Over the last year I’ve switched to cheaper energy suppliers several times but on all three occasions it’s left me paying MORE for my gas and electricity. The tariffs are setup so there are no standing charges. It’s based on 2-tiers of unit cost. The first X-number of units used is at nearly 280% higher than the rest of the units used over a fixed period – usually 3 months. Typically gas is charged at 21.605 pence for the first 22 units, then at 7.077pence for a total of three months. You go back to the high rate at the beginning of the next three months. Each time I switched to a cheaper energy supplier, I had no control WHEN the switch took place. I switched (using moneysupermarket.com) on 24/01/08 when it was announced Gas prices will rise by 40%, the switch didn’t take effect until 01/03/08 – 38 days later. On 24/01/08 I was due to come out of my higher rate gas tariff because I has used 24 units on 01/03/08, and switched onto the new supplier’s higher-rate tariff for another three months. It was announced again that energy prices will rise 40% and I made another switch on 01/04/08 but the switch was delayed until 04/06/2008 after I had used 22 units and about to go to the lower-rate tariff. The energy companies appear to be colluding with each other, and timing when the consumer switches to the new energy supplier as to maximize the amount of units sold at their higher-rates. Do I have any recourse?

wrong thread, no delete feature

The clamp was removed by someone testing a cordless lobster cutter. Apparently it takes less than 10 seconds and only the top and one of the two side chains needs to be cut before pulling the clamp away from the wheel. The car had two clamps, one private and one DVLA. The car has no transmission when the DVLA came to clear with the private clamp still atached. The DVLA clamp had been dumped nearby. I left the engine in situ because the water pump had failed and overheated the engine & damaged the head gasket. It needed serious work and the interior was disgusting. Ditto this untaxed van parked next to it, Someone testing their cordless clampbusting gear on a DVLA clamp (illegal) and dumped the clamp in an abandoned supermarket trolley. DVLA eventually cleared the van minus its gearbox. but not before a local builder had dug up the groundwork for a driveway nearby and loaded over two tons of rubble into it. It was too heavy for DVLA's HIAB lorry and two of its wheels were missing (nicked). so DVLA came back with another lorry and some replacement wheels and towed it. It seems that DVLA a free rubbish clearing service, park it out and they'll scrap if for free. Unfortunately our area is often selected as a parking lot for the DVLA's free scrap vehicle clearing service.

I don’t know what contract you have but the standard Sky signatureless contract of 2006 has a clause 11b It sets out termination rights, and the wording gives Sky TV an unfettered discretion to terminate the contract for any reason they consider fit within the minimum term and under clause 11(d) enables Sky to compensate themselves for its reasonable losses by way of retaining or claiming the subscription for the unexpired time. There is legislation that protects consumers from contracts like this and it’s called the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Under Regulation 5.5 it gives an indicative and non-exhaustive list of terms which may be regarded as unfair, and under 1(e) because they are not supplying you with the TV service and the subscription has become a compensation payment. Additionally if you have a signatureless contract you can void the contract under Schedule 2(1)(i) because Sky is irrevocably binding you to terms with which you had no real opportunity of becoming acquainted before the conclusion of the contract. Sky may not accept this and exclude themselves from liability. They could also respond by damaging your credit rating by passing disputed monies as adverse information to a credit agency, there is case law that enables you to recover from Sky's liability insurer for your losses if you obtain a loan and pay a higher interest rate than you would otherwise pay if the lender relies on adverse information obtained from a credit agency that originates from Sky.

How do I get them to remove my bank details from their systems? I really feel uneasy about paypal having unfettered access to my bank account, given the fact paypal uses terms of business to exclude themselves from liability under a point of law - and does so en masse knowing the authorities will take no action.

Ditto, but I use a credit card for the section 75 protection, Im well protected if I am defrauded. Neither have I, until now, it seems paypal is trying to exclude itself from liability in the event of a section 75 reclaim. Its a known issue that paypal get shirty when someone does a chargeback after their internal disute procedure doesnt go in favour of the consumer. The law is there for good reason. I agreed to the T&C's at the time of signing up, I didn't agree to the revised terms imposed afterwards.

