So, should I just not turn up to my exams and then sue the university for breach of contract when they refuse a degree?

To repeat what I said elsewhere, for the benefit of the Students forum: Of course, as soon as the degree is issued, it's mostly out of their hands, which is why you only ever find degrees revoked for academic fraud, or conduct unbecoming. Put simply, a degree is entirely discretionary. For an actual "silly" reason for withholding degrees, the earliest chartered institutions would not award you a degree if you were female.

Enrolling at a university does not IMO create a contract, and certainly does not create an obligation to award a degree under any circumstances. They may withhold a degree for any reason whatsoever, including "looking at the VC funny". Stories abound of queues in the library at the end of term as the staff disappear every 5 minutes to empty the till. You could hardly take legal action to force the Board to put letters after your name. Of course, there have to be well-defined procedures and specific circumstances under which a university will consider revoking a degree, which is why I suggest to people that they finish their course first, get the all-important post-nominals, and then claim. Unless they're early on in a very long course, in which case they will suffer anal trauma when the six year limitation period passes.

Had to be done Pay the fines, and make it very clear (at the time and follow it up in writing) that you are paying the "administration charge" under protest. It's easy for them to come up with an excuse to not award a degree. It's rather more difficult for them to justify revoking it in retaliation afterwards.

The answer is that penalties can be reclaimed as long as there is a precedent. For the purposes of the Limitations Act, the point at which the charges become actionable is when you discover them to be unlawful, at which point you have 6 years to get them all back before they are statute-barred. Of course, if you have any bank charges from before Dunlop in 1915, you may have difficulty in getting them back

If you are a student, you should be aware that the University has the right to withhold your degree if monies are outstanding, and if you decide to pursue them for it now they will also have the right to end your registration or refuse to award a degree. If they do decide to refuse an award or boot you out, you will in all likelihood have no recourse whatsoever.

About to put in a claim against Virgin Media. Could someone cast their eyes over these? Any responses welcome, but in the original thread (not this one) please. Thanks

Could someone cast their eyes over these? Any responses welcome, but in the original thread (not this one) please. Thanks

Proposed POC (paragraph numbering tentative): ... and exhale. They are long and unwieldy, and some parts I am uncertain of, but need to file as soon as practically possible. Any thoughts?

Not in the UK, it can't. As far as I am aware (ICBW), in general we don't have class actions in this country - a handful of test cases are put forward, played out to a judgment, if they match a precedent is set and the result passed on to everyone else. Therein lies the problem.

Response from Virgin: I shall infer from that last statement that they have no intention to settle, and therefore any offers made subsequently cannot possibly be genuine. N1 time it is, then.

1 July is a Sunday, so I imagine it would have to be a daytime event for most were it on that day. Be aware that Speedway comes to Cardiff that weekend.

I assume from the rest of your post you meant "possible". As you suggest, nothing to stop small-scale landlords from working, and there's a spot on the Employment supplement for declaring any tax already paid by PAYE.

Oh? Can we have an example? This statement is somewhere between morally questionable and patently false. I'll let you decide precisely where this lies. It is harder for employees to do this, a bit easier for the self employed, much easier for owners of a limited company. So, what's your excuse? Whichever way you would prefer to frame it, the simple fact of the matter is that you are receiving a salary of £20,000 (it's your company, remember) and not paying the tax that is due on that amount. However you look at it, that's creative accounting, plain and simple. It sickens me to the stomach to think that we have a disturbingly large number of people in this country still dependent on benefits because going to work would leave them worse off. I'm sure they all appreciate the veritable slap in the face you're giving them, as well as the millions of people that do work hard for their money, by letting them all know that the tax regime in this country apparently does not apply to you. Wrong. In case you hadn't noticed, as far as we are able to conclusively prove, the banks are acting about as illegally as people in this thread. That something is not illegal does not mean that it is not wrong. Also, in case you hadn't noticed, the majority of our parking business comes from tickets issued in error or from private companies trying to enforce penalties.

So, why are we supporting activities contrary to the object and spirit of the law?

Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence -- Napoleon I Maybe the judge has been got at, or maybe he made an error of judgment. (Pun intended? I can barely tell myself ...)

Two issues at hand: 1. Income assessable for tax and income assessable for Tax Credits are not the same thing, and they cannot make the assumption from one to the other. They do generate lists of cases where income stated on the P14 (the 3-part form your P60 come from) doesn't match the income recorded on the TC system, but nothing is done automatically. 2. TC600 claim forms and TC603D renewal declarations are processed by computer. That said, the computer makes no assumptions, so if it can't read any part of your application, it gets passed to a human, who enters the information precisely as it appears - mistakes and all (so no arguments are raised over what precisely you put on your form).

You may or may not have to amend the claim. Since the bank has caused the amendment (as opposed to you having missed something from the claim) you may be able to reclaim the fee for the amendment. On the other hand, depending on your PoC you may already be covered. Either way, should the bank make any offer of settlement before or shortly after these charges are taken, if it does not include this £360, explicitly state that you want that as well in your rejection letter.

Neither. MCOL (and some local CCs) have done away with AQs for bank charges claims. If you are over the £1500 (?) threshold, you will still need to pay the allocation fee. (Note to self: don't leave posts open for 20 minutes before submitting)

Add postage of around 20p per item (assuming bulk Mailsort 2-type things - substract another 5p for Mailsort 3 "third class" 7-day service)

It is the same thing. You are thinking of efficiency, which is something completely different. Most people don't claim relief or allowances that they might be entitled to, and in some cases tax may be paid twice on some transactions. Tax efficiency is where you reduce your liability fairly, and pay tax only once. What is going on here is discussion of setting up to pay less tax by creative accounting. The dodge worked this way: Individual X works for company Y for an extended period of time. One of two things should happen: Y takes on X on a PAYE basis and pays the tax, or X takes a contract and pays the same tax through the SA process. In most cases, the latter is more favorable, since the earnings can be offset against allowances before paying, as opposed to having to chase a refund later. Some people used to create a shell company, have Y contract the services of this company, and have X work for it. X is paid a nominal wage, and thus pays less tax, accounting for the rest of the money in such a way as to reduce or almost eliminate the profits so that the company pays little or no tax. It's evasion because allowances and benefits have come into play that X is not normally entitled to. It's basically a more sophisticated equivalent to the old trick of registering businesses in the name of the husband, wife and two kids in order to offset the income earned by one person against the personal allowances of all four.

Hopefully, he has taken the advice offered to him right at the top of the thread, when it was made absolutely clear his only option is to go to the police.

I wasn't aware CAG was in the business of helping people evade tax.

If you want to go follow bogus advice, go ahead. Don't come crying to us when you lose out.

Then you do have a problem. You could concevably get your money back from them if you have invested more than one month with them.