It wasn't purchased in the conventional sense because when you take out a contract with Sky they give you the box free of charge, and you pay for the service of receiving a satellite signal. I do remember them telling me it was covered for 12 months, so to my way of thinking the SOGA wouldn't apply, they provided what I paid for (ie the satellite signal), and to be honest I am still receiving the signal it's the box that is faulty because it won't allow you to record, pause or rewind live TV, you can only watch it as it is coming in. Mossy

A criminal conviction goes someway to providing information to an insurer about the risk that is presented. For example, motoring convictions will indicate that the driver possibly prevents a bigger risk of an accident than a driver who obeys the speed limits or drink drive laws. Or a person who has convictions for fraud or theft is perhaps more likely to 'boost' or falsify an insurance claim. It is not always obvious why convictions are relevent, but insurers decide their premiums on a number of factors and it could well be that experience has taught them that people with certain convictions are more likely to make certain types of claims, hence why their premiums are loaded. Having said that, not all convictions automatically mean an increased premium. Insurers have many ways of discovering convictions, if you lie on a proposal form (or fail to disclose something) then you run a very serious risk of having your insurance policy declared void and not being able to make a claim (and in some cases ie motor insurance if your insurer makes a payment to a third party (as required by law) then they will come back to you for reimbursement of that money), in turn that makes your situation worse because then you have to declare that to future insurers as well as the previous convictions. I appreciate what you say about innocent people being convicted of something, but the system isn't perfect and all the insurers can do is base their premiums on facts, so if you have a conviction it is best to declare it and be honest from the start, whilst that may cost you more in premiums it will certainly be cheaper than not having insurance when you need it. Mossy

I'd appreciate some advice regarding consumer rights on a faulty product that was not purchased. My Sky TV set top box has developed a fault after 18 months (they give you a 12 month guarantee when it is installed), but because it was never 'purchased' in the conventional sense I'm not sure if the 2 year EU law that applies to purchases would be valid. I'm fairly certain that Sky will hide behind their 12 month guarantee, so before I go to them I'd like to be armed with the facts. Thanks in advance Mossy

Sorry, you are quite correct I phrased my sentence extremely badly and meant to say it is a legal requirement that all vehicles that carry a spare tyre must be in good condition. Mossy

If there were strands of wire exposed then no way should the driver of the car have driven the car, with respect neither I nor you were there to hear what the police officer did or didn't say but there is nothing at all which would change the fact that an offence had been committed. To be fair, if strands of wire were exposed then your son had already committed the offence by driving the car, so it could also be viewed that he was given an opportunity to change the tyre for the spare (it is a legal requirement that all vehicles carry a spare tyre in good condition) before using the car again. I'll agree that something doesn't sound quite right here, usually the Police either report you for an offence or they give you a chance to rectify it (Vehicle rectification scheme), but, if this was to proceed to Court the fact remains that your son was driving a car with a defective tyre, and there is no excuse/reason or defence to that allegation. Mossy

OK entrapment is where you are induced into doing something illegal and the inducer then turns out to be an undercover officer. That didn't happen here. Yes a police officer looked at the car and highlighted a concern that the tyre may be illegal, the fact the police officer wasn't around again at 3PM has no bearing (they could have been attending an emergency or any other reason). By stating he didn't need to wait was NOT giving him any confirmation the tyre was legal, and it remains the law that the roadworthiness of a car is the responsibility of the driver. Additionally, the police officer did not confirm the tyre had sufficient tread. What the driver should have done was check the tyre for himself before using the car on a public road, especially since his attention had been brought to a possibly illegal tyre. Furthermore there is no evidence to suggest the police were lying in wait, they could have simply been in the area, but, even if they were, it makes no odds, the car was been driven with an illegal tyre (police often wait and watch banned drivers to see if they are still using a car and if so they stop them and deal with it). It is NOT the job of the police to examine a car and then advise the driver about whether a tyre is legal or not, that as I have said is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that it is road legal, the police suspected an offence was been committed, they investigated it and it was, accordingly they have dealt with it. Mossy

It is the responsibility of the driver of the car to ensure it is road legal before using a vehicle on the public roads. Your son should not have driven the car with a tyre below the legal limit, and to be honest he should have checked it having had it brought to his attention earlier in the day. This is in no way entrapment, (that is when you are induced into doing something and then arrested for it, which wasn't the case here). Your son has no argument and no defence. Mossy

The thread was entitled Ryanair Compensation Claim - Volcano Problem, which is what I was responding to, if you have hijacked the thread to post about something else that's up to you, but don't assume people are replying to you rather than the OP Mossy

From listening to the news today Ryanair have confirmed that they will conform to the EU regulations and pay reasonable accomodation and meals upon sight of receipts, so I think the answer is for anyone caught up in the fallout to send these in to them and state in writing as many details (cancelled flights etc) as possible to help them identify you. I don't often agree with Ryanair but Michael O'Leary does have a valid point when he argues that his airline shouldn't be liable for these costs, which after all were brought in to protect passengers if the airline couldn't fly you home. The fact is that these regulations didn't specify circumstances or time limits, so the airlines have no alternative but to comply with them and then they in turn seek reimbursement from whoever they can point the finger of blame at. Mossy