What about their retaining of my bank details on their system? They are not complying with my request. What steps can I take to safeguard against paypal taking money from my bank account. Its all well & good having all these laws if they simply don’t work. It’s all well & good having all these watchdogs - the Information Commissioners Office, the FSA, Consumer Direct, Trading Standards, the Banking Ombudsman etc - when they just pass complaints around to each other or won’t get involved in specific cases. It seems that small issues such as this count for nothing – even it’s run by an organised institution such as paypal to systematically and routinely defraud consumers en masse - knowing the authorities will only act to a single case that has a sizeable amount of money that is being embezzled.

I recently had some trouble with paypal and their policy on fraud prevention. My paypal account ceased working because I had reached a sending limit and to remove that limit I had to add a bank account. I tend to err on the side of caution when making over my bank account to companies who have a reputation for defrauding consumers in fees and charges, but as I was committed to an eBay transaction I didn’t have much choice and this is what happened: While that sounded reassuring that they actively to protect my bank account from fraud, I proceeded and I saw this: So paypal can defraud people’s bank account and this seems to be legitimised by their terms of business, but there’s legislation that is designed specifically to protect consumers from fees being charged in this way. Its called The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, and under regulation 5,5 it says: I have emailed paypal about this, asked them to confirm they have removed all my personal details from their system, but they ignore all my emails. Comments?

Good tip, well done!

I have just recently taken out a two year mortgage on a property at a fixed-rate for 2 years. The rate was based on my circumstances, which I now learn included a false debt that had been placed with a credit reference agency by Sky television. I’ve never had Sky television or an account with them but I don’t have any means of proving this (other then by way of an affidavit). Sky television does not cooperate in my enquiries and the credit agency will not remove the debt information from my credit file - only make comments on it. The bank re-calculated the rate of interest based on my circumstances I would have otherwise paid if Sky had not placed an artificial debt with the credit agency in the first place.This makes a difference of £32.18 a month in interest charges over two years at a minimum plus any proportional rise in the base rate, but as I am now locked into a fixed term contract the bank will not revise the rate of interest. Im happy to litigate the proceedings in the small claims track, but before I prepare the paperwork,a brain-dump is needed. 1. Can an affidavit be enough to prove I've never had a Sky account here or anywhere else? 2. Who do I name as the defendant? A) Sky Television for negligent accounting & failure to put things right when asked? B) The credit agency for negligence in handling false information for financial gain? C) Both named as joint defendants and let the court decide who pays what? 3. Is there any case law on this? A precedent? 4. Is there any legislation that requires those passing information to a credit agency to verify its accuracy & if so what is it? 5. Is there any legislation that requires credit agencies selling information to verify its accuracy & if so what is it? Any comments would be helpful.

Pay the bailiff with a CREDIT card to get them off your back. Don’t question the fees but you MUST get a receipt giving a FULL breakdown of everything you pay. Ask tomtubby to recalculate the fees and if they are incorrect then recover the money by revoking the credit card transaction under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for making a false representation to secure a financial transaction regulated under the Act. Pay the council only what's legitimately owed, it doesn't need to be on a credit card. Bailiffs cannot enforce the same debt twice. File a complaint at the county court that certificated the bailiff and give proof to the Judge on how the bailiff defraused you. Optional: if you are defrauded of money (regardless of whether you successfully recovered it), make a complaint with a police authority under Section 15a(1) of the Theft Act 1968.

Can he do that? Or is criminal damage another offence passed off as a civil matter by police?

Sorry I didn't read the thread, With some types of finance agreements they don't need one. The car is theirs until its paid for. Especially true with hire purchase agreements. You can bill the creditor that instructed the bailiffs for the repairs to your property. Just file it in the small claims track, don't even bother asking the bailiffs you will be wasting your time. Theres no provision in the DCV Act that enables bailiffs to cause damage to anything. Liability for damages caused by a bailiff is with the creditor. It's up to the creditor to charge it on to the bailiff.

