Jendoc, We can only start to try to imagine what you and the others who were close to this young lady are going through. Please keep us posted as to how you proceed with this. I am sure that if I can't help somebody else will if you need further help. I would agree with the previous poster who said that you should write to the undertaker setting clearly out your complaints and what action you intend to take if they don't make a settlement offer by way of discount off the bill. Demand a written response within 14 days, and send it by special delivery. When I write a letter of complaint and receive a telephone call I advise them that they should write to me, as I have had that courtesy and I require a written response for evidence. I then hang up. Do as you feel is right, others will disagree with this opinion, but that's the way I do things. Best wishes, legal

I wouldn't send a letter. If you need to say more, you can continue on a separate sheet. A letter is not going to help. I would send a cover letter with the whole application and cheque saying that you would appreciate if it was handled quickly, as as they can see from the application you only just found about the judgment and it is causing you problems that must be rectified as soon as physically possible and can only be done so with this application. That letter should be addressed to the court and be addressed 'Dear Sir'. That is only a cover letter and bears little relevance to the application besides for trying to get the court staff to feel for you and process it quickly - because a lot of the time it takes is beauracratic, not to do with the judge and law. Part 3: 'To Set Aside the Judgment as the Defendant [Applicant] did not receive the claim form or Notice of Judgment.' Part 10: Tick 'the evidence set out in the box below' and fill it in. You can fill the whole form in on the computer and print it, only needing to sign it. It is a lot clearer when doing this and the court appreciates clarity. Be as short and succint as possible. Rambling on does you no good, neither in the hearing or the documents. The judge doesn't want to read a whole bunch of stuff that ends up being irrelevant. I would write that you didn't receive any letters informing that your son had defaulted on the rent, and were not made aware of it. Had you known you would have paid prior to the claim even being issued, you therefore contend that it is only right that you should not be liable for the claimant's [respondent's] costs [including court fees] or interest, only the amount that your son defaulted on, minus your costs in making this application, as you contend that the claimant was obligated to give you the chance to pay the debt without issuing any proceedings first. It's worth a try. As I wrote above, try to word it as succintly as possible. Put it through a spellchecker first - if your acrobat reader doesn't have one [mine does]. Note: Some applications change 'judgment' to 'judgement'. 'judgment' is the correct form, but 'judgement' has been a change that many accept. All court documents should have 'judgment' written correctly.

Your letter is problematic because you need to do it in the usual application process using the new n244 from the court service website The requested resource (/HMCSCourtFinder/tiles/Her Majesty's Courts Service -Forms and Guidance) is not available It wil take a lot longer than 3 weeks to deal with it. You'd need to send it to the court with a cheque for £75 and they will take a few weeks to process it. It will then get transferred to your local court who will allocate a hearing. Though the hearing will be allocated quicker than normal hearings it will still take at least another month or two till then. And the CCJ won't be removed till after the first hearing. All applications to set aside judgment must be done with a hearing, so there's no way around it. You're looking at between 6 & 12 weeks till it's removed - more if the court is extremely busy. Others may be able to help with the wording. I've been told off for offering to give advice by e-mail so if people have troubles with that they can give advice themselves. I'm not going back and forth between posts, sorry. Also, don't word letters 'Dear Judge', it's 'Dear Sir'. Unless you're going to the High Court - which this won't be - you will need to address the District or Deputy District Judge as 'Sir' or 'Madam', but when writing letters - unless you know the claim is being allocated to a female District or Deputy District Judge - you write 'Dear Sir'.

Worded the way it was "For goodness sake..." under the circumstances was nothing less than a nasty remark. It is an emotional issue and I can only sympathize with those involved as to how emotional and hurtful the matter was. Yes, sometimes it is better to drop things, but when they are so personal such a recommendation only seeks to aggravate matters. Yes, your comments tell me a lot about the type of person writing them. Ugh. If you have such advice to impart, then impart it in a sensitive manner, not such a rough way.

