Simply not the case. The insurance can get cancelled without notice in instances of the bank not paying on time or taking the customer over their limits by rolling charges. Where appropriate anyone who is prosecuted should set out from the outset of their case that they are seeking an Absolute Discharge. Driving without Insurance is a strict liability offence with good reason however, Absolute Discharge is rarely used and is certainly appropriate for effectively retrospective withdraw of cover. If anything cover is not withdrawn until there is Notice ( a ) sent ( b ) delivered ( c ) received.

I agree and even where there is a formal request there be objective and reasonable grounds to decline. There should always be an attempt to try and find a win win solution. Poor communication can sometimes be the source or cause of problems. However, the issue that is brought into the open appears to be one of Status, between someone who is self-employed and someone who might well be Employed. If employed, certain benefits and protection may well not have been applied. Speaking as an ex HMCE bod - there are other issues. Pension Auto Enrolment is a typical issue where she may miss out. My wider point remains that an issue on one matter where the employer may be correct can nevertheless bring out into the open bigger and much more costly issues for the employer, or the existence of significant benefits that the employee had not been aware of before but is entitled to have accorded to them. I have recently been made aware of " self employed " clauses being slipped into Zero Hour and like contracts - and frankly such contracts often drafted by lawyers are contrived nonsenses that end up costing all taxpayers irrespective of the taxpayer being an employer or employee. GOOD LUCK

which is good commonsense but also highlights that lip service is paid to the relevant legal protection for workers and the health of the business - because of slack process and procedure that results in avoidable conflict.

Best put in application citing the Regulations which then it puts onus on them to comply and also refuse. If they refuse because they you are self employed then you can check that with HMCE on a Status inquiry - although it would be best to check before submitting your application. If you are employed, then it follows that the refusal on the grounds of not applying to self employed was invalid and misconceived. As ever one has to assess risk of being pushed aside for daring to ask, but frankly, now you have these threads it ought to be evident that if you are dismissed, it would be due to asking for your application to be considered. Check your eligibility for Flexible Working beforehand.

I am interested to hear from anyone who has experienced any of the following or like events in Employment Tribunals:- 1. Rudeness, or conduct of any Panel Member that was not to a standard that the normal employer or employee is entitled to expect 2. Witnesses being called into the hearings to hear other witness evidence or any part of the trial. 3. Legal Representatives having conversations with Panel Members before the the case is started 4. Failure of Panel Members with the appearance of a connection or interest in the case not stepping down 5. Experience of complaints to the Regional Judge of Employment Tribunals or JACO 6. The quality of the Written decision as a true reflection of the actual evidence actually given whether or not one agreed with the person giving the evidence. Thanks

Flexible Working Regulations - that is correct. The real question in issue may be - are you self employed ? Who said that you are ? Do you do a Self Assessment Tax Return ? Weightwatchers had to pay a large amount to HMCE as their self employed demonstration staff were actually employers. Tell told their employees that they were self employed but they were not. Look at a Status Check - it is only likely to benefit you - with holiday pay, pension rights, etc et al