Comment of the week! Mossy

I'm not sure that this argument would work. The OP had a contract of employment, additional and seperate to that the OP signed acceptance of terms and conditions relating to a better spec car, a condition of that was that if the OP left within a given timescale then they acknowledged and confirmed that they were liable for the additional costs associated with the higher specs. The OP did leave within the given timescale, so I can't see that you can argue that the car agreement is in anyway linked to the contract of employment. It's very much like when an employer pays for an employee to sit professional exams, a common condition of them paying the cost is that you will work for them for x years, if you leave within x years you have to pay back the cost of the exams. That's fairly standard and totally enforceable. Mossy

My mistake, I read it was a Company vehicle and promptly forgot that. Mossy

Your insurers cannot simply just issue proceedings they have to give the third party a reasonable time to respond, if after several letters he is still ignoring them then it becomes a viable option, depending on the accident circumstances and witnesses etc. If you have any outlay you would issue against him, not his employers and certainly not your own insurers. Mossy

I'm not trying to defend Samsung but it could be that to examine/inspect your machine they took it apart or accessed it by removing the rollers/brushes and then on rebuild they were fitted higher up without the engineer realising they were previously lower, and that was causing the problem. Mossy

An insurance policy usually lasts for a whole year and payment is due at the inception of the policy, however, some insurers allow policyholders to pay the annual premium on a monthly basis, that is what you are confusing. You did not buy your insurance on a month by month basis, you bought a full years cover and were spreading the cost on a monthly basis. If you knew you were buying a car in April and only needed short term cover you could have sought out a policy from an insurer that offers them, but they tend to work out quite expensive in comparison. If you don't want to wait on the phone then write to Swinton, enclose your certificate of insurance and advise them you are cancelling, send the letter recorded delivery and keep a copy of it. Mossy

Yes any replacement must be at least as good as. Mossy

Whilst you may normally get a couple of months warranty against a replacement part their obligation was to provide you with a product that would last 3 years, so as long as they do that then you have no argument. In your case, your monitor failed with 1 month to go, so it is reasonable to expect any replacement to be guaranteed for one month, which would then satisfy their original obligations. (Any part replaced under a warranty is expected to last to the end of the ORIGINAL warranty) Mossy

Yeah I think this thread has demonstrated that point Mossy

I would have thought that was obvious, but I'll spell it out for you. I rang Venture and asked who owns/retains copyright on pictures they take, I did this because in one of your posts you specifically said that because the OP had commissioned the photographs that they therefore owned the copyright. I thought you were wrong, so I checked your assumption out on a legal database and then with the Company involved to ascertain if they do assign the copyrights to the customer, and they confirmed that they don't. Once I got my facts correct I posted accordingly, maybe you could try that sometime soon? Mossy

If a faulty unit is replaced within a warranty period the warranty does not start again, so if your original product was guaranteed for 3 years and it developed a fault 1 month before the end of your warranty period then any replacement the manufacturer gives you only has to be guaranteed (in your case) for one month, ie until the end of July 09 Since the manufacturer no longer makes this model it is reasonable to offer you the nearest equivalent model (which is not of a lower spec), given the timescales involved that you had the original monitor for it is highly unlikley you could argue for a refund on it, so I don't see you have any other alternative. I hate to say this but I think Sony have offered exactly what you are entitled to Mossy

1) I actually clarified it with Venture before I posted my comments, that's called getting your facts straight, but you wouldn't understand that principle 2) I never said that 3) I never said that either You are sneaking the words of points 2 and 3 into my mouth so you can defend your position by altering your stance from one of buy a print and scan it to one of buy a print and modify it, like I said earlier it's lame and now it's getting lamer. Mossy

I suggest again that you read up on the current copyright laws with regard to photographs. The OP does not have to agree to any restrictive terms, they are inherent, however if the OP wants to do what you have suggested then they need the permission of the copyright holder, which in this case is Venture Photography, and since they DO NOT DO THAT then I fail to see how the OP can legally do what you have suggested. I notice now that you have changed your original tack from that of 'if the photographer wishes to retain their copyright' (which was total bollocks) to 'ooh lets now modify or manipulate the images'. The fact is you were wrong to suggest it, wrong to state who actually owns the copyright and have potentially left yourself open to legal action from Venture Photography. Mossy

Just because I am pointing out that your suggestion to the OP to buy a picture and then scan it (together with your tips on how best to do that) is illegal does not mean I sympathise with Venture, nor does it mean I am trying to increase their profit margins. The fact remains on a public forum you have advised a member (and any number of other readers of this thread) to commit an illegal act, and trying now to hide behind a defence of 'creating a new work' is lame! Mossy

I suggest you read up on copyright law. http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading_room/room/view_article.asp?name=../articles/Who%20owns%20the%20photo.htm It's NOT a matter of 'if the photographer is wishing to retain copyright', the fact is the photographer does retain copyright and what you have suggested is NOT perfectly legal at all. The law actually states.... If you commission a photograph you will only be the copyright owner if there is an agreement to assign copyright to you And I don't think for one minute that a company specialising in this type of work (where they want the profit on reprints etc) will be assigning any copyright to customers, otherwise everyone would be doing as you suggest. Mossy

It is an urban myth that accidents in car parks are not covered by the same rules and regulations that apply to the road, (only private land is exempt from that). If an accident occurred in a B&Q car park both drivers should have exchanged details, your husband needs to complete an accident report form (claim form) and state fully how the accident occurred. That way your insurers can deny liability (insurers are aware of 'boy racers' haring around retail park car parks). Mossy