The basis of my claims against Tiscali, BE [O2], UK Online - and the one being issued today against Demon [Thus PLC] is that the service promised was not provided; If you are promised 'up to 8mbps' as you can easily find services of 'up to 2mbps' and most providers offer both, it is definitely reasonable to assume that the speed given would be between 2mbps and 8mbps, not below. SO if the speed reaching your computer is less than 2mbps, you are being charged for a service not provided. Therefore you should be able to claim the difference in cost between what you paid for and were provided. Additionally, if you work from home and require the internet for work then it is unreasonable to expect that you would depend on a "service" that was unreliable and cut out frequently. Therefore I ordered a subscription service - as it was cheaper - on my T-Mobile business contract. I am also demanding Thus PLC refund that as it was as a backup service from their non-existent service. This was my duty to mitigate losses, rather than losing money in business I lost £7.50/month on this. Had I not done anything they may have been able to claim I wasn't mitigating my losses which is a duty on each and every party to proceedings. There are a lot of other claims I have put in previously but they apply specifically to my case and are confidential. The above are the ones that are commonly found with a lot of ISP's. Incidentally I am now with Nildram [which is associated with Tiscali] and it works excellently - let's see how long that is for though, I said the same about BE. Breach of contract claims are a lot more enjoyable than bank charges and the like, they vary from case to case and are a lot more interesting because you see a lot more varying ways of parties working - just my opinion.

Chesterexpress: Stop being a nasty piece of work. This forum is to receive and impart advice, not nasty comments. If you have nothing constructive to say then get lost!

Gyzmo: You are wrong if it is to be taken in court. Unless there is a basis in law for compensation [like for cancelled flights], which to the best of my knowledge there isn't you cannot claim compensation via the courts. The breach of duty of care had to result in either a monetary loss or documented injury. That's why I state the best way to deal with it would be to claim for the amount of the charges relating to what was not done. However good point that if the undertaker is part of an association it may be worth taking it up with them. The only way to get compensation for damages to feelings in such cases is via associations and ombudsman schemes that make such awards. If there is no such scheme then the only damages you can get are for the service not provided as contracted. In addition even if there was a way to claim compensation it is generally a lot easier to make claims like I am recommending. Nobody can charge for a service not provided so it is a relatively simple claim - in my opinion.

You are not entitled to compensation unless you can prove by law there was a resulting injury from what happened. Such a case may be too costly. I would go to a Solicitor if you need advice about that [not a claims tout who will promise you the world and not provide]. However, if you had contracted them to maneuver the coffin correctly into the grave and they did not do that - as you have indicated - then you are entitled to a discount of that cost. Your contract was with the undertaker thus the undertaker is liable to you. It is between him and the cemetary if this was their fault. I would write a harsh letter to him explaining the situation and advising the pro-rata amount you are not making. If he disputes this he must take you to court to collect and inform him that you will vigorously defend any action. If he sets the bailiffs on you then send a copy of the letter to the bailiffs. If you feel compelled to pay, then do so, but make clear at that time you are paying in dispute and will be suing him for that amount plus interest at 8% per annum pursuant to s69 of the County Courts Act 1984. If you need advice post here or PM me and I'll try to help or I'm sure somebody else will. That's my advice, I may be wrong, but that's what I'd do in your situation.

I have successfully sued Tiscali, BE [O2] & UK Online for not providing the speeds promised. My basis was that as they provide - or other providers do but it is easy to get on the market - up to 2mbps products, it would be reasonable to expect that the service provided would be between 2mbps and 8mbps. As it never hit 2mbps in the space of a month - and they'd have to prove that at your computer the download speed was above that, which would be virtually impossible - I was entitled to the difference in value between the service provided and the value of the service I had paid for. I therefore claimed the difference plus interest from the date of paying them. I am hitting Demon [Thus PLC] with my claim being filed and issued tomorrow. As they don't have a 2mbps service that was comparable [i.e. home], I found the another one on the net and charged them the difference between the cost of that one and the theirs. Also, as their "service" had dropouts at frequent times and their indian customer "service" refused or couldn't help me, I used mobile internet as I couldn't stop using it for essential business needs, so I've charged them for those costs too. Some useful tips for others maybe.

I would recommend leaving them NOW. They are the worst on the face of this planet, from experience - for everything!

£50 overdrawn is not bad. I've been and there other people who have been bumped for 50p overdrawn!!!

All claims management companies must be regulated by the Ministry of Justice - Claims Management Regulation, Monitoring & Compliance Unit - CMR: Claims Management Regulation. If your sister has a complaint, she should raise it first with them and then with with the unit. They released guidance a while back that all companies dealing with bank charges must advise their clients what is going on with the test case and the ongoing issues. They must also keep their clients informed. There has been a problem that these claims touts [and I mean the touts who call you up at home] have been putting their address in the service address for claims against banks. This is against the Civil Procedure Rules [CPR] & Practice Directions [PD's]. The only addresses that can be put on court documents for service of documents are the Claimant's / Defendant's and their Solicitor's [or with an underage claimant/defendant or mentally incapacitated claimant/defendant the parent or guardian as a 'litigation friend' normally - except where the rules dictate - with permission from the court]. The claims were therefore struck out and the touts claiming the costs from the customers. Check first that they are approved and still in existence. If you have any problems call them - number on website - and they will help.