I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO HEAR FROM ANYONE WHO HAS HAD PROBLEMS WITH TESCO HOUSEHOLD INSURANCE AND THE LEGAL EXPENSES POLICY WHICH THEY SEEM KEEN TO REJECT. THIS STORY IS ALSO A WARNING AS IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY ARE MISSELLING. I DECIDED NOT TO RENEW MY INSURANCE WHICH HAD LEGAL EXPENSES COVER IN FEBRUARY 2012. WHEN IT WAS DISCOVERED AFTER FEBRUARY THAT SOMEONE HAD BREACHED A CONTRACT BY DECEIT A FULL CLAIM WAS MADE. TESCO'S THEN SOUGHT TO AVOID PROVIDING LEGAL EXPENSES COVER BY REFERENCE TO THE PAGE 55 THAT A CLAIM IS ( a ) Is reported to us ( b ) During the Period of Insurance ( c ) BUT MISSING OUT immediately after the Insured becomes aware of circumstances which could rise to a claim. PROPERLY APPLIED LIKE ALL INSURANCE CONTRACTS ( b ) " DURING THE PERIOD OF INSURANCE " MEANS IN THE PERIOD OF INSURANCE BUT APPARENTLY NOT FOR TESCO'S. THE WARNING IS THAT TESCO'S THEREFORE REQUIRE ALL ITS CUSTOMERS TO STAY WITH TESCO'S BY PURCHASING NEW POLICIES YEAR AFTER YEAR IN ORDER TO BE COVERED FOR ANY EVENT THAT THEY DISCOVER IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IF YOU DO NOT TAKE OUT A FURTHER POLICY YOU ARE NOT COVERED [ ACCORDING TO TESCO ] FOR THE YEAR THAT JUST ENDED. THIS SEEMS TO ME TO BE AN UNFAIR CONTRACT TERM AND ONE THAT IS PROHIBITED UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTIVE IN THAT ANY FAILURE TO EXPRESS A POLICY PROPERLY WILL BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOUR OF THE CONSUMER WHO CANNOT BE MADE SUBJECT TO SECONDARY OBLIGATIONS SUCH AS BUYING SUBSEQUENT INSURANCE. FURTHER IT SEEMS TO ME THAT FOR COVER TO BE WITHDRAWN THERE HAS TO BE A WARNING THAT THE COVER WILL BE WITHDRAWN. THE NEXT STEP IN THIS CYNICAL TACTIC OF AVOIDANCE BY SUPPOSEDLY PERSONS LEGALLY QUALIFIED, WILL BE MERITS - BUT WE HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER DAY FOR THAT GAME. IT SEEMS A RATHER CYNICAL AND SILLY MANIPULATION OF THE WORDING AS THERE IS NO MENTION WITHIN THE PROVISION " THAT A CLAIM MUST ARISE WITHIN THE PERIOD THAT THE INSURANCE POLICY PROVIDES COVER " WHICH IS CLEAR ENGLISH. IT SEEMS AGAIN THAT THE TACTIC OF SPECULATIVE ATTEMPTS TO ATLEAST PUT OFF X% OF CLAIMANTS IN ORDER TO SAVE £X THOUSANDS OF POUNDS. I'D LOVE TO HEAR OF ANY OF YOUR DEALINGS WITH TESCO'S INSURANCE AS THE SHOPS ARE USUALLY BRILLIANT ON CUSTOMER SERVICES ETC [ HAVING JUST SAT DOWN ON THE COUNTER OF COMET AND REFUSING TO GET OFF UNTIL THEY REPLACED A LAPTOP THAT THEY SAID THEY HAD FIXED AFTER 2 ADDITIONAL CHARGES AND 3 MONTHS OF WAITING - HEY PRESTO LAPTOP BACK AND CHARGES BACK - WORKS EVEN BETTER IF YOU TELL EVERYONE WHO COMES IN NOT TO BUY FROM COMET AS THE AFTER CARE SERVICE IS CRAP ] PLEASE FEEL FREE TO RING UP TESCO AND SAY THAT YOU ARE THINKING OF NOT RENEWING YOUR POLICY - WHAT WOULD THE CONSEQUENCES BE - AND LET ME KNOW IF THEY ACTUALLY TELL YOU [ BUT KEEP IT RUNNING ]. MANY THANKS

Hmmm best do it via Consent Order which states That upon Plaintiff filing a Notice of Discontinuence, each party has agreed to bear its Own Costs. In that way you avoid would certainly avoid a Bill of Costs although the shark may well leave you alone. On the other hand a DDJ DJ might want to inquire why if he or she sees merit in the claim, why you are withdrawing which would give you the opportunity to explain [ plus they may have seen claims against the shark before or even made awards ] Good luck anyway - no point in getting annoyed with the wifve - atleast she had a go.

You must not get side tracked by the issue with the Solicitor. If you have a copy of the Consent Order that ought to be proof of entitlement - and sufficient proof for the Solicitor to supply you with an affidavit confirming their recollection. You could also send a SAR to the Insurance Company. The Court file may still remain if you are lucky but the point is no one applied TO carry out the terms of the Settlement due to default as the terms appear to have been carried out as far as you are aware. It is very unwise to sue a solicitor for as of and yet there is no fixed loss. You can also ask the Insurance company that if you are not entitled then who is - which could force an admission. They can convey the funds of an Deed of Indemnity But do the SAR after they have replied ? You can then apply for an Order of Specific Performance or even threaten to apply on the old case number, rather than issue proceedings. However, your solicitor on the face of it should do that as they have told you that it was reassigned. If it has not been, then their duty is to disclose to you that it HAS NOT BEEN REASSIGNED. Your solicitors seem to be leaving you in the lurch. You need to be clear with them. You are asking them to assist - you have been told by them that it is within their own knowledge that the policy was reassigned. On that basis - if they do not wish to act for you, and recover the costs from the Insurance company, you will have to subpeona them as witnesses and THEIR SILENCE WILL NOT BEEN SEEN IN A KINDLY FASHION BY THE DISTRICT JUDGE AS THEY KNOW FULL WELL. You'll get there - you dont have to sweat - the solicitors and company with the policy do.

A very good idea - then you get to see if they really think they have a claim if you are slick best to tell them it is statute barred then see what they say. Then you can always put in a subject access request as in answering your letter - any doubts they have may be exposed by the sar when you get disclosure. If you dont get disclosure you have them over a barrel for non-compliance

This is poorly thought through. If someone relies on EU Law in their case, they ought to put on their Application, as a Preliminary point, that the fee ought to be waived as it is incompatible with the EU law provision that they rely on and that if it is not waived, then their position is reserved, as the fee cannot be objectively justified against the attainment of the EU legal provisions objective. Whilst this point will not succeed if you are a millionaire, the imposition of fees to limit the number of claimants, irrespective of the merits of their case, is a breach by the United Kingdom of EU provisions to confer rights upon citizens of the EU by the implementation of Regulations and Directives to which the UK must give full effect. Because an Employment Tribunal is a manifestation of the State for the purposes of EU law, it must decide the point on receipt of an Application. Apart from the Respondent employer not being put on the same conditions, the only way by which such a prejudicial provision can be objectively justified is by a Legal Aid type means test. The short sightedness of the measure will no doubt cost hundreds of millions of pounds, because at some point the ECJ will rule against the Member State, and all the cases that could have been brought but which were not brought, will have to be heard or paid off, because the claim can be brought against the Member State. However, it is an even money bet, that the Employment Tribunals will themselves correct the defects of any legislation by imposing the above inquiry on Financial Means as I have set, because it is offensive and contrary to any notion of justice, that the merits of case or absence of merits and access to Tribunals, is conditional upon how much available money an individual has, to lodge their claim. This is true in respect of all mature legal systems, and therefore there is no point in anyone attempting to characterise such a requirement as a further erosion of UK sovereignty. Bad law is Bad Law, and this is very bad if not revealing of the complete lack of foresight, capacity and skill of those, entrusted to promote the interests of employers and employees alike.

Transfer of proceedings is likely to be own Defendants own local court. See Court Rules or ask Court Office to explain. It may have been automatic. Depending on distance and issues involved Court may take different view and allow a hearing elsewhere - however it could be cheaper if costs are involved to not object to transfer. If you object you may have to do it on application and that involves court fees and potentially the other side looking at their costs for travel etc including solicitor costs. Generally costs can always be used as a weapon; and usually are. The Defence may look the same - but it is the substance of the defence and the claim that is in issue. The charge are terms which relate to the price payable by the customer for a service provided by the Bank, and pursuant to Regualtion 6 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, are not subject to the assessment of fairness..." Imput Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 93/13/EEC - this is the relevant European Directive which gives in general terms the principles upon which you can rely. The problem is that I personally think it is quite ill advised to take on a bank as a Claimant - far better to be Defendant - and that is how the EU case law runs. Nevertheless imput into Google the mentioned regulations and also its name plus " cases ". Courts like particularisation - specific allegations and specific proofs - however - because the Directive is directly effective you may rely on its provisions - and it is sets out in language that is general factors you may rely on. The 1999 Regulations have to be interepted in light of the Directive as it is the Members States obligation ie the court - to give effect to the Directive. You then have to invite the Judge to take that course. Trouble is - don't know how you have set out your claim OR why you have taken the step to issue OR what you loss is. Always keep your eye on the object of your litigation - and possible settlement. It is never to late to settle and it may be that you can have a settlement and discontinue with no order for costs. Be careful this does'nt get out of hand. Its one thing to win say £500 - its entirely another - if they can get a claim into a costs regime.

Durant v FSA EWCA Civ 1746. Full judgment at www.bailii then type into search the case name. Why is it an important case ? It demonstrates the complexity of getting any result under the DPA and how a secondary issue can overtake and cost far more than the subject matter of any claim. Secondly it shows that the judiciary are split as to the correct way to apply EU directives that you and I may rely upon. On the one hand there is the school of thought that says one relies upon the DPA and only looks to a Directive for guidance. The other, says one goes direct to the Directive. I prefer the latter. Nevertheless depending upon which method is adopted could potentially effect the outcome of any complaint. It cannot be disputed that the United Kingdom is bound to give Full effect to the objectives of EU directives. As I recall the Information Commissioner together with various commentators " admitted " in the aftermath of Soham and Humberside Police failure to detect Huntley, that the DPA was far too complex - unintelligable. The DPA as well as the Courts have to give effect to the Directive. To whit the United Kingdom could in certain circumstances be in breach of the directive. So you can always complain to the EU Commission and get them to do " the dirty work " notwithstanding making it an issues with your MP & MEP. The real sting in the tail is when you put 2 directives together such as the Consumer Protective [ Unfair Contract Terms ] Directive. Being new to this site I look at how much debate there is about English Law concepts etc - but if people really want to hit the nail on the head with banks etc - look up the Unfair Contracts Terms Directive, the ECJ's ruling in Codifis under that directive and Spanish Publishers case mentioned in Codifis. If anyone is going to rely upon the cases in Court, make sure that you take someone who keeps a note on the ruling and ask for it to mechanically recorded. The Commissioners Office needs to pull its finger out and give effect to the directive, and there needs to be legal certainty and minimal complexity in relation to the DPA - i.e. transparency of expression and transparency of application. Until then - it looks like the UK is in breach.

Halsburys Laws of England Vol 28 4th Edition: Para 25 at page 14. " Companies and Corporations: A corporate body may maintain an action for libel or slander in the same way as an individual". Remember the McDonalds case and Virgin v British Airways ? Whether or not a corporation would issue or not may be an entirely different matter. Best to tred carefully and keep the object and overriding objective of any litigation to the forefront of one's mind - to whit - the resolution of the dispute without recourse to litigation or unnecessary steps in litigation !