Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1,061 Excellent
  1. What is "hypocritical to the extreme" is the fact that you, as a socialist, are complaining about the removal of a fascist dictator. You needs to spend less time combing google for obscure words to type in italics in a transparent attempt to appear learned and more time thanking leaders like Mrs Thatcher for the fact that you are permitted to type your particular brand of tripe. If it were not for leaders of her kind your mother tongue would be German given the way your countrymen folded at the first sign of trouble during the last great war. Trying to re-write history to create the illusion that the Falklands War was all about Margaret Thatcher is simply foolish. Mrs Thatcher was going to win that election anyway, certainly she won the next one and her successor won the election after that, was that all down to the Falklands too? What you fail to understand is that Britain was not guaranteed to win. The British victory was not a given and the plain fact is that we could easily have lost and Mrs Thatcher would have gambled her political future on the turn of a card. Labour are finished and good riddance to them all.
  2. They cannot make you do anything and for a sum as, relatively speaking, small as this, I doubt they will chase you too hard. Which country are you in? In any case, I would suggest that you have a strong defence, it is referred to as "change of position" and is summarised in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 1991 by Lord Goff wherein he stated. I would suggest you obtain a full breakdown of the sum they allege is owed first and then go from there.
  3. This is usually treated as money paid under a mistake of fact and there is a general right to recover money paid by mistake however, since you are now an ex-employee, the only way the company can recover the money if you do not repay them voluntarily is to bring any claim to a County Court. The employer is entitled to recover the overpayment, subject to estoppel. Where an employer overpays an employee by mistake the courts will normally bar recovery if the employer led the employee to believe that he is entitled to treat the money as his own, not reasonably expect him to notice overpayment, that the employee has spent the money in good faith and the overpayment was not caused primarily by the fault of the employee. There have been cases where a defence has succeeded where an overpayment occurred as a result of a mistake of fact and the individual has not had to make a repayment. In County Council of Avon v Howlett 1983 the Court of Appeal held that an overpayment of sick pay of £1,000 was not recoverable because the worker was not to blame for the mistake and he had altered his position in good faith before the Council had claimed repayment. For example, you have spent the money that that you were overpaid, you also held a genuine belief that it was yours and it would be inequitable for the employer to reclaim the money. This is the principle of estoppel. In these circumstances it may be possible for you to make out a defence or alternatively lodge a counter claim against the employer in the event that they do issue a claim against you. In order to show that an overpayment is not recoverable, you must demonstrate three things. First you must show that the overpayment was the fault of the company and not you. Second it must have been reasonable for you not to know that you were being overpaid. Third, you must have acted to your disadvantage on the assumption that the payment of salary was correct. The difficulty for you might be the second condition since it is often obvious when an overpayment has occurred and you seem to suggest that you know it has happened. It is not acceptable for you to assume that you have received a substantial increase in pay unless there is some reason to believe that this is the case. First thing is to confirm the overpayment by writing to the company and have them break down the sum they claim has been overpaid. Then take it from there depending on what they come back with.
  4. He should claim unfair dismissal without delay. This would appear to be a breach of The Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. Dismissals for which the sole or principal reason is the transfer itself, or a reason connected with the transfer that is not for an economic, technical or organisational reason are regarded as automatically unfair under unfair dismissal legislation.
  5. Good advice. Have the agent confirm, in writing, that they consider £550k too much and are are prepared to sell him the property for £490k.
  6. Personally I am still laughing at the notion that banks are "just trying to make a living!" it must be so hard to live on a profit of £11.5 Billion for example, (HSBC) or £9.3 Billion (RBS) or £7 Billion (Barclays) or £5.4 Billion (HBOS) The combined profit from the major banks was almost £40 Billion last year - not bad for companies just trying to make a living.
  7. BT have a service called "Digital Vault" and it's free for anyone for up to 1GB, free for BT Total Broadband customers with storage of 5GB and just £4.99 per month for 50GB. Storegate is almost four times more for the same storage space. It does get mixed reviews however, so you may want to research this before using it.
  8. Section 7.5 of the Banking Code states; Banking Code Standards Board So, the answer is no, they should not have done this.
