legal position - Carpetright are not liable they don't employ the fitters and you pay them outside of any price for the carpet. The fitters are liable for the damage but it would be difficult to prove they caused it. moral position - Carpetright should consider how these guys make them look as most people would connect them to the company. They should reflect on the age of the customer and her situation and think about how they'd look on Watchdog Common sense position - have a friendly chat with the store manager seeking sympathy. Take the lady along and ask what they can do to help. If this fails, then take action along the bad PR route, local paper, radio, Watchdog, help the aged etc. Iithink the legal case is too flimsy and would struggle - can the extra payment of £40 be proved? Regarding the colour issue - if the carpet has the same code as the order form its a done deal. We've bought carpet that looked different in the store (under flourescent lighting) but have learned to live with it.

I agree with conniff here -clear breach of the Sale of Goods Act - item sold not as described. Unless you feel that the car is a real bargain I would reject it and go elsewhere. Its a buyers market at the moment with loads of good deals to be had.

The retailer is liable despite what anyone else says. I had a major battle with a well known Scottish Car dealer who provided a brand new Volvo convertible for £35k that had over 200 miles on it and obvious signs of being used. It had quite a few dents and scratches and the ivory leather seats even had footprints on them. At first the dealer didn't want to know saying that it must have been done by Volvo as the car had been delivered on a trailer to me. Volvo were extremely helpful but pointed out that the retailer was liable even if the faults existed before he received the car (they strenously denied this however and I believe them) which he subsequently sold to me as he is the seller. Similarly if the car wasn't right when he got it, he should have raised it with them as they were the seller to him. In other words, the retailer cannot pass the buck.

can't see how a big salary would be a barrier, it should give the council comfort to see that you could afford the rent. You need to be aware that as most councils have a shortage of housing available to rent and that there are waiting lists for these, certain groups of people may have priority over you. My advice would be to ask the council housing office for an application form and tell them your circumastances. As you're not specific about why you're "under threat of violence" its hard to know if you qualify for priority treatment but the council staff will be able to advise.

If the address is correct a typo won't void this. At best it may delay things until they send a correctly spelled name. I received letters with two extra initials and one was a 'Q', made no difference at all.

Absolutely! Contact, or better still, visit your local council finance office and ask for a council tax recalim form. just like HMRC, councils cannot legally keep funds they're not entitled to. Ther may be issues with claiming interest on top so be prepared to fail on that patricular aspect, but if you don't ask....

Hi defendersven - sorry to hear about your situation, it seems you aren't having too much succes so far. From what I can see, inability to pay isn't a valid reason not to issue a Liability Order as the court is assessing Liability for the debt, nothing more. The proven defences are - that you are not actually liable for the debt, that the council has not asked to pay in the correct way, or that you have already paid the bill and have proof of this. If the money the council owes you is linked to council tax, then this should be included in your defence otherwise the court will see that as a seperate issue. Once the liability order has been issued, the council has to consider your circumstances in determining how you will be asked to repay the debt. Bailiffs can be instructed to visit your home to collect the outstanding balance or to seize goods to sell but they have to gain "peaceful entry" you do not have to let them into your home unless they have been inside before. You haven't mentioned if you actually owe this money or if it is an error - the latter would be a defence, but the former would be classified as a priority bill. Personally I would focus on reducing the monthly costs of repaying this rather than challenging the judge's comments at this stage. The Human Rights action will also be longwinded and slow so your priority must be to keep on the right side of the liability order first. I wasn't aware that owning a house was an automatic barrier to legal aid as its more about ability to pay,but you should use this calculator to establish you own position - Calculator (according to my own situation I appear to be eligible and I am not disabled, have a reasonable salary and the usual outgoings - mortgage, utilities etc.) Best of luck! PS have you started your claim for the money they owe you?