If your car is taken by baliffs ar the roadside in an ANPR sting, it makes no difference what address its registered at.

Let’s clarify this for the record. Breaking & Entering is allowed by bailiffs because they call it by another name, its called Entering by Force. Criminal Damage resulting from entering by force is lawful because it becomes a civil matter, & it’s probably called something else – Civil Damage? If the above is true then all it’s down to is a change of name, and therefore makes it legal? - Am I right? When lawyer Michael Cox was ‘committed to prison’ for not paying child support, the newspapers in Equador and Peru carried the story (in Spanish) saying he was kidnapped by the corrupt British authorities who are demanding a ransom or payment of money. This version of the story came about because the ECHR prohibits punishment without a fair trial to be unlawful, and the Magna Carta of 1215 prohibits imprisonment for debt and neither law has been repealed and therefore contradicts the Child Support Act. With this so-called government war on motorists raging on then there is little motive to register your car at your home address. It puts it at risk of being subject to a government-authorised licensed burglary or certificated car thief.

Just to clarify, yes it's on a public road. If it was on private land then I would have taken it long ago and asked the bailiff to come to the yard for his wheelclamp.

The bailiff does not cooperate because it's not my car. Removing the clamp is not the issue, we can do that ourselves. I need to know whether the vehicle belongs to the bailiff or not. If not then I can take it with the V5 named owners permission.

Hi Pat and thanks for taking the time to look at my case. I cant declare SORN because its clamped on a public road. We've blocked it in for the moment so its out of reach of a HIAB and the starter motor and battery has been removed. I have permission, but not in writing. I only want the engine & transmission, the DVLA are welcome to the rest of the car. Its parked in a residents parking bay on a council adopted road - a public road but other residents are not happy with the idea of me removing the engine and leaving it where it's currently parked. I need to know the liability on ownership issue and whom it currently resides with.

OK I still need to know who is liable for the DVLA fines. And who does the clamped vehicle now belong to? I dont want to obtain V5 yet because I could render myself liable for an untaxed car on a public road. Keepership could also be liabilityship. Additionally I'll be scrapping the car for its parts in any event and the bailiff does not cooperate (premium rate numbers - and told me to go take a w**k - literally!). Am I allowed to take the car anyway and just tell the bailiff to come fetch his clamp once dismantled? or can I just recycle the clamp along with the rest of the car?

Thanks for looking into it, but to confirm I'm not the registered owner. The owners family are happy for me to take it because its causing an onstruction and theres little prospect of getting an MOT on their household budget. I just need to know who has legal responsibility for the vehicle.

My guess is that DVLA might introduce an appeals procedure in its SORN policy to satisfy A6 counter claims. On a side note, the governments War on Motorists took another step today with an extra 2p a litre making the UK the cheapest place to buy petrol in Europe - but the most heavily taxed petrol in Europe. Anything that moves is taxed & it's nothing to do with co2 and the environment. We have been exhaling co2 since the beginning of time - so its official - a visit to the gym or riding your bike adds to climate change.

Then rowbo1071again has no choice but watch the bailiff turn up and waste tax payers money.

I didn't mean that kind of pool car. I was referring to the type used by the criminal fraternity in dealing & fetching contraband. It’s usually an older car - a jalopy or a crash-repair which can be ditched quickly if stopped. They are always registered to an unobtainable address or sometimes name-swapped like they do with minicabs. (where 2 cab drivers exchange vehicle registration addresses to safegaurd against accidental road fines and unannounced bailiff attacks)

I can vouch for that. In 1984 I was driving a 1973 ford Capri MK1 and I received tickets for offences ranging from double-yellows to driving a trade vehicle in a royal park. Bailiffs Jefferies & Pennicott turned up looking for my 2-axle rigid body Ford Escort van.