase either.'
  4. 0 points
    No... there should not be any. However, make sure you assign a policy to your e-mails by requesting delivery and read receipts... Otherwise, you may want to inform the recipient that a hard copy has been sent by post b ''Recorded Delivery'' (a must do if by mail).
  5. 0 points
    its important to record the calls 1) because bailiffs lie and they have very selective memories and this bailiff has already lied by saying the court said the debt has to be paid by 27th 2)they cant threaten to enter your house with a locksmith police send you to jail increase your fees remove your kids and put them in care (we have herd it all on here )without proof the bailiff will simply say not me gove i didn't say that 3)without a levy the bailiff cant charge any more than £42.50 regardless of how many times he comes to your house It wont make your situation worse it may actually improve your situation if the bailiff thinks he has been caught bang to rights threatening to do things he cant (he can lose his certificate for this)did you look to see if he is certificated to rossendales as for the council its always the same story nothing to to do with us get in touch with bailiff again this is simply not true its the councils debt the councils fees (which the bailiff is allowed to keep and are paid first before the council tax debt) everything the bailiff does he does on behalf of the authority
  6. 0 points
    Hi folle, I recently went through simmilar situation, mine hasn't conpletley ended but I hope I can put ur mind at rest a little. Tax credits wrote to may saying the were doing a review and an enquiry for the past year. I was asked to send in lots of documents supporting my single claim including bank statements, tenancy, utility bills, birth certificates and childcare contracts which I did. The info was to be sent in by December 30th and I recieved a letter back by 11th jan (this is not to say it's always this quick as I'm sure some take longer depending on how busy they are). Basically I was told they believed I should have made a joint claim and there reasons for that were my then ex-partner had bank statements sent to my address and had applied for a credit card at my address! HMRC link in with experien to check credit taken out at various addresses so this was flagged up about bank account and credit card app! Despite me sending what they asked me for it was pointless as they didn't believe me( I'm not suggesting u don't send them info they are asking for as you do have to do this and should co-operate with them. Like you I dealt with a compliance officer who spoke to me like crap, patronised me and basicaly thought he was CID interrogating me to the point I told him I had slep with my ex-partner although what I do in my personal life has sod all to do with him. My ex was renting a room and I was unable to offer tenancy or utility bills in his name. I was told I had overpayment of 20k and my claim was stopped. He said I could make another single claim to which I replied what would be the point if I'm in this position of being reviewed in future and they don't believe me then it would be a lot more serious! I have no penalty to pay and have since made a joint claim. I also spoke to a diff compliance officer who was very helpful and basically pleasant to me, he said he will look into the case to see if the overpayment can be reduced based on if it was a joint claim. My situation is different from yours and I can't tell u exactly what will happen but I want to try and put your mind at rest a little. This was going kn over Xmas and made me Ill. Please don't let this take over your life as your health and little one are more important! Good u went to see ur GP and defo speak to CAB so you have support with those who are experienced! Xx
  7. 0 points
    You need to send a CPR 31.14 request to the solicitor named on the claim ( it will be an inhouse division of the claimant). Collections and Recoveries Their Address Dear Madam, Re: Bank -v- ME Case No. blah blah blah CPR 31.14 Request On the 17th january I received the Claim Form in this case issued by you out of the Northampton County Court. I confirm having returned my acknowledgement of service to the court, in which I indicate my intention to contest all of your claim. Please treat this letter as my request made under CPR 31.14 for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following document mentioned in your Particulars of Claim: 1 The agreement. You will appreciate that in an ordinary case and by reason of the provisions of CPR PD 16 para7.3, where a claim is based upon a written agreement, a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing. Further, that any general conditions incorporated in the contract should also be attached. 2. The default notice 3. A copy of the Notice Of Assignment and proof of service. 4. A copy of the Deed of Assignment. 5. The Claimant has in the POC referred to correspondence with the Defendant, and the Defendants failure to respond to and maintain a repayment plan. Supply copies of all this correspondence and proof of service. Although your claim is for a sum which is not more than £5,000.00 and will in all likelihood be allocated to the small claims track for determination upon my delivering a defence, at this moment in time I have not delivered my defence and the case has not been allocated to a track. In consequence the provisions of CPR 27(2) are of no effect and you should not seek to avoid compliance with your CPR 31 duties by claiming otherwise. You should ensure compliance with its CPR 31 duties and ensure that the documents I have requested are copied to and received by me within 7 days of receiving this letter. Your CPR 31 duties extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for the originals of the documents I have requested, the better for you to be able to verify the document's authenticity and to provide me with a legible copy. Further, where I have requested a copy of a document, the original of which is now in the possession of another person, they will have a right to possession of that document if it has been mentioned in your case. You must take immediate steps to recover and preserve it for the purpose of this case. Where I have mentioned a document and there is in your possession more than one version of that same document owing to a modification, obliteration or other marking or feature, each version will be a separate document and you must provide a copy of each version of it to me. Your obligations extend to making a reasonable and proportionate search for any version(s) to include an obligation to recover and preserve such version(s) which are now in the possession of a third party. In accordance with CPR 31.15© I undertake to be responsible for your reasonable copying costs incurred in complying with this CPR 31.14 request. If you require more time in which to comply with this request you must tell me in writing. You must tell me before the time for compliance with this request has expired. In telling me you require more time you must tell me what steps you have taken and propose to take in order to comply with this request and also state a date by when you will comply with this request. In addition your statement must be accompanied with a statement that you agree to an extension of the time for me to file my defence. Your extension of time must be not less than 14 days from the date when you say you will have complied with my request and you must state the new date for filing my defence. If you are unable to comply with this request and believe that you will never be able to comply with this request you must tell me in writing. Please note that if you should fail to comply with this request, fail to request more time or fail to agree to an extension of time for the filing of my defence, I will make an application to the court for an order that the proceedings be struck out or stayed for non-compliance and a summary costs order. I do hope this will not be necessary and look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully
×
×
  • Create New...