Hi, As I understand it the Microgeneration Certificate is provided by the approved installer to show that the installation of the panels meets the required standards to be acceptable to any electricity company to feed electricity back into the grid. The letter from Cranfield to my brother states:- "In light of the above I suggest that you contact your current energy provider to arrange for any future income being generated from your panels to be paid to you personally. Your energy provider should be able to guide you through the appropriate process.You mat require a copy of your MCS certificate in order to complete this process. Regrettably I do not have a copy, however I am informed that you should be able to obtain a copy from MCS directly. should you require a copy of the certificate, the contact details for MCS can be found at www.microgenerationcertification.org" Hope that helps

Hi David54 I started this thread on behalf of my brother. The Receivers who wound up Norton Energy are:- Cranfield Business Recovery Ltd Youell House 1 Hill Top Coventry CV1 5AB The person dealing with Norton is called Philip Bollard Their tel No is:- 024 7655 3777 email:- cranfiledbusinessrecovery.co.uk My brother made a silly (I mean really silly and low) offer for the panels which was accepted without argument. If you also need the Microgeneration Certificate they will provide details of how to obtain it. Good luck

Hi, Don't know if this is in the correct forum but here goes. My brother had solar panels installed in 2012 by Norton Energy SLS Ltd under the "Rent A roof" scheme. Norton were put into liquidation in May 2012 with Cranfield Business Recovery appointed as Joint Administrators. Subsequent to Cranfields appointment they arranged for "Anesco" Ltd to take over maintenance of the installation. Anesco are now saying thatthgey were not informed of the installation at my brothers house by Norton Energy therefore no maintenance agreement exists. Norton Energy say they have no interest in the installation or equipment and have removed their interest (lease) in respect of it. Cranfield have suggested that my brother contact his energy provider direct in order that he can continue to receive "feed in" payments. They have also asked him to make an offer for the equipment installed by Norton with an added aside that until they receive, agree and settle an offer they will not be in a position to verify to my brothers energy supplier the transfer of ownership to him so that he can receive the "feed in" payments. I totally understand that Cranfields are trying to recover as much as possible to help pay off Nortons debts. Question is what to offer?

Thanks for your replies, You have confirmed my thoughts Looks like I'm going to be writing some letters. Re the Spreadsheet:- You input the following:- PPI charge per month Other charges eg "overlimit and Cashguard" Monthly interest rate Monthly balance We have all this detail thanks to a SAR request that contains all the info back to when the card was taken out The spreadsheet then apportions interest to the account balance PPi etc and calculates a monthly redress value, compensatory interest and a notional balance as if the PPI had not been charged to the account.

V2.4 Simiantics dated 25/10/2012 Pretty sure I found it via a link on this site

Hello, After numerous letters HSBC finally agreed that the PPI on my sons credit card had been mis-sold and agreed a settlement figure. Now it has been agreed that the Cashguard protection policies were also mis-sold and my son has received the necessary form to reclaim his payments. Other than the now discredited PPI and Cashguard debits on my sons CC there have been no "purchases" since mid 2005. The spreadsheet we used to calculate the PPI redress shows that without the PPI and Cashguard my son had effectively paid off the full balance of his account by September 2009, with the minimum monthly payment set by HSBC being taken by DD from his bank account each month. At the moment though despite no purchases on the card since mid 2005 and purely due to the PPI, Cashguard and overlimit charges caused by them there is still an outstanding balance on the card. Am I correct in thinking that HSBC should refund all the payments made since the date when the account would have been paid off if the PPI and Cashguard had not been charged and also wipe the outstanding debt off?

Thanks for your replies I pointed out to the buyer that he wouldn't expect to go into a shop and walk out with a refund on the promise of returning the goods the following week. The buyer has now seen sense and is returning the item.

Hi, Apologies if this is posted in the wrong section. I recently sold an item on Gumtree. Buyer paid via Paypal The buyer was not happy with his purchase. Instead of simply asking for a refund he immediately lodged a dispute with Paypal and within a few hours escalated to a claim before I had a chance to reply. I have offered a full or partial refund in my response on Paypal. Buyer wants a full refund - No problem. But wants a refund before he returns the goods. I don't think it is unreasonable to have the chance to inspect the goods before telling Paypal to refund him. Is there any legal requirement to return the goods prior to a refund?

Hope this is in the right place Has anyone dealt with this company? A family friend signed up with Loan-Options.net recently and had £64.75 debited from his bank account. (£34.75 registration fee and £30 (£1 per day for 30 days) membership fees. They appear to offer access to payday loans and other services but deny they are Credit Brokers or intermediaries. Immediately this was discovered we emailed the company and cancelled the "membership" and asked for a refund. The company refused a full refund and only offered a refund of the 30 day membership fee. I phoned the company and spoke to "Megan". I stated that as we were cancelling within their 14 day cooling off period we wanted a full refund less the maximum £5 they were allowed to take under Regulation 155 of the Consumer Credit Act. Megan denied that they offered a 14 day cooling off period and didn't comment when I pointed out that I had a copy of their T&C's in front of me which clearly states:- "Cancellation Rights Being as this contract is a service contract for a membership scheme We offer a 14 day ‘cooling off’ period during which time You may cancel the agreement: Services are provided immediately following signup meaning cancellation within 14 days will result in a reasonable service charge being applied. Refunds are calculated on a pro-rata basis depending on the number of days membership used - £34.76 Setup Fee plus £1.00 per day of membership". I asked to speak to someone higher up the tree and was put through to "Josh" an accounts manager. This account manager in response to my attempts to get a refund responded as follows, "We are not brokers and therefore not covered by the Consumer Credit act. Therefore we do not have to comply with Section 155 of the Act. Our refund policy is as stated in our T&C's." I pointed out that surely the point of a cooling off period is that the customer can change his mind within that period and receive a refund. He offered a further £5. I asked for his surname He replied that he doesn't divulge that information. I suggested that they may not be brokers but they were credit intermediaries and therefore must be covered by the CCA. (I think that they should have a least a Category C license) He replied "No" Their website home page gives a consumer credit license number so surely they must abide by the CCA and give a full refund less £5? Any advice on how to proceed to get a full refund appreciated Finally what do you make of this extract from their T&C's? "In the event that any of these terms (each of which is severable) is for any reason illegal, invalid or unenforceable, such provision is to be deemed modified sufficiently to render it enforceable, legal and valid and of similar effect as We intended. Apart from provisions expressly covering associate companies, nothing in these terms is enforceable by anyone who is not a party to them."

Thank you citizen B. That's my night time reading sorted then

Thank you citizenB I await your posting By the way I see no reason not to say that the bank in question is HSBC

Thanks for your replies citizenB, I have read the BCOBS information and at the moment the only avenue I can see is to use BCOB rule 5.1.1 and claim that the bank are being unfair in always deciding to allow the "unauthorised overdraft". This decision will always result in the bank applying charges, therefore they are acting in the banks interest and not the customers. I have read (on this forum I think) and totally agree with the point of view that the unauthorised overdraft only exists and therefore the opportunity to impose charges only exists if the bank agrees to the overdraft. They don't have to agree but by doing so increase their income. Whilst not the same scenario I would expect that if I tossed a coin sometimes it would come down heads up sometimes tails up but this is totally skewed in the banks favour. I would really like to challenge the bank about this.

My son has been with the same bank for longer than I care to remember. In all that time he has never had a debit card transaction that took him over his overdraft limit ie an "unauