Hi lottiesnan It seems women of our age have been shoved into the 'usless eaters' box. You've done the breeding, now get lost - is what I'm hearing. They do pay your rent when sanctioned. They say they may stop it until they find out what's happened but that when they know you are on no income ... that is NO INCOME AT ALL (for all your taxes, Nat Ins that you've paid in and the children/tax slaves you have 'produced' ... ) then they will reinstate it immediately.

Beat the Banks and the Debt Collectors, totally Lawfully (Part 3 of 4) [EDIT] Beat the Banks and the Debt Collectors, totally Lawfully (Part 4 of 4) [EDIT]

Hi livvyp. I've been following two claimants on JSA who have written in refusing their consent to the Work Programme. It's all new territory, for now, but what seems to happen is that claimants continue handing in their WP slips at the JS desk (with details of what they've done in the past 2 weeks of jobseeking written on the back), whilst not turning up for their initial Work Programme interview. (Some 3 hour psychological investigation as to why they haven't found work - !!!) That seems to continue on for 6 to 8 weeks till 'some doubt has arisen over your claim' letter. They do then stop the payments, the first time is for 2 weeks. But these people then claimed hardship allowance - approx £10 less than JSA. 4 to 5 weeks later the 'doubt' is dropped and they re-instate with all deducted money repaid back in full. Next time some doubt arises it will be stopped for 4 weeks. But these two haven't been taken to that place yet. For one it has been 4 months now. They continue handing in their fortnightly slips, whilst seeking work. Reiterating their position to the WP provider, once or twice a week on the phone, when they ring up to find out why they haven't attended the successive interviews they have organised. We 'believe' they know full well they are breaking contract but are hoping that most don't know and go off and die somewhere. It is a bit of messing around. A cat and mouse game, if you will. But you're already being messed about these depts. You're already in the fight. They've placed you in the next fight down the line, from Doctor's surgery to JSA requirements. As they try to get away with it with the majority. But there are people out here who are challenging it. They are simply refusing to consent to the recent changes - amendments - of the JobSeekers ACT. Having signed up and paid into the National Insurance ACT throughout their working life. Which provides cover for living epenses, housing and healthcare needs. From 'cradle to the grave' was the basis it was sold on. We all agreed and so paid in our dues. The newly introduced limit of 2 years for claiming benefits is therefore also out of order, illegal and unlawful. Despite what the Judge recently ruled. (He ruled it to be legal but not enough clarity for claimants. IDS merely re-wrote one of the letters for claimants to comply ... ) If just ONE ends up in court - we will then ALL be aware of it's true contractual nature. So odds are they won't do it. But they are tending towards Mob/Mafia rule and so probably won't care. But there is the battle to be had. Common Law vs Statutes 'All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws' ... ' If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’' ... 'A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.' http://thesecretpeople.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/common-law-vs-statutes-living-by-the-rule-of-law/

National Insurance was a CONTRACT between the people and government. It covers living, housing and health needs. Like car insurance they cannot add on later 'amendments' without people's individual CONSENT. Government are breaking this contract. Therefore it is not only illegal it is UNLAWFUL. Refuse. Don't sign ANYTHING. This will be considered as consent. Government are our elected servants not our in house tyrants.

It may well be 'illegal' but it's not unlawful. Under Common Law we have common/natural/queen/god given rights to do whatever we wish. As long as we don't cause loss or injury to anyone. No financial loss or personal injury was caused by filming the events in court. Contract Law covers commerce. Agreements made with trading companies, like banks. Courts, Police Stations, Councils are all trading companies. They are there to make profits. Our g/ment deals in Statutes. They use terms like 'regulations', 'rules' and 'legislation'. They can't call it 'Law'. Because it isn't. It's not binding in any way until we consent and contract into the deal that they are offering. Like Council Tax. A court summons is an invitation to go to their place of business to give them your money. You would have to use their 'legal' speak to do so but you can say 'NO'. Both systems exist side by side but people have not been educated in the original Common Law. This was not in their business interests to do so, you see. Consumers should be given all the options. I wish you hadn't come back Brig. I couldn't resist responding. I'll prob get thrown off now. Hey ho ...

