I'm glad to hear you had success with BT. Unfortunately my experience was that even a complaint to the top doesn't work with this company. They seemed unable to explain why a line which had previously supported ADSL was suddenly incapable of doing so and were clearly totally unconcerned. Repeated pleas to the Chairman just resulted in responses from the same complaint handler who was unwilling/unable to provide a direct answer. As a result BT are on my avoid list for anything over than basic telephony (and then only so I can overlay a 3rd party calling plan).

I read this as the OP is shipping some items to Australia, paid for the shipping charge on collection and has now received a demand for more money before the company fulfils the contract. If this charge is purely for their delivery service, then no they are not able to do this. However, if any import duties and vat are payable then, depending on what was agreed (whether the shipper or recipient is responsiblefor these) this could be a valid charge.

In case anyone is thinking of taking legal action against Phones2uDirect.co.uk and stumbles across this thread, it looks like they are about to go bust - see here: Search Results - so don't throw good money after bad.

It just takes some finding: Edited Strange, you'd think they don't want you to find them! The T&Cs have been through various iterations - you could try the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org to see what version was in force when.

Success! Cheque for cashback + £30 court fee received in the post today. Presumably I just let it clear and then tell the court to withdraw the claim as the defendant has settled?

You need to take one of the two options suggested by the helpline otherwise the defendants will get you claim struck out. Surely they can only get it struck out if they enter a defence, at which point I will probably withdraw and re-issue anyway. Cashback offers are notoriously difficult to get any joy with and I'd be surprised if any claim had any realistic chances of success I complied with all the T&Cs and they haven't paid me my money, so breach of contract. In fact they ignored the claim and LBA, only when I put in the claim did I get any kind of response. I will await their defence to see what they say but wondered whether to take a flier on the default judgement if they fail to defend. Just anoyed I messed up on the POC as we have another contract with the other network provider.

I urgently need some advice. I've just realised I made a mistake on my Particulars of Claim when lodging a claim for cashback. Basically I mentioned the wrong network provider and only realised when the mistake was brought to my attention by the defendant querying the issue. I have phoned the MCOL helpline and they have said that I would need to use an N244 to amend the particulars, costing £35, or withdraw the claim and reissue, costing £30. It is highly likely that the defendant will enter a defence in the next week, forcing me to reissue. However, what if they do not enter a defence? Can I still go for a default judgement and are there any implications further down the line, for example if they subsequently request that the judgement is set aside?

Be careful with Direct Line. My recent experience is that they don't address complaints properly, just fob you off with a final decision that doesn't provide any justification and then state that you must contact the Financial Services Ombudsman if you are unhappy. They ignore any further communication and dispose of your vehicle before they have agreed a settlement value. The aim appears to be to railroad you into accepting their valuation. My advice is reject their offer in writing. Also instruct them not to dispose of your car until a settlement has been agreed. You may even want to consider withdrawing your claim and pursuing the third party insurer directly, as it is far easier to pursue the third party through the courts. I write this as a customer of Direct Line for over 15 years but will never touch them (or any other RBS group company) with a bargepole again.

Can I ask whether others who have resorted to the County Court to get their cashback (or with other small amounts at stake) have attended court? I expect Phones2UDirect to pay up before the case gets in front of a District Judge, but if they don't I am inclined to ask the court to consider the case on the basis of the submitted argument as it will cost me more to attend than is at stake.

Right, claim submitted via MCOL. I debated giving them a few more days but they've already had 66 days to pay up including 10 working days notice of my intent to file a claim.

Hi everyone. I am about to issue a claim against Phones2UDirect.co.uk Ltd for the first installment of my cashback [snip] I would welcome any comments/suggestions on my POC. Thanks. [snip] Also, someone on MSE has suggested I try claiming for all 3 instalments in one go as P2UD has broken the contract. Anyone know if this is legally viable?

This is common practice with Lloyds TSB. You can sometimes see the same thing in the late evening, where transactions are shown for the following day. Also, if you withdraw money at the cashpoint over the weekend / overnight it shows up immediately online but against the next working day. As you are outside banking hours, I do not see any issue with this. It is not possible to deposit funds into the account in time to allow any payment to proceed. (The only possible exception is transfers between 2 personal accounts held with Lloyds, which are advertised as instantaneous, but I'm sure Lloyds will state somewhere in their T&Cs that funds must be available at the end of the previous working day prior to the Direct Debit/Standing Order.) Of course, non of this stops you challenging the charges as unlawful!