Just remember that council employees, even those who work in finance are only human and make mistakes like everybody else. To prove this is fraud on the part of the council you need to show a deliberate act, difficult if its an error. No - your friend didn't need to be summoned to court for an attachment order to be granted, but according to the terms of the Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 - she should have been notified and replied to the notfication as failure to reply can result in further action. Its interesting that at the court in 2007, the previous issues weren't mentioned. Again this suggests their accounting isn't up to scratch. How did you friend learn of the attachment order? I'm not a legal expert so can't advise whether or not attachments are still valid after 5 years, but it should be fairly straightforward to sort this out. 1 collate the proofs of payment (bank statements, payment book stubs etc). 2 call at the council finance office and show them the payments were made. 4 ask when they will remove the attachment? 3 explain that as a council worker this is at the very least embarrassing and could lead to serious consequences if not resolved quickly. 4 remember to get names of those she speaks to and note times and dates of any conversations. 5 Relax about disciplinary action, it would be extremely difficult for any council to defend sacking anyone on the basis of their own accounting error, especially if the staff member had already pointed it out to them. 6 get your friend to contact personnel and discuss the situation with them before they receive the wrong idea from anyone else. Just as an aside, I have two friends who work for different councile here in scotland. They both pay their council tax through payroll, direct from their wages. It saves any issues like this.

It wasn't out of use, it was unattended. Does the policy state you have to be onboard 24/7 whenever it's in the water? If its covered when its moored and secured, check the small print to see what the maximum period for being unattended is stated as. For example my home insurance asks me confirm that our home isn't unattended for more than 30 days and this forms part of my contract with them. It sounds like you can easily prove that you had been attending to the boat so its difficult to see how they could use this argument to get out of paying. I'm curious to know how the came to the conclusion it was not in use?

I can't believe that anyone smart enough to find their way onto here could still be taken in by this [problem]. TV experts have been warning us about these things for years. What kind of a company is it that has to trick you into visiting them by offering you a "free" holiday and then asking you to pay towards it? I'm sure there are people who truly think they're a good idea, but logic tells me that if they have to hide behind so called "free" holidays there's something wrong. Why not just tell people its timeshare and offer a free visit to try the place out?

So long as you're shown as the registered keeper on DVLA's records you can tax the car at a local DVLA office by completing a V65 paying the £25 fee for a duplicate V5, and completing a V10 (application to tax a motor vehicle) and providing MOT and insurance certificates. You can also do it by post but this is much slower. If you're not on their records yet, you'll need to wait for the V5 to arrive and definitely need to move the car off the road.

Agreed with clampingking, chase the garage first. Once they have replied and assuming they disagree with your claim, contact the credit card company. Tell them you are claiming under section 75 of the sale of goods act and confirm that you have already taken this up with the dealer but had no joy and confirm that the purchase falls under the £30,000 upper limit. Remind them that they are jointly liable for your losses, which include the £60 already paid plus any further out of pocket expenses you may have incurred thus far, then wait for their response. Don't even think about feeling sorry for them, not only have they received the merchants fee for this sale, but they have bigger and better weapons at hand for recovering their losses from the supplier. There's also the simple fact that £1060 means far more to you than it does to the credit card company. This is fairly clear cut - the car wasn't up to the job of being a car and the supplier and the credit company are liable! Just a thought - if the speedo wasn't working they sold you a car that was unroadworthy. Anyone who supplies an unroadworthy vehicle is committing a crime unless they make it abundantly clear to you that the vehicle isn't to be driven in its present state. This applies to anyone - dealer, private sale or one off sale from a garage. Useful ammunition for later via Trading Standards or the Police.

It seems clear that the organisation are at fault here for charging for something you haven't had - therefore this looks a breach of contract. Unless their terms of business contain such a clause and they were presented to you before you signed up for their service. Regarding calling the bank to cancel a cheque - this would be the first time I've ever heard of that. Telephone calls usually leave no audit trail so requests have to be in writing. Why couldn't the recipient of the letter make the phone call for you?

Don't waste your time. Take their offer and put it down to experience. Michael O'Leary is on record as saying stuff like "what do they expect for ten quid?" and "if they wanted more, they should have paid more". He also floated the idea of charging £1.00 to use the aircraft loo but later dismissed this as a joke - many people didn't believe he was kidding. Now he's actively pursuing the idea of carrying standing passengers now - honestly! (Ryanair to make passengers stand - Telegraph) Do you honestly think he's going to change ? Personally I'd rather walk than fly Ryanair.

Sale of goods act covers this under the merchantable quality clause. If you are buying goods at a sale or discount price and the faults were pointed out at the time of purchase, you cannot reject on the grounds of these faults, but sold as seen has no legal value whatsoever. Just grounds for rejection I'd say, and for claiming the £60 out of pocket expenses which he wouldn't otherwise have needed to spend.