Final word then. I don't recall any swastikas. I was too busy wondering what the courts were up to. You're coming over as somewhat authoritarian here MARTIN3030. CAG only deals with 'legal' remedies. Which haven't worked for the people since the year dot. K. Got it.

Like the influence of the people, you mean? Yes they are most certainly the ONLY ones who can influence/change these questionable systems. That is what I was doing, Brig. The people are who I was addressing it to. They should know, don't you think? How can a video of what went on in a real court case be taken off this thread? Twice? The credibility of this board has now just nosedived for me ...

A Consumer Action Group that doesn't want the public to know how the courts are 'legally' robbing them???!!!

It's deliberately enforced poverty. On the strength of a globally orchestrated ROBBERY, that they're trying to sell as a recession. They're looking to reduce benefits to make 6.08p look better. It won't. They simply want us all on our knees.

Very interesting, Bang! How come they're so free to make it up as they go along? 15 pounds is an improvement on 120 pounds plus VAT. But I think this is a way to get people to mentally accept some 112.34 'install or activate' charge. Where none existed before. Due to it's potential to put off customers. How can it cost that much anyway? Tho free for now, it won't be in the future for others. Looks to me that they've just transferred those extra profits from the end of the contract to the beginning. From a termination charge to an 'install or activate' charge. By the time we get to any future dispute stage they will have already made their kill and their extra money. Gangs at the top eh ...

Hi locutus, yes that would be the next step. But a battle too far for me personally. I've tapped them on the shoulder, given them the opportunity to correct the matter and let others know of it. So adding my Energy to any wave forming against them out here. This is all I SHOULD have to do. These utility problems can take you down. I've watched many friends emotionally crushed by all the associated worry and stress with these damn companies. I suspect knowingly. But I'm not prepared to allow them to do that. Hanging on any further will just soak up any Karma headed for them and I don't want to get in the way of that. I've been here before, many times. They hold all the cards and have the Law on their side. However, in this particular case ... Post Office Phone left me a message to contact them re this matter. They maintain they were correct in applying this early termination charge but have agreed to waive it. Tho I still app have a sum of 9 pounds remaining to pay after that, for some reason ... As regards my ceased phone number they are trying to say that I ceased my own phone number and that my new provider could re-supply it. But I've already been there and they say the line was ceased before I signed up with them and there is nothing they can do. I didn't cease my own line and number. I merely transferred over to another supplier. Who usually tell you that you can keep your own number as a selling point. This could have all been sorted out long ago, with some one-to-one meeting. You can't get past the telephonists, they guard their managers like lions. If they even exist. So you go to the top, who then delegates the task of responding ... who in turn probably passes it onto some poor junior to deal with. Who, I'm betting, also answers the telephones. Not very efficient. From a customers point of view, anyway. Company policies and 15 year old mentalities make for a very unfortunate mix.

Couldn't post e-mails up so have modified them. Sent to: helen. hampshire @royalmail.com, david .mills @postoffice.co.uk, paula. vennells @postoffice.co.uk, enq uiries @ombudsman-services.org, admin @ispa.or g.uk, contact @ofcom.or g.uk

