Whilst not admitting an offence in a public forum, lets just say I "might" have rejected a call whilst stationary. However, at no time have I ever driven an unroadworthy car!

Oh, come on Ting! Did you read the unedited version of the first post? The replies given so far seem fairly commensurate with the attitude shown by the OP.

The loading/unloading exemption does not allow you to carry out the actual job too. It might be worth posting a washed copy of the PCN to see if there are any errors though.

You are lucky the police didn't have you for the condition of your vehicle too. Having the bonnet stuck down with duct tape is dangerous and you could have ended up with your vehicle impounded! Personally, I think your attitude is apalling. By your own admission, you were using a mobile phone and I don't think any of the excuses you have given here will get you off. Without a doubt, I feel you deserve the 3 points, but feel free to go to court with your A-level law and please post back here what the magistrate says.

Can Tiscali actually get any worse?

Your second link does not work. I think this is the one: Department for Transport - Cycle to Work Scheme implementation guidance

Some more realistic answers maybe?

Continue to ignore unless they issue genuine court papers (unlikely)

Lunch and "entertainment" expenses for a Sir or Lord perhaps

Even if you didn't register, most will (for a small charge) replace damaged media if you send it to them.

Quite right. The whole antiquated bailiff system should have no place in a modern civilised society. The vast majority of bailiffs have two main characteristics: no morals and no decency. Virtually all debts could be sorted with attachment to earnings or benefits orders without the need for bailiffs.

The most important advice still stands. DO NOT let them in under any circumstances. Keep windows and doors locked and if you have a car, park it away from your driveway (unless its on HP). You can (and should) start making payments to the council straight away. They cannot legally refuse, though they might try and say that they can. Make sure the council know which year the payments are for and get a receipt. It will also help if you can write a means form to show the council why you can only afford to pay £12.70 per month.

I believe the lines do cover the verge and/or the pavement. No harm in posting a washed copy of your PCN here though to check for any inconsistencies.

Likewise, my copy of Half Life 2 is damaged. As I have registered with Valve software, I am allowed (and have) downloaded and re-installed the game.

Yes, in the OP's case its highly likely that Tiscali are at fault and the OP may well be able to take action against them.

Correct. An estimate can be provided. It is, of course, only an estimate and based on BTs own data. You can and should look up this estimate yourself on BTs website. It does not, however, form part of the contract. ISPs are not obliged to provide an "up to 2mbps" service. For example, BT don't, but Sky do. That is a business decision. The 1.8mbps example you give is still "up to 8mbps". I disagree that the contract has been misrepresented if this is due solely to the line length/quality.

It would appear that you really do not have a proper technical understanding of how broadband works. All copper pair telephone lines have a physical limit on speed. That limit varies according to line length and quality. ISP's DO NOT have any control over these factors. If you are unfortunate enough to live some distance from the exchange and/or have a poor quality line, then your speed will be reduced. It is not that unusual to see lines that can only support 2mbps. As the ISP has absolutely no control over this, then they cannot be legally held accountable. They are NOT ripping off customers in this case. They never promised to provide above 2mbps in the first place!! If, however, the line can support higher speeds, but the ISP's network is the cause of the poor speed, then they can be held accountable because then they would be ripping off customers. However, you may need BT's assistance in order to make your case if the ISP denies responsibility. I am not defending ISP's, I am simply stating facts. Posts that incorrectly state the technical issues are also "something that shouldn't be done on a meant-to-be-Consumer-friendly-forum like CAG" To qualify my opinion, I have 15 years experience as a BT engineer with emphasis on data provision and 10 years experience as an IT specialist.

Not entirely true! If you have a particularly long line, or poor quality line, the speed can drop below 2mbps. This is a physical limitation and the ISP has no control over this. Thats why they advertise "up to 8mbps". There is no legal remedy for this problem. If, however, it can be proved that the poor speed is due to the ISP's network, then you can take action. If your router/modem shows a connected speed of, say, 5mbps but you only get 512kbps, then that is the ISP's fault. Sometimes, an ISP can limit the connection speed of the router. For example, your neighbour gets 7mbps, but your router shows 1mbps. If you suspect this is the case, but the ISP denies it, then you need a BT engineer to measure the line speed. If it shows that your line can support a higher speed, then you have a case.

This is the address I give: Barton House Bond Street Bristol BS98 1TL

It still could be. New builds can suffer from lack of lineplant too.

Buyers should give a different address if they dont want tvl on their back!

Um, no they didn't:

Interesting. It is possible you have DACS on your line, which is the modern version of the old-fashioned "party line". These are used by BT when there is a shortage of physical lines in an area. DACS is definitely not compatible with broadband. You should specifically ask BT if you are on a DACS line. If so, they should be able to un-DACS your line as long as there are enough people not already using broadband. DACS FAQ

Additionally, you are allowed to watch TV programmes using BBCiPlayer (or equivalent) over the internet without a licence, because these programmes are not broadcast live.

OK, quick look on Sainsburys website. Own brand mansize tissues work out at 0.89pence per tissue. The box was already opened by someone else. The OP was not responsible for opening the box, therefore not liable to pay for a whole box. Exactly how do you propose that the OP pay 0.89p to Sainsbury? Totally ridiculous overreaction by the security guard. Would be fun to watch Sainsburys try and prosecute.