I agree and think that the wear and tear argument is way too convenient. I knowits a feature on most car warranty exclusions as they can't be held responsible for how people drive their cars but 2 days driving means that you're either a rubbish driver or it was already faulty. If they categorically refuse to assist you, I would offer them two options: the pay for you to get it repaired locally to you; you reject it ans leave it for them to collect. Suppose it was totally undriveable? Its their problem not yours.

get it checked at another test centre. If you thought you were ripped off last time, why go back to the sister garage anyway? Its not Arn*ld Cl*rk* by any chance?

driving whilst uninsured eh? I'm failry certain I wouldn't be pussyfooting around here. Tell her to pay up or you'll tell your insurance company, who will advise the Police will want to have a word with the driver. If the repairers were doing it as an insurance job the repairs would be way more expensive! If they've any sense they'll just pay up instead of hiding behind the friendship to avoid the expense.

Do you remember the Jaguar XJ220 debacle? For those who don't; after jaguar announced it was to build the mother of all supercars a large number of very wealthy people put down their deposits and waited. Over the course of the development of the car, the specification changed (from a V12 engine to a turbo V6), as did the price, and many decided that the new spec wasn't as attractive as the original and tried to cancel their orders. The company insisted that they stand by their orders but several of the potential buyers, who included Elton John and the Sultan of Brunei decided to challenge Jaguar's stance in court - they lost. The judge ruled that Jaguar were entitled to change the design and price of the car from £361,000 to £403,000 and that the claimants could either buy their way out of the deal or go through with it. Most casual observers were amazed that there could be such dramatic changes and yet the contract still be vaid. This goes to show that when cars are concerned, nothing is certain. If they will lose money by offering you this deal I don't think there's anywhere you can go with it. I think you would be hard pushed to bring a claim for damages as it would be impossible to show your loss in a quantifiable form here. I agree that it is a ridiculous position to be in, but at the end of it all an employee made a mistake. If the car had been delivered at that price that would be a different story and they would face a huge problem recovering their loss from you. If they've been around for a while I'd be amazed if there isn't something in their T&Cs to cover failure to deliver. I do however think you have a really strong case to get a massive discount on something they can offer you, even if its just to keep your goodwill.

I think your claim is against the broker here as they had all the facts to hand when recommending the mortgage. Do you know if they're still in business? If they are, I would write alledging mis-selling and mention that the FOS have already ruled in your favour. That should get them reasonably agitated. Although mortgages only came under FSA control in October 2004, if the broker is still trading they will want to keep on the right side of the FSA so a letter to them may be in order too. It seems patently wrong that if you had explicitly requested portability you should not have been sold a product that wasn't portable. I'm not certain that BM can simply ignore this either, but the most direct route is via the broker.

Section 3 clearly states:- Expanded powers will not extend to private driveways or areas associated with private dwellings. In addition, untaxed vehicles stored on the premises of motor traders or testing stations will be exempt from enforcement. As far as I can see, this is a clear case of theft as they had no statutory legal power to clamp or remove the vehicle. IIRC unclaimed vehicles are crushed after seven days so you need to make contact pronto.

If you're reclaiming VED then the vehicle ceases to be taxed from that date. By definition it should be SORNed the day after it becomes untaxed to keep you legal. The reason the online service is quoting 01/07/09 is because its a real-time system and because we are in July. If you go online on 01/08/09 it will work.

to be fair, lots of students will be in the same boat, no c/cards, barely on to the electoral register etc so that's probably not a reason for not granting a student account. More likely to be that your pristine credit file is being confused with someone else's. Shouldn't happen but it does, and more frequently than you'd imagine. If there is anything marked against you, remember as you can't enter into any credit until you turn 18, any dated before your 18th birthday are very easy to discount. A quick scan of your file will show what the problem is, but if you're stuck ask on here there's lots of help available.

sparkie this sounds like someone is scared! Joyce Tudor may well end up as the sacrificial lamb as the Data Controller ultimately carries resonsibility for the whole company. Have Cobbetts been it touch yet and what have they had to say on the subject?

If the credit was by BACS there is no clearance period. Although they like to leave it till the day after it has arrived, technically you could access the funds within minutes of arrival. Yet more ammo for your argument. Hardly "treating customers fairly" is it?