Okay, I've split this into national minimum wage, entitlement to breaks during the working day and entitlement to holiday pay on bank holidays. This all assumes your friend's daughter is an employee of the hair salon, not self-employed. 1) National minimum wage The minimum wage is a legal right which covers almost all workers above compulsory school leaving age. There are different minimum wage rates for different groups of workers as follows: The main rate for workers aged 22 and over increased on 1 October 2006 to £5.35 an hour from £5.05 an hour. The development rate for 18-21 year olds increased to £4.45 an hour from £4.25 an hour The development rate for 16-17 year old increased to £3.30 an hour from £3.00 an hour It is important to note that these new rates only apply to pay reference periods beginning on or after the date they came into law. More here: National Minimum Wage - DTI 2) Rest breaks The Working Time Regulations give you a right to one rest break during your working day. A lunch or coffee break can count as your rest break. If you're an adult worker (that is, over 18, you'll normally have the right to a 20 minute rest break if you're expected to work for more than six hours at a stretch. The rest breaks isn't necessarily paid - it depends upon your contract of employment. More here: Rest breaks : Directgov - Employment 3) Holidays and Bank Holidays There is a minimum right to paid holiday, your employer may offer more than this. The main things you should know about holiday rights are: you get a minimum of four weeks (so 20 days if you work a 5 day week) you start building up holiday as soon as you start work your employer can control when you take your holiday you get paid your normal pay for your holiday when you finish a job, you get paid for any holiday you’ve not taken You do not have a statutory right to paid leave on bank and public holidays. If paid leave is given on a bank or public holiday, this can count towards your four weeks minimum holiday entitlement. There are eight permanent bank and public holidays in Great Britain. More here: Holiday entitlements: introduction : Directgov - Employment

I don't think so. If and when you're asked "Is it a breach of contract to write a cheque that bounces due to lack of funds?" you'd answer "Yes, definitely!".

Okay, I've had a quick skim of the judgement and this is my (non-expert) take on it. There were 2 claims covered by this judgement. The first claim was poorly articulated and did not present any rationale as to why the charges levied were unlawful. Therefore it failed. The second claim failed because the claimant stated that issuing payment instructions that took him over his overdraft limit was not a breach of contract. The fee was therefore a service charge not a penalty charge. As the action was not a breach of contract, the terms of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts regulations that cover penalty charges on breach of contract could not apply. The alternate argument, under the Supply of Goods and Services Act failed because the judge required the claimant to make the case that the charge was unreasonable and the claimant was not able to do so.

There appears to be a lot of this going on as the same question keeps popping up at Moneysavingexpert.com. The response seems to be that it is not allowed unless you have signed a fee agreement with the IFA. Example thread here: Mortgage broker billing me for cancelled Ins - MoneySavingExpert.com Forums HTH!

If they were to be able to trace me, would the fact that I have changed my name have any bearing on the debt? Would the time since the accident/payout have any effect? My first thought was that the debt was time barred as it arose in 2001. However, on second reading I see that they contacted you in 2005 and I believe the clock started again at that point. The change of name has no impact except that it might make it harder to trace you. What I did manage to find out during the brief call with them was that they would be pursuing me for the debt, and with it being a large amount, the possibilty of my being made bankrupt. Their first step is to try to harrass you into paying. If this doesn't work they will have to seek a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you. However, it is possible they have already sought a CCJ, serving the writ at your previous address. (You could find out by checking your Credit Report, although it is possible that this could tip them off to your new address if you have not entered into any credit agreements in the intervening years.) Once they have a CCJ they must then enforce payment. This can be be via a number of measures from a warrant of execution (sending around the bailiffs), an attachment of earnings order through to a petition for bankcruptcy. Remember that they are only likely to pursue you if they think you have income or assets to go after. In particular there is no point making you bankrupt unless you own property/possessions that they could realise to pay the debt. I'm not sure if they have to enforce the CCJ within 6 years - hopefully someone else can advise. If they are not actively pursuing the debt and your credit record is not causing a problem you could just ignore it, but bear in mind that you may find it difficult to get a mortgage or credit later on. If they do contact you again, ask for a written statement of the alleged debt with a breakdown showing how it has arisen and seek advice from your local Citizens Advice Bureau. It is likely a lot of the alleged debt is fees imposed by the collection agency, which I believe could be disputed and it may be possible to negotiate a full and final settlement for a reduced payment. Depending on the response you get here, you could also seek advice on the Motley Fool's Dealing with Debt board (www. fool.co. uk) where there are some very knowledgable, helpful people.