Hi all I received an e-mail the very next day from Helen Hampshire of Post Office Phone company. I have just received the reply from the person she had passed it on to. Pretty much saying: no, no ... and no. I've now sent the following e-mail back to her, along with other recipients, which should keep you informed as to what happened since, as I promised you. 17th April 2012 Hello Helen, Thanks for responding to me by the very next day and for having my complaint dealt with quickly. I have just received a letter from a Lynne Fallowfield - Head of Customer care, to whom you passed this matter. She has written back to me but nothing appears to have moved on. To be brief, when I first rang your salesmen to sign on with your company I told them that I was on a minimum wage and that 3 month bills IN ADVANCE would be too much for me. He advised me that as long as I paid the bills before they next one arrived then I would be OK. He never said that this would apply to only the first bill. I would not have continued signing up for any contract with you if that had been the case. I'm guessing he already knew that. Therefore I was wrongly advised. So when the second bill came in I proceeded to pay by instalments with my payment card that had been sent to me. This second bill, again 3 MONTHS IN ADVANCE, has already been paid via the same card. I am now paid up, in advance, until the end of June 2012. So how do I owe your company 120.00 pounds early termination fee, plus VAT, bringing the bill to 144.74, when my payments have covered half the contract term?; that is, given that I have actually paid the bills for 6 months of our contract. If I had terminated a month earlier would the fee have been even higher? This concept of early termination fees needs to be challenged. If you were to add on some 'sunny Sunday' fee would we be expected to pay that too? Therefore I believe I have been wrongly charged. The service was not at the speeds that I was led to believe by your salesman. You have a two tier internet connection. I have been paying an extra amount for the higher speed internet service but it has amounted to no faster than the original dial-up speeds. Consequently I wasn't able to advantage any of your deals advertised at the time. I went straight to paying fully for top speed internet. Therefore I was mis-sold your product. My reuter was tested and was not found to be configured incorrectly. The engineer came to my home and could not find any fault at our end whatsoever. And apparently we had some 'potential stale session' that was fixed by your company by switching the reuter off, then on. Tho it didn't make any sense. We had switched off the reuter and started it up again a few times in order to rectify the situation. Presumably all were associated with 'stale sessions'. Tho I did note that your engineer was keen to show me info on the coming cable network ... Therefore I believe that I have been deliberately out-foxed by your staff in order to cover up your company's inadequate service. Also, would you please call off your debt collecting dogs. I have already informed them that I was still in negotiations with your office as regards the now 113.27 remaining amount. (It appears I actually overpaid your company before our dispute began anyway). They have already passed this to the solicitors: 'Our instructions, put simply, are to obtain payment from you'. Finally, it most certainly WAS down to your company for the removal of my 16 years old telephone number, that I had before any contract was made with your company. This phone number was taken from me in an act of aggression and childish stupidity. Punishment for daring to complain to Post Office Phone on all the mistakes and lies they've made. They clearly have been allocated far more power then they deserve. If I do indeed have to still pay off the rest of this bill I will ensure that your deeds are known everywhere as well as out here on the net. Unless you can restore my lost faith. I cannot send a copy of this to Lynne Fallowfield as she gave no e-mail address. So if you could pass a copy of this over to her I would be grateful, given the non-work she carried out. She has pretty much re-iterated verbatim everything your telephonists have said to me. I was expecting more of an investigation. I know I'm not the only one who has had problems with your company. Hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Carole Kennedy (As you can see I'm still nowhere on this. I have yet to pay the remaining 113.27 to their bully boys/fight dogs/security services. I don't expect anything positive back and so will resume payment with their bailiffs on Monday 23th April. To give them chance to reply. Thanks very much to you all for your support and advice. Years ago it was due to such help as yours - when I was up against these legalese guys backalong - that I decided to join the local Citizen's Advice Bureau. I spent 8 years with them, giving up one/two days a week to help others in similar positions. Even whilst raising my sons as a single Mum. Though unpaid, I considered the work very rewarding and very necessary. Your efforts won't be wasted on me. I will pass on all I know. Sending your Energy back to you tenfold. ) Carole

I'm now following you on twitter and have 'liked' you on facebook.

Hi locutus. Early cancellation charges shouldn't be applying to anyone. If someone vacated a hotel because of service problems you wouldn't expect to pay for the rest of the week, that you now have to pay to another hotel. You'd be liable only for charges up to the day you left. If these internet services were up to a decent standard they wouldn't have the need to lock any of us into it. If I'm paying extra for the faster speed they advertised then I expect to get it. I don't expect to be on prehistoric dial-up speed. If these speeds are not their business then they shouldn't be selling it as such and they should be chasing up the reasons why it's not as fast as they advertised. Post Office phone bills are 3 months in advance. I'd paid for the first three month bill, in instalments till the next one was due. They sent me a payment card to do this with. The issue was with the second 3 month in advance bill, covering April, May and June. I was proceeding with my card payments but they wanted the whole £150 in one lot. This card payment arrangement was only for the first bill, they said. I earn only the minimum wage, if they had said that to me I would have bowed out of the deal there and then. But yes, everyone appears to be suffering intermittent crawl speeds. Why is that! Is someone trying to deter us from using internet? Now I'm with talktalk I'm still having intermittent speeds. They're now sending an engineer round. If the problem is with my home that will be £50 please. I also asked them if I could have my original number but no, ceased is - ceased. I asked for another, more easier number, which I can apparently have - for another £50. Oh for the days of CB radio ...

Hi there Thanks for the e-mails. This is what I sent to both David Mills and Paula Vennells e-mails: Carole K****** 01637 ****** Hello, (If this matter does not come under your wing then would you please pass it on to the relevant person in your Post Office phone and internet service, thanks. This a matter of urgency as your bailiffs have already been notified.) I have just left Post Office phone company who use BT lines. To cut it short there were probs with service speed and payment method so I left them for another internet provider. (I had only been with them 3 months.) They blocked the line for two weeks to stop me signing up with TalkTalk. Then they CEASED the line! I have had this number for over 16 years and need continual access to it so my Mother can remember the old number and easily contact me. She lives further up the UK and not near me. I contacted P.O. phone staff, explained this and asked if I could please keep this number (01637 859696) but was told absolutely not. It was quite mean of them. They then went on to send me a £120 bill for early termination! I told them that they were the ones who had reneged on our deal, not I. That their service was never the high speed I thought I was paying for, that their advice on (3 monthly) payments: 'as long as you've paid by the time the next bill comes in you'll be OK' was later considered by them to now be wrong and that they were being quite childish to first block then cease my line altogether - in retaliation for my leaving them. I understand that TalkTalk also use BT lines. But they appear powerless to retain my number for me despite originally saying that they would. I was wondering if you might sympathize with my plight enough to intervene on my behalf. I realise this is a peanut problem in the current world we live but I would be relieved and grateful if you could influence this in any way. I really don't want to be launching into the e-mailing of other relevant parties. If you can affect the £120 early termination fee from P.O. phone and the return of my original phone number I would be elated. As I have a distant Mother, live only on a minimum wage and I was not the one who broke our agreement. I know you're busy so thanks for reading. Carole K****** We wait to see. Thanks for your help. Yes I will come back and let you know the outcome. - Carole

Is this your consumer action group on facebook?

Cheers CD. It would just take so long. They've passed the remaining bill of £113 to a debt collector now. So time for resolving this matter is now shorter. I've already sent an email to: adam.crozier@ royalmail.com, ian.livingston@ bt.com but no reply as yet. Amazing how internet providers are, in the last resort, contactable only through land addresses. (looks up)

Whoa! You lot are on the ball. I just typed in: to go searching again, and the first entry was this forum with my post!

Hi all Trying to fight a £120 early termination fee from Post Office phone. Does anyone know The CEO David Mills e-mail? It's difficult to know who controls the actual lines so does anyone know BT's CEO and his e-mail as well? Their service was poor, internet connection intermittently was painfully slow, I was told their 3 monthly bills could be paid for in stages as long as it was paid before the next bill was due, which wasn't the case, and I was not informed of any termination charges of this magnitude. As punishment for my leaving they blocked my line for two weeks then ceased the line altogether! I can now not keep my phone number of 16 years, with an elderly Mother further up the UK who needs to remember my previous simple number for contacting me. I maintain they had reneged on our deal, not I. I would be most grateful if you could help. Thanks Carole xxxxxxxxx