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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Section 7.5 of the Banking Code states; Banking Code Standards Board So, the answer is no, they should not have done this.

You can sum up the [problem] in one word. Tax.

Take a look at this thread. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-consumer-issues/77981-max-speillman-lost-honeymoon.html

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.

...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.

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

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.

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.

Did you inform them of your new address, as you say you moved after the meter was installed? How long after the meter was installed did you move?

Precisely how long has it been since you last acknowledged this debt?

I would also like to add that what I have written applies to Judgment in Default in relation to CPR Part 12. A simple request-for-judgment procedure under Part 12 is available in money claims (CPR 12.4(1)), which include claims for specified sums, claims for unquantified damages and some other types of claim. Under this procedure, judgment is entered over the counter on filing a request for default judgment, without any consideration of the merits of the claim. This leaves you wide open to CPR Part 13, which relates to applications for the varying or setting aside of judgments made under CPR Part 12. None of the links posted by Castlebest relate to this and as far as I am aware, very few, if any claimants have succeeded in preventing a set aside.

I really don't think this is helping. This is nothing to do with the OFT test case, or pressure from some higher authority, it has to do with CPR and what is termed stare decisis. Default judgments have never been a successful way to conduct civil litigation and as someone who has litigated for over ten years I can tell you that, like it or not, this is how it works. Relying on a judgment in default is foolhardy and ill-advised and will do nothing but cause delays and furthermore, may mean the claimant incurs costs. CPR 13 is very clear on this and in the event that the defendant claims not to have received the documents, or in your case "misfiles" them, the court will have no option but to set aside the judgement. The judges are bound by CPR and must follow the rules and will almost without exception grant the set aside. In Law v St Margarets Insurance Ltd [2001] the Court of Appeal allowed judgment in default to be set aside despite the defendant’s solicitors’ procedural errors in failing to file an acknowledgment of service and in failing to ensure that the statement of truth in relation to the evidence in support of the application was signed by the right person. The overriding objective required that the default judgment be set aside in order to enable the merits of the defence to be determined. In Lloyds Investment (Scandinavia) Ltd v Ager-Hansen (2001) a default judgment was set aside on the ground that the defendant had a real prospect of success.

Have they been sending you bills during this time?

It is not a win, despite what you may think and that the Defendant has misfiled your AQ, whether through incompetence or ineptitude, will be not important to the court. Judgement in default is not as straightforward as it may appear. A Judgement in Default is not a win. In the case of Masters -v- Leaver[1999]EWCA Civ 2016 it was held that a judgment in default means just that - it is a judgment obtained due to default. It does not mean that the court has agreed with what was claimed, or favours one or other case. The truth is, an application to set aside Default Judgment is almost always granted as Judges prefer cases to be settled on merit, not by default.

Don't shoot the messenger because you don't like the message. Wait and see, you may get lucky and prove me wrong, but I doubt it.

I think personally you may struggle and the sensible course of action would have been not to object to the set aside. I am guessing that you have obtained this judgment by default due to late filing of the AQ by the bank? Depending on the size of your claim, you may get lucky, but my guess is that the bank will be granted this set aside and you will be lucky if you don't get costs awarded against you. This has been known. In future, never rely on a judgment in default, that thinking is flawed and almost always results in a set aside. Even if you obtain judgment and seek to enforce a warrant of execution, that warrant can be stayed and the original judgment set aside.

There is simply no such thing as "mutuality and reciprocity" it does not exist and that has been confirmed countless times, in court. There is no legal basis for the "mutuality and reciprocity" argument. It is my opinion that the banks taking these charges and charging interest cannot be interpreted as us lending them money which is the only basis under which this argument makes even the remotest sense. Mutuality of contract is the reciprocal understanding or agreement between parties that is a requirement in the creation of a legally enforceable contract. It means that an obligation must rest on each party to do or permit to be done something in consideration of the act or promise of the other. Neither party is bound unless both are bound. It does not mean that you are entitled to charge the other party just because they are able to charge you. Were that the case then you would also be obliged to provide your bank with chequebooks, credit cards, loans, clearing facilities along with all the other things that we expect from banks. In Bank contracts, the Bank has a right to impose interest at the unauthorised rate. This is what we agree to when we enter into the contract. There is no right in the contract for us to receive interest at anything other than the published rate on credit balances. Any right to interest must be found under the common law. If you simply want back what you have paid out then how can you ask for interest above what the court already allows? CPR 16.3 and 16.4 cover interest and the claiming of it and of course we are entitled to claim interest at any rate, but the claim must have some basis. The fact that Barclays have disregarded legal process and breached CPR is not really for you to comment on. If the judge feels that this has had a detrimental affect on your claim, it will be pointed out and an appropriate sanction may be ordered, but to think that this will make your claim stronger or make a case for contractual interest is folly. If you wish to begin a claim for exemplary damages, then that is another matter altogether - but should you lose, you will lose a great deal more than a few extra pounds in interest. A claim such as this will not be heard on the Small Claims Track, irrespective of the value of the claim.

Thanks for the swift reply. At the risk of a further hijack, although I believe it is relevant to this thread, the bailiff company have crossed out the WPO section. They are claiming two visit fees and a levy fee for a car. The car does belong to the debtor, that is not in dispute, however, he was not there that day and he also states that the bailiff only visited once and that was simply to push a scrap of paper through the door. The bailiff in question was not certificated at that time either and the total amount outstanding now includes two visits and a levy fee. Further, the alleged levy on the car was made in July so surely, if it were real, they would have acted upon this by now, since no payments have been made? His contention is that this is fabricated in order to increase the fees in particular since the fees indicated on the scrap of paper left after the first visit actually add up to the total allowed for the first and second visits, so clearly they are getting ahead of themselves by charging for two visits on the day of the first visit. Incidentally, all three alleged visits were made within 4 days, is this also permitted? I should point out that this is a council tax debt. Many thanks