Check your credit record first. If there's nothing in about it, keep monitoring every 6-12 months. That's my humble opinion. If there is something in it, then come back here and I'm sure somebody will help. Don't waste money on the advanced services offered by Equifax, Experian & Callcredit. Order your statutory report at £2 from each company. Equifax & Callcredit require a copy of your passport or drivers licence and a copy of one document proving your address. Experian require a copy of your passport or drivers licence and an original document proving your address. The forms are available from their websites; Equifax: https://www.econsumer.equifax.co.uk/consumer/uk/uib/images/EFX_UK/en_GB/your%20equifax%20credit%20file%2012-07.pdf Experian: http://experian.metafaq.com/resources/experian/Downloads/standardAppFormJuly06 Callcredit: http://www.callcredit.co.uk/download/creditfileapp.pdf I recommend using all 3. The £2 cheques need to be in your name or postal orders, 3rd party cheques are not accepted by them. Preferably don't give them your e-mail address as you will have no end of junk from them and they may only communicate with you by e-mail afterwards. - From experience. Good luck!

Addition to the above: As I have previously stated the CRA in such a case has nothing to do with it. If it's a CCJ against you, then it will have been submitted by the court and the CRA cannot remove it without being told to by Registry Trust Limited upon instruction from a court. All the CRA will be able to tell you is the judgment amount, claim number [case number/reference number] & court it was awarded in.

If you apply to set aside the judgment, they can still send bailiff's round relating to the debt. You should be able to get a copy of the whole claim from the court where the judgment was obtained. This - assuming it was fully particularized - should give you some information on where to begin. The Claimant doesn't need to know that you requested a copy of the file. I would ask others first, but my guess is that the first thing is finding out from the court - even by fax - the details of the case, otherwise you are lost. If you write to Bryan Carter & Co directly they are likely to send bailiff's straight away without responding, from the little I've heard. There are also more enforcement methods they can use whilst they have a CCJ. So in summary, my recommendation: - Write to the court with a copy of your passport & proof of address or copy of driving licence, saying that you'd like to see a copy of the claim form as you only just found out you had a CCJ. - When you have that - or the response - come back here. Send everything special delivery to speed things up. Anybody got any other bright ideas?

No problem. If you don't want me to give advice by e-mail, then give it publicly yourself. I am only trying to help. It is confusing going between posts and therefore easier for me to do it by e-mail. I have no problem with it being proofed by others as I'm only trying to help, not cause problems. The point is not to not let other people see the work, or hide anything, but make life easier for everybody, because following 20 posts back and forth gets very confusing. For all those that have problems with it, help Jai yourselves rather than criticizing.

Point made, Andy: So Jai, if you want I'll refine it with you by e-mail and then you can post it back here to see if anybody has anything to add. Happy, Andy?

No, no, no. This would almost certainly - in my opinion - fail. Over the forum is too annoying to deal with something like this. I can't read it properly. Here's how to PM me: In the top right hand corner [below the headers], click 'Private Messages'. In what opens up, click 'Compose Message' on the left hand side. Then fill it in - recipient username is 'legalpickle'. Give me your e-mail address and I'll e-mail you.

Dippy: I understand what you are saying and expected it. But, the CRA's and DCA's will do their utmost to try and make sure something like this does not kick off the ground. If the consumers are also paying for it transparently [as otherwise we'll pay for it in other not so transparent ways] it is more likely to succeed. Whilst I understand the frustration with the CRA's, I am more against the DCA's as they are the ones who refuse to tell the CRA to remove the info, knowing it is incorrect and in a lot of cases put it there know it was incorrect. The CRA does not know anything about the case other than what's written in the credit record, so I wouldn't hold them responsible in such a strong way. The end result will be that if anything like this kicks off it will be funded by the consumer. Either by upping taxes, increased expenses from businesses in other ways or other things. If we have a transparent funding mechanism in place this is less likely to happen in a worse scenario. Let's also say - and I know you don't believe it can happen, but the chances are - that a consumer loses their claim. Should that specific consumer pay? Not directly, because if that consumer would have to pay, he/she would most likely not take it to the scheme. That's what happens with parking tickets. If you fail in your representation to the public authority, it goes to an adjudication scheme, unless you pay. If you fail in the adjudication scheme your parking ticket has doubled - i.e. does not get put on hold for the adjudication, only for the first representations. Because of that less people take it to adjudication - even though in those cases the odds show that people would win.

