Not sure why transport is exempt but Which? is a reputable source that confirms this: http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/regulation/distance-selling-regulations/ So unless there has been some misunderstanding that led to them booking something you didn't ask for, it seems they are within their rights to specify the cancellation policy outside of the statutory framework.

I don't think the Distance Selling Regulations apply to travel bookings, and in any case you'd have had to agree to Avios' terms and conditions to be able to use the points.

You need to exhaust all the informal routes before you think about legal action. You could either write EBay a letter sent by recorded post, or take it up separately as fraud with Paypal, if you used them. Then try, or just go directly to, your credit card issuer, if you used one. Only then think about making a court claim, with all the expense that it could involve, all the more so because you don't know the true identity of the seller (although you do know his address and business name, right?).

I should add that if the item was over 100 pounds and you paid by credit card then you are protected by s75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Your card issuer shares liability for defective goods etc with the seller.

Have you tried taking this up with PayPal (assuming you paid that way) or, failing that, your bank (if you paid by debit/credit card via Paypal or otherwise)? Assuming you have tried the informal routes, it is possible to obtain a Court order forcing a third party (EBay in this case) to reveal the true identity of another, when you need to serve a claim on them and of course if you have a case with a reasonable prospect of success. It's a bit of a specialist area though so I'm not sure you'd want to do this on your own. Is the claim going to be for a significant amount that would warrant this?

Parking in the mouth of a junction or on any other kind of corner could be viewed as obstruction, because it limits drivers' visibility and could therefore be dangerous. Check the Highway Code for guidance and whether this is open to any interpretation, but perhaps that's what the ticket is for rather than the double yellows. I wasn't aware that obstruction was beyond local authority enforcement though so you'd need to check that too.

We can't see where the 'road' in question goes (is it your land?) but your back wheel is about an inch away from the double yellows so you've probably been very lucky to get away with this for a couple of months. If it's a Council ticket then pay the fine before it goes up and think of it as a parking fee, but then find somewhere else to park!

Well it is true that much of the infrastructure was built years ago but it is also the case that much of it is old and needs to be replaced or upgraded, with maybe up to 100 billion to be spent over the next 30 years, or at least that's what I've read in the papers. Even more if we want more renewable energy, or for more cables to be buried. They need to find the cash from somewhere and they'll be making sure that comes from you and me!

It's not just the meter though. The fixed costs of energy supply also include all the cables and pipes, switches and valves, all of which would still be necessary if everybody used half as much energy. The only thing I dislike is that, having chosen to pay for this via the unit rate, npower and the others now impose a standing charge, apparently in favour of people who can't do simple maths.

Hopefully not all the Big Six are going down this road, but npower have certainly announced the same type of change. I'll be switching very shortly... In fairness though, most tariffs with no standing charge have a two-band unit rate instead, with the lower band being more expensive per unit. But I would rather have a choice than be told which tariff applies.

1) No, if the deposit was paid in instalments by agreement then this should not make any difference. 2) If the deposit is returned in full and within a reasonable time, then I can't see how any claim could then be justified. 3) Court fees are determined on a sliding scale according to the amount being claimed, and are slightly cheaper if filed online. You only qualify for a reduction or waiver of fees if you are on certain benefits, or at the Court's discretion. Deposit cases are not small claims and therefore the winner could claim costs in addition to the claim itself, so you need to be quite confident of your claim before filing any forms.

Have you received a claim form? If so then you clearly already have the makings of a good defence, although you should stick to facts that can be proven rather than hearsay about psychological issues. Other posters can hopefully confirm or deny this, but I understood that if the deposit was returned in full and in within a reasonable time, there is no basis for any claim. Only if damages are being claimed could there be a case, in which case they would have to be quantify and provide evidence of their loss.

Deliberately burning something in a station would probably get the idiot sacked. Not just intimidatory behaviour towards customers, but probably in direct contravention of safety rules. What on earth possessed him? Do you have any names or badge numbers?

What are you actually seeking from the bank? The Ombudsman only has power to require the bank to put the situation right, which it has already done by debiting the amount of the cheque. There wouldn't be any question of compensation, and they could probably have threatened to close your account, so it's lucky they haven't. Unless you are arguing that your health issues contributed in some way to you opening your neighbour's post, tearing off the cheque in his/her name and then paying it in (albeit that the bank accepted it), it is probably not reasonable to expect the bank to be any more helpful. Since you have no previous record of mistakes like this, the situation has been rectified with the bank and they have accepted their part in the mistake, and you have a credible explanation, I very much doubt that the police would see any interest in taking further action.

You would be taking a big risk if you pushed this any further. In order to have a successful claim, to need to be able to quantify your loss, and since there has been no loss, you have no claim. Write to your former LL immediately to state that no action will be taken and that no further correspondence will be necessary. The rules on unprotected deposits only apply during the tenancy and up to the point where your deposit is returned. It is a shame your holiday plans were designed around this but your LL can't be held responsible unless he made specific, written promises to return the deposit by a particular time.