  9. You can sum up the [problem] in one word. Tax.
  10. Take a look at this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/77981-max-speillman-lost-honeymoon.html
  11. This is a misunderstanding of the law and of the rights of consumers. There is no such thing as the "statute of limitations" there is the Limitation Act 1980. Ok, there is a lot of confusing and conflicting advice on this thread and none of it is really helping the OP. In order to pursue the manufacturer under a warranty, you are entirely bound by the terms and conditions of that warranty therefore, if the warranty expired after 12 months, as most do, this option is no longer available to you. However, your statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act are against the retailer as they hold the contract with you. This Act states that all goods sold must be of satisfactory quality, as described and fit for all normal purposes. Your rights in this respect can last for up to six years following purchase, but will weaken over time and normal wear and tear is not covered. Therefore, you can and indeed should return to Currys and ask that carry out or arrange a repair or replacement and if they refuse then you push to rescind the contract and claim a partial refund. Repairs carried out under the Sale of Goods Act must be done within a reasonable time.
  12. ...Which was exactly my point. The reason you give for the badge needing to be displayed rather than just held is of course perfectly proper, but it is also not unreasonable to expect a badge holder to want to protect the badge and their car from vandalism and theft. Try the council parking office, you may be surprised.
  13. I would suggest that whether or not the ticket was correctly issued, you should appeal at once. You have a valid reason for the Blue Badge and an equally valid reason for not displaying it at night. I would consider that the ticket was wrongly issued, although of course, the ticketing warden would not necessarily know this. In this instance, I think you should appeal and you should contact the parking enforcement office at Barnet Council, the details will be on the rear of the ticket. If you get nowhere with them, you should contact the National Parking Adjudication Service. While either Barnet Council or the NPAS are investigating this, you preserve the right to pay at the discount rate. Look here for details. Challenging your Penalty Charge Notice - NPAS
  14. Very interesting debate. I think "removes the bar on compound interest" is a bit strong and what actually happened was that the Court decided that no interest, whether compound or simple, was recoverable at common law and the court was considered to have no jurisdiction to make an award of compound interest on a personal claim for restitution of a sum of money paid by mistake or following an unlawful demand (Westdeutsche v Islington), but sometimes interest, compound as well as simple, was recoverable in equity. However, in Sempra Metals Ltdv Inland Revenue an award of compound interest was necessary to achieve full restitution and, hence, a just result. Lord Nicholls held that, in the exercise of its common-law restitutionary jurisdiction, the court had power to make such an award. Here, as elsewhere, the law of restitution was sufficiently flexible to achieve a just result. To avoid what would otherwise be an unjust outcome the court could, in an appropriate case, depart from the market-value approach when assessing the time value of money or, indeed, when assessing the value of any other benefit gained by a defendant. The interest rate for any restitutionary claim therefore should be the rate at which you could borrow the relevant amounts you state you have lost in the market at the relevant time. Somewhat far short of the rates that many of these claims are made for and very probably the reason that so many of them are bound to fail. Couple that with the desire to have these cases heard on the Small Claims Track and you begin to see why so many are simply dismissed.
  15. So, what of Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council ([1996] AC 669) and the fact that the courts’ inability to award interest at common law on restitutionary claims is considered settled by this case? In cases of personal restitution the value of the use of money was prima facie the reasonable cost of borrowing the money in question. The time value of money, measured objectively in that way, was to be distinguished from the value of the benefits a defendant actually derived from the use of the money. In the Sempra Metals Ltd (formerly Metallgesellschaft Ltd) v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another there could be nothing unjust in requiring the Inland Revenue to pay compound interest, by way of restitution, on the huge interest-free loan constituted by the payment of advance corporation tax. But it was pointed out that that may not always be so. For instance, the bank might make no measurable use of your money. In such a case, depending on the circumstances, it might well be most unfair that the Defendant should be out of pocket by having to make an additional payment, whether as compound interest or even simple interest, in respect of the time value of the money he received. Bear in mind also that restitution does not necessarily mean recovery of all gains made by the Defendant. Certain other factors are relevant to the measure of recovery. Where the Defendant made a substantial contribution, to which the Claimant was not entitled, it is conceivable that the Claimant will only recover the value of that which was taken from him or that profits will be apportioned or that the Defendant will receive quantum meruit for his contribution (Boardman v Phipps [1967] 2 AC 46 [32].) For example, the bank will have made profit with or without your money and unless you are George Soros, what money you have in the bank will have made little or no difference to their overall profit.
  • Create New...