Point made. It's up to each and every person on their own case, but I who have a lot of experience and have issued claims for myself and all my friends for over 30 breach of contract claims against internet service providers besides for my own bank charges and some other claims would not do so. Make your own decisions on the basis of the evidence available.

Whilst I commend this action and am happy to add my name to it, I think you are going about it the wrong way. The OFT regulates the markets. The CRA's Data Protection policies are meant to be regulated by the Information Commissioners Office. I would therefore do a mass complaint to the Information Commissioner - Richard Thomas. The problem, put shortly, is that CRA's are putting default's on files left, right & centre without sufficient evidence and not removing them when disputed by the customer because the provider says it's right even without evidence. The provider refuses to remove the information and the customer is left in the lurch with no recourse to action. I have encountered this as have numerous friends. If this - without reading in detail through all the posts - is exactly the problem, then in my opinion the correct body to make a mass complaint to would be the ICO, though the OFT would also possibly be beneficial. It is important to note however that there is officially a process of dispute. If a company refuses to remove the information, a complaint can be made to the ICO or their Ombudsman - i.e. FOS, Otelo, CISAS, Energy Supply Ombudsman or Energywatch - however it rarely is dealt with properly and the route is much more time consuming than dealing with most other issues and unfairly biased against the consumer - in breach of the UTCCR's & Overriding Objective, as well as HRA - so I agree that the best route is an Ombudsman type scheme run by the ICO. There is a way of proceeding through the courts but it can be very costly and rarely succeeds without a crapload of evidence and legal knowledge. My experience says that if you propose an alternative course of action you may have more success than just complaining. An alternative scheme may be an Ombudsman or Adjudicator run by the ICO that decides on the basis of evidence if a default is fair, and that the CRA is bound to accept that ruling. It could be funded by a payment from the company who made the default incorrectly if it was made incorrectly. Another way of partial funding is by upping the fee for the statutory credit report to £3 and the extra £1 to fund the scheme. Regarding my last point. Some of you may argue why should we pay? You are right, but unless the consumer agrees to pay a little bit, it's not going to get passed and if consumers have to pay £50 if they lose, consumers won't use it because they'll be scared it's unfairly biased against them. However, if the cost for the credit report was increased by £1 - which hasn't been done so for as long as I am aware - which is a small amount by all standards, we would be funding it without taking a big hit. I am in no way saying it should be completely funded by consumers, businesses that make errors should also pay a penalty of £25 to the ICO to fund the scheme and £25 to the consumer, before any estimate of damages and irrespective of any damages. That is the only way to fund the scheme fairly, but also give a company an incentive to provide correct information. What do you think?

Sorry, I posted it here without realizing that it was probably more apt for the other forum. I called the court and it is this; This court has the power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 to hear and determine the claim with regard to persons domiciled in a part of the United Kingdom (Schedule 4, Article 3 52(1) no proceedings involving the same cause of action are pending between the parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland or their convention territory of any contracting state as defined by Section 1(3) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 (as amended by Section 2(5) of the Civil Jurisdiction Act 1991). What you quoted may be correct for High Court claims, but a claim for £160 including the court fee and interest is hardly for the High Court!!!

Called the court and they were helpful and gave it to me: This court has the power under the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 to hear and determine the claim with regard to persons domiciled in a part of the United Kingdom (Schedule 4, Article 3 52(1) no proceedings involving the same cause of action are pending between the parties in Scotland, Northern Ireland or their convention teritory of any contracting state as defined by Section 1(3) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgment Act 1982 (as amended by Section 2(5) of the Civil Jurisdiction Act 1991).

Emma: It was within 6 years then. So you did not try testing the boundaries of the Limitation Act. Even if it was a couple of months out, they are not going to fight so hard over an extra £30 or so.

Nope, it's something about that this court can have jurisdiction over the issue as one of the parties is domiciled in the relevant territory and no existing claims are going on the sane cause of action between the parties in any other court in any other territory. But there is a specific way to word it.