If your own insurers haven't seen the photos then they probably should, but whether you send them depends on what they show or could be used to argue. That is entirely your call. An admission of liability at the scene is unusual, because almost insurers tell their policyholders not to do so under any circumstances, but you should tell your insurers about it. Whether you can prove the admission is another matter, given the lack of witnesses, but hopefully it won't come to that.

This doesn't sound clear-cut to me, and it sounds like the insurers can't find the lorry driver fully at fault either. He probably should have checked more thoroughly before pulling out again, and it is questionable whether vehicles should park on the pavement at all. However, if you'd come to a full stop behind the lorry (reasonable in a 30mph zone) or given the lorry a wider berth, he probably wouldn't have hit you. On the basis of what you've said, I don't think you would get a full admission of liability and you might want to think about cutting your losses. 70/30 is still in your favour, after all. If you want to press your case further then I'd suggest you write a letter to both insurers, with a full explanation of the circumstances, using diagrams for the principle events. If you think the Highway Code comes into it then you need to quote it and explain why the sections apply to the situation in hand. If the lorry clearly breached a section but you did not (and it's a while since I read it myself), then that will make your case much stronger. You can view the current HC online for free.

Sailor_Sam is right but please note that it's 'should have', not 'should of'. Sorry to have to correct you but it's a bugbear of mine! As for Cat.C write-offs, they not only have to be repaired to a standard sufficient to pass the MOT, but VOSA has to issue a Vehicle Identity Check certificate before it is allowed to have a fresh MOT, be taxed, insured and put back on the road. The MOT should be a sufficient safety check if carried out properly. Since you are now the car's owner, you are entitled to all the paperwork that exists, including the VIC. I doubt you'll have any problems if it's already been taxed etc. but it's best to be on the safe side. As for your money back, Sailor_Sam rightly points out that the category would have been apparent from the V5, so nothing has been hidden even if it wasn't explicitly pointed out to you. A 300-pound car is never going to be that great, but at least it should be safe.

An engine on its own has no indication of mileage or age, just an engine number stamped on it. I think you'd have to ask for proof of the mileage of the car the engine was removed from, although that might not be conclusive either. For a scrapped or recently transferred vehicle, the DVLA might hold reported mileage information against the registration number.

1. You have a right in law to have your property restored to the condition it was in before it was damaged through Kwikfit's apparent negligence. You might quite reasonably argue that only Toyota can do this properly, but whether this is reasonable is up to you! 2. You don't, unless you make it a condition of accepting such an offer that they provide a full trail of information on the replacement, including where it came from and what its history is. 3. If the restoration job is done properly with an engine of the same mileage or less, and no history of accident or neglect, then no, and no you would not be entitled to compensation for anything other than consequential loss (e.g. cost of a hire car, loss of earnings etc.). 4. As said above, the engine should be of the same mileage or less and have no history of neglect or accident. Maybe an engine out of a scrapped car of the same age and mileage or less, involved in a rear-end low-speed shunt and no worse than Cat D write-off. 5. No, a new engine is not a right under these circumstances but you could demand it in return for accepting the labour being done by Kwikfit, and/or waiving other parts of a potential claim. However, given that the destroyed engine was low-mileage, they might have a hard time finding an equivalent replacement without going for a new engine. Good luck - you've cleared the first hurdle at least, with a clear admission of liability. Companies like this don't need the bad publicity and should be sensible about dealing with mistakes, as it seems they are being.

They clearly ask you to list the motoring fixed penalties in a separate section now, and you should definitely do so.

There is generally not an interview for SC but they reserve the right to do so, and they will let you know if one is required.

Security clearance is completely different to a CRB check and comes under the Official Secrets Act. The papers are supposed to be handled in confidence without being seen directly by the employing office, so it shouldn't have any bearing on their decision. However, you must declare absolutely every conviction, caution, speeding ticket etc. you have ever had. Provided you are honest, accurate and complete with your information, have not been in trouble recently, and have reliable references who will back this up, you shouldn't have anything to worry about unless you have ever been in prison, or have a very irregular financial or behavioural history. Irregular cases usually result in an interview where, again, the focus is on honesty, accuracy and completeness. People who have nothing to hide are more reliable and less subject to unwelcome influence. Rejections are rare and never automatic, although your clearance could come back with a recommendation for review or monitoring. The fact that you're doing a PhD clearly shows that you went straight a long time ago, so have no fear and good luck with the application! I would add that none of this changes your obligation to declare 'unspent' convictions, when asked, to any prospective employer, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Non-custodial sentences are spent after five years, half that for juvenile ( If the work is with vulnerable people then you could be asked to complete a CRB check as well, although that seems unlikely for an MoD job.

(Empty post)

No, you need to tell everybody your new address yourself, although Royal Mail does offer movers a service where they'll help you to let various companies know. If you're worried about old correspondents finding you (e.g. DCAs) then note that Royal Mail does periodically sell its redirection database. Even without that, they'd probably still find you by other means, and goodness knows what they'd try on in the meantime, so it's best to stay in touch with everybody!