Actually I think this is right. I suspect that there is no contractual relationship between you and the loss adjuster. The loss adjuster is a third party appointed by your insurer for the purposes of vetting your claim and advising your insurer on the merits of the claim. The phone call sounds like a courtesy rather than official confirmation from your insurer of the status of your claim. If you are unhappy with the outcome of your claim, when formally advised by your insurer, it is the insurer you should complain to. They may then refer back to the (same or another) loss adjuster for a second opinion. For what its worth, I think the loss adjuster's justification for rejecting the claim is very weak and can be easily challenged with a letter (clearly marked as a complaint) to your insurer stating: (i) That the machine was repaired in Dec 2003, at which time it was moved and no leak or damage was evident. (ii) That there was no reason to believe a problem existed as there were no tell tale signs (e.g. musty odour, condensation problems). (iii) That there is no explicit requirement in the T&Cs of the insurance policy and it is not reasonable to expect a householder to move large white goods items (i.e. fridges, freezers, washing machines, etc) and lift carpets to inspect for problems when there is no reason to suspect that any problem exists. Indeed, such a course of action would be likely to result in an increase in claims for accidental damage caused during the process of moving said items. (iv) That when the problem did come to light you took immediate steps to correct the leak and prevent further damage, thereby mitigating your loss. (v) That if the insurer stands by its rejection of the claim you would be obliged if they can provide a deadlock letter so that you can pursue a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service.

This would be a valid statement if the underwriter had requested the information prior to placing the policy on risk or advised at that time that they may need to confirm some of the information provided to allow the insurance premium quote to be made expeditiously. In the absence of a catch all clause in the T&Cs re. requests for documentation, I would say the OP is within his rights to tell them to get stuffed.

You say he's got insurance elsewhere. Is he still in the cooling off period for this new insurance? If so, why not cancel that and retain the PO insurance?

Do I need to quote any law (law of tort rings a faint bell - google here I come) or is it enough to say that the other party has caused me a loss through their action and quantify/substantiate that loss?

I agree that they don't have to but in a fairly straightforward no-fault accident it would have been good customer service. As it is, I'll have to pursue the 3rd party myself. Because I already had a cheaper quote to get the dent repaired. They've even deducted money for polishing to remove light scratching - I'm half inclined to offer to t-cut the wreckage!! I didn't. However, I believe I do have cover via my house insurance so will be contacting them tomorrow.

At the start of November I was the middle car in a 3 car shunt on the M25. Traffic braked sharply, the car in front stopped, I stopped, the car behind didn't. My car was recovered by my insurer Direct Line but I had to make my own way home. Direct Line didn't offer a hire car and the third party's insurer was initially disputing liability, so I hired a car (cheapest I could find and similar spec to mine) for a couple of weeks till I went on holiday. Since then my wife and 12-week old daughter have been giving me a lift to and from the station at 7am and 8pm. My car was deemed a total loss by Direct Line and they offered a settlement significantly less than I was expecting from checking Auto Trader (£3k). They took the Glass's Guide price (£2.6k) and subtracted £300 for existing damage, which is far too much for the damage that preceded the accident. I disputed the valuation, providing my reasoning but Direct Line issued a final response saying they wouldn't increase their offer, even though they haven't responded to any of my points. Now they refuse to be drawn, hiding behind the Financial Ombudsman Service (which I've heard is pretty toothless). I have rejected Direct Line's offer (didn't cash their cheque) and am pursuing Norwich Union (the third party's insurer) directly, asking them to return me to the situation I was in before the accident. I've told them I'm willing to accept a replacement vehicle + expenses or my estimate of value + expenses but they are ignoring my letters. How do I pursue this via the Small Claims Court? I am particularly concerned about making the argument that my car is worth more than Direct Line offered and what laws I need to quote relating to the loss. Alternatively should I go to one of these no win-no fee outfits, and if so can anyone recommend one? Generally feeling like my head has been rather too familiar with a brick wall and wondering why I paid Direct Line for 'comprehensive' motor insurance! TIA