They are bound by the DPA just like anyone else so your personal information can't be used unless its relevant to the process they're following. Just remember that the more obstructive you are, you risk alienating them and you need them on your side. If you tell them what the need to know and are entitled, you will get the benefit. Of course they'll need to check all your statements otherwise we'd all show them the ones with low balances and keep the others secret.

Its shaping up to be a breach of contract under the sale of goods act for failure to deliver. I think two months is a more than reasonable time to wait and their lack of contact is worrying. To clarify if its a simple mix-up you should write claiming a full refund under SOGA and see what response you get.

Ask the police if this comes under anti social behaviour? At the very least it seems to be a security risk.

It all depends how you paid for them. If its by credit card, contact the c/card company. Do you know where they're based?

I've just spoken to the General Medical Council about this and their published guidance is that "medical professional should always render assistance wherever possible giving due regard to their personal safety, competence and availability of other options" they went on to say that they would alway defend the actions of a medical professional acting in this way and that they would see not helping someone as a worse offence, for which some people have been sued in the past. So the GP was sued for cutting a pair of blood soaked jeans and nicking the skin of someone with a severed artery - b*ll*cks! The GP insurers would make mincemeat out of anyone crass enough to make such a claim against someone who had just saved their life. Psycho Tony - don't be disheartened, some of us can see the point you're making and the Licencing Act 2003 covers this topic as follows : The Licensing Act 2003 Licensing Objective – Protecting Children From Harm Children have a right to be protected from harm and the protection of children is everybody’s responsibility The licensed premises should have a written policy in dealing with children or young people who injure themselves, others or damage property. The policy should identify suitable personnel along with guidance on the most appropriate means of intervention. Staff should be made aware of this policy by the licensee. I think they have a duty of care to ensure the public and aspecially children don't come to any harm whilst on their premises

there may well be, but Makro's trading agreement states that you certify that you are not the consumer and are not buying stuff for your own use. If the goods are defective you need to contact the manufacturer or if they qualify, use Makro's own refund policy.

according to Kwik Fit's terms and conditions, they charge £50 or their commission, whichever is the greater if a policy is cancelled more than 14 days after it started. Oddly I couldn't find any reference to them cancelling your policy if the premiums are not paid, but it is a general principle of most insurance companies

This is interesting! So the staff only get paid if they're investigating and/or dealing with incidents? There is no extra cost to their employers its what they get paid to do. If no-one was convicted of a crime, how can RLP can claim for reimbursement without taking this to court? Surely they are only entitled to claim for losses which in this case are £0.00

don't give in. If I had a policy that told me I'd got cover for personal money I would assume I had. If they have a technical issue that's their problem not yours. Imagine if this had been the other way around and you had included some detail on the online system that wasn't showing on your policy, do you think they'd honour that? That's why they send a policy for you to check. It looks like a case for the FOS

no they haven't broken the law. They are entitled to suspend or cancel cover if the premium hasn't been paid.

Take a look at the statement for May and check what the name of the account is.- simple eh? If it wasn't a student account or an Ultimate Reward a/c, then what was it?

Was there a mortgage in place at the time you took out the secured loan? If there was, the loan would be a second charge which helps a little. The remortgage should simply replace one first charge with another. If there was no mortgage, the loan may be a first charge, meaning that the mortgage would need to be a second charge, which is unusual. The reason is logical in that mortgages tend to be bigger than loans so the mortgage company would want a the first charge to ensure they had sufficient security. Sadly the loan company do not have to revoke their charge to permit more borrowing (why should they?) and the early redemption charge should be clearly noted in the original loan agreement so I would start with that.

totally their error, can't see how they can charge you for their mistake. What's more, I hope that the other party who has been paying your loan chases them for interest etc.

I have to agree with you. You shouldn't be paying anything for a policy you can't claim on. If Perrys have been paid by Black Horse, then Black Horse need to get it back, its nothing to do with you. Most insurance companies have a clawback system where policies are cancelled, let them sort it out and step back from the discussions. Just out of interest, how long was it before you cancelled the policy?

Hello Harry, I'm afraid I have to agree with raydetinu on this. Most vehicle sales contracts will exclude consequential losses. Can you imagine what kind of claims they would be leaving themselves liable to otherwise? It may be worth approaching the dealer in a friendly manner to see how they react but if you needed to use a solicitor already I think this is probably a lost cause - Sorry.

I think you're right, but let your own bank know. Their IT dudes will then inform the other banks as this kind of thing helps nobody. Well spotted by the way!

let the bank know about this, in case there are others. It a nice thing to do.

it looks like a simple case of your word against his. Without any other witnesses I think you're going to struggle with this one. No chance it was captured on a CCTV system by any chance?

if the goods are defective can you make use of the Makro Guarantee and 28 day refund policy? Failing that, how about their 12 month warranty? Their terms certainly do state that you are not the end user and therefore not the consumer. You agree to purchase items solely for the purpose of selling them on.

That's John Lewis for you. They're even nice to their staff too! They are a shining paragon of good service in a sea of mediocrity. PS I'm using a MacBook Pro right now and I'm getting nervous!

Mossycat - don't ever apply for a job with the diplomatic corps! physco tony has stated several times that he isn't seeking compensation, and whilst a claims company wouldn't have been my first thought as a source of information, maybe he thought they would know whether or not the pub should have a first aider available. Regarding medical staff not helping for fear of litigation - do you have any evidence of any nurse or doctor being sued for helping an injured person? I called one of my friends, a staff nurse at Glasgow's Southern General Hospital who told me that she carries a full first aid kit in her car and would always try to help if at all possible. She also told me that one of her colleagues famously went to the aid of a motorcyclist he discovered laying unconscious on a dual carriageway. Because of the volume of traffic he took the decision to move him to safety on the hard shoulder before starting his checks for injuries. The poor chap died a couple of days later through multiple injuries and the nurse was cited by the deceased's insurers as being partly to blame for his death because he moved him without a spinal board when he knew he shouldn't have. The nursing union sent a written submission to the court on his behalf saying that although he had known he shouldn't have moved him he felt he was in more danger laying where he was and the court agreed.

I bet the credit card terms and conditions contain something about sharing information with fraud prevention and recovery agencies, but to be honest that's not the only way they could have located you.

Regulation was introduced in 2004 to protect borrowers from dodgy lenders. There's nothing to worry about here and B&W are to be commended by doing this as mortgages taken out before 2004 can remain unregulated throughout their term. Quite a few lenders are using this as a loophole to save having to create regulated mortgages but the FSA is pushing to make it compulsory. Providing it doesn't cost you anything (it shouldn't) you should take advantage as it puts you in a safer position. They should have all the info they need in your case file, so I'm a bit fuzzy as to why you're being asked for it again? Are they asking for current info or the stuff from 8 years back?

"he doesn't want it back, its a gift" but he won't remove the charge? Doesn't sound like much of a gift to me. The charge shouldn't stop further borrowing but as banker rhymes suggests, aim for an unsecured loan first. There's no point offering security if you don't need to.

You don't have a choice. As they have a financial interest in your property the 1st charge holder is obliged to provide details to them. They are entitled to stop you if further secured lending weakens their position but if the remortgage is to clear your debt with them that shouldn't be just grounds for doing so. If the remortgage simply increased the total secured debt, your mortgage lender would need to request a deed of postponement from the second charge lender and in most cases they will refuse. This is even more relevant at the moment with property values falling.