@conniff & CAG It's even trickier than that, with the new plans Tethering is now reduced to 2gb per month even for "All you can eat" data plans. They are giving a little bit with one hand and taking a lot away with the other, that's on top of their very recent 25% price increases. "No Extra for 4G", I should think not, they struggle to provide it, their 3G is usually faster in most areas. They will claim that they don't make promises on signal strength, just that 4G is on 'rollout' and coverage will vary. They should be compelled (along with other carriers) to state minimum service levels. Consumers might then have the option to cease contracts when they fail to deliver. At the moment many people are locked in to expensive two year deals and there is get-out for No Service.

This is great news, a truimph for reason and humanity, or prevailing economic and electoral conditions. I hope Peter Bard is around and aware of this bulletin, we all owe him so much. F.

Thanks Simon, part of my motive was that you will get wider coverage, ie more readership, with your own thread on the very important topic that you raised, rather than this fag end of a nearly exhausted topic. We are now pretty much just waiting for the horror stories to start coming in. F.

Simon, the imformation and views you provide are of considerable interest to many forum members. Why not create your own thread on the topic ? This thread that you have posted in is concerned with something else, namely the impending ability of baliffs to force entry into peoples' homes for civil debt. F.

Oh Boy thanks for posting, don't think I am being impolite, but I'm not sure you have grasped the recent conversation. Your comments confirm precisely what has been said to Joa, (who is wrong, not 'spot on' as your comment states) that it will be legally possible soon to obtain forced entry for creditors such as Barclaycard as a result of extending the 2004 Domestic Violence provisions. (citation needed)(Wiki spoof, don't try to click on it). We are not panicing but are concerned about private bailiffs (amongst many things) seeking a warrant on the back of a CCJ. Showing that a debtor is still residing at an address is not thought to become a major stumbling block, in fact I suspect as the custom becomes more widespread, which I believe it will, the entry in the electoral roll or confirmation by a utility may suffice. We are not concerned about an unreal situation, for instance, zombies walking the streets of our cities desperate for human blood, but we are concerned with the now very real situation that zombies will walk the streets of our cities, armed with court warrants in their top pockets. "then god help the general public" F. PS. Just seen JonCris's post who beat me to it. Memo to self - learn to type faster.

Good advice here, but the wrong way round, canvass your neighbours FIRST, then write to the company, also copy and distribute the reply when you receive it, you could also (subject to support) request or demand suspension pro temp of the new/current parking regime. To garner more solidarity consider inviting your neighbours to a meeting in your home, (or someother venue depending on the logistics) you will also have sewn the seeds for a Residents Association and that I promise you will give you all a better existence and a little more empowerment. F.

What he said. It's essential reading Joa, speed read or skip those posts expressing indignation and outrage at the proposal, valid though they are and focus on those posts leading up to and including the passage of the bill into Parliament especially the posts by Peter Bard (blessings upon him). I will be particularly delighted if you reach an imformed conclusion that the bill is some kind of weapon, permanently sheathed and desined to stay on a drawing board gathering dust in Westminster vaults, if that becomes the case, please share it with us urgently, but I actually think the true situation will be revealed to you. Sincere regards, F.

Quote Joa "At present, bailiffs have no powers to force entry in order to execute warrants for any other debts". "The government has proposed an extension of bailiffs’ powers but no regulations have yet been drafted." Quote Joa. What then were the proceedings going through parliament we all watched on television last year ?

I think you should get your retaliation in first, don't wait for someone to be ticketed, if it's someone else, ie another resident/s receiving a ticket, they might just go and pay it/them, then it's much more awkward for you and you may be stuck with an imposed regime. As others have also suggested you should consult with other residents or you wont have any credibility and they (the managers) will crush you. You need to be clear about what you want to achieve before you write to them and ensure you have the support and agreement of the other residents. A good start would be a simple note from you to other residents and seek feedback from them, you will at least then be able to guage opinion and get a feel for their mood, this will inform any decisions you make about letters to the management company, who should welcome any resident involvement. F.

Is there a residents association for your block/estate ? If not, form one, this parking malarky will be just the thing that should galvanise opinion and generate some solidarity, even residents without cars must see this as a threat to any visitors or even deliveries they receive. I had a similar experience where I lived and successfully blocked plans to issue permits and create a climate of clamping extortion, we said we could manage our own parking problems, the managers should be focused on the needs of their residents and not thinking up new ways to make life difficult, don't accept the BS that it's in the interests of all the residents, if they try to pull that stunt ask them to produce copies of letters etc, moreover they have an obligation to consult, especially if there is a residents association, also if it suits the residents to have some sort of "clamping service" you should be entitled to agree the terms of reference with the firm, ie what constitutes an offence. The formation of an association is easy and model rules about appointing chair/treasurer etc are plentiful, providing you are meticulous on set up you could even ask for grants from a number of sources, including the management company and developers. You might also get some help on forming an association from one of the forums dealing with leaseholder/tenant/landlord issues, there is sure to be someone who has had experience of dealing with owners and freeholders.

I read this at the time of publication, they close the "comments" at 185 on all items, though very few reach that number, they are moderated, or censored to be more precise, I posted a comment soon after it appeared, there were then perhaps fifteen responses from the public, my comment was I believe well informed, based a great deal on what I have gleaned from this site and also wry, my comment was excluded. Two days later when the comments had reached 185 (heavily subscribed and filled up quickly) I had a quick perusal of them, I noted also the "suprised" element and just how unaware the posting public is on what's coming to them from a county court close to their locality, the upside is that at least 90% of the published comments were indignant and closely matched the anger felt in this forum, including the ever popular threats to leave the UK and promises of violence. I couldn't resist sending another comment asking where my previous comment had gone to and asked if it was ignored because they were too busy working on a piece about press censorship and news manipulation in forieign countries. I have no great expectations of any new comments I send to the paper to be included in the future. In fact I regret not posting the link on this site when it first appeared, some of our hell hounds would've told The Times what's what. I do worry now though why The Times picked up on it, could it be there are vibes from goverment departments, that they want it to go ahead soon and I can't remember if it went through the Lords yet, I presume it has to.

A good attitude FP, we all support this point of view. We could also do with some factual imformation when the new powers start, or are threatened to be implimented. There will be means of thwarting some of these henious actions, if people have ideas don't hesitate to share them, even if it's neccessary to pm others with details, pm - ing, for reasons that I assume are obvious. F.

I would like to echo pugsley's suggestion for an update, if possible. It was expected to be starting, to be implemented, at about this time. Obviously anyone us could ring the the local court, but I prefer imformed opinion. Best regards to all. F.

I assumed it is retrospective, in that it's new extra powers not a new punishment, though it's clearly punitive for the debtor. I also do not believe "the industry" has any serious reservations about the changes, other than the need to clarify some points. I suspect they will be very welcoming and keen to "tackle the backlog" although I do hope I am wrong.