I received a ticket about 6 months ago for "parking beyond bay markings" in a council car park. As in your case, there were 'no' bay markings. It was just a gravel car park. I had paid for a ticket. I appealed, stating that there were no bay markings to park beyond and that there was no signage to say I couldn't park where I did. I won the appeal.

Don't throw those old carts out. Refill them with e-cig juice. The juice comes in a huge range of flavours including chocolate. Also comes in different nicotine strengths from 0mg up to 35mg. Depending on what your normal cigarette consumption was you can chose a strength that you feel comfortable with and then decrease it when you feel you're ready. Saves you a huge amount of money by using the juice instead of continually buying the carts. Can't give a link but a general google search will bring up e-cig sellers that also have the juice. There is also a very good forum for e-cig users - well worth a read.

I agree that they SHOULD advise. Isn't this what got the whole endowment fiasco into trouble? As to whether they can prove the sale was non-advised I expect they can point to the fact that they sent me this piece of paper which says: STATEMENT OF DEMANDS AND NEEDS We have not provided you with a personal recommendation as to whether our Loan Payment Protection policy is suitable for your specific needs. Please read your policy documents carefully to ensure you understand the eligibility criteria and the cover provided to you. HOWEVER, I would think, from the moment they telephoned me, it became an 'advised' sale. As I said in my first post, I applied on-line and DID NOT tick the PPI box. PPI was sold to me on the phone. Landy, I wanted to do a SAR to hopefully get the telephone transcripts. I'm just as confused as you are, but my feeling is that any financial product sold HAS to be advised. One of the reasons for endowment mis-selling was because customers were given 'unsuitable recommendations' which is exactly what DL did with me. They recommended something to me which was unsuitable.

I don't have a Demands and Needs form. Just a sheet of paper, sent to me at the time of the loan, stating that they have not provided a personal recommendation as to whether PPI is suitable for me. In other words, this has been a 'non-advised' sale. Just wondering whether they can use that as a defence. It seems, from what you say Landy, that they will use this to try and get out of paying. So I guess, what I'm thinking is, can they get away with it by stating it was a 'non-advised' sale? Landy, did you send your SAR to RBS or DL? Just wanted to get it right first time to stop them making excuses. Good luck to you too. I will also follow your progress with interest.

Thanks for your input. Do you think that by putting in the disclaimer with the original docs that they do not provide personal recommendations will go against me? Can they get away with putting these disclaimers in or are they still responsible for making sure the ppi is suitable? Just not sure what my reply would be.

I took out a loan through Direct Line (RBS) at the end of 2006. I still have all the original paperwork. I applied online and did not tick the PPI box. Couple of days later someone from Direct Line phoned me and it was at this stage that PPI was sold to me. I then received the paperwork, signed it and sent it back. I would like to claim back the PPI as it is obviously useless to me. I am about to send a SAR letter - do I send it to Direct Line or RBS? And what do I put on the Postal Order? It seems like I have a multple agreement with the PPI added onto the loan. The payments are not set out separately so I have no idea what the monthly PPI amount is. Amongst the paperwork they sent to me in 2006 was this: ------ STATEMENT OF DEMANDS AND NEEDS We have not provided you with a personal recommendation as to whether our Loan Payment Protection policy is suitable for your specific needs. Please read your policy documents carefully to ensure you understand the eligibility criteria and the cover provided to you. ------ Does anyone know, that by sending this, they have got out of their obligation to make sure the policy was suitable for me when they sold it? Not seen anything like this on any other thread, so wondering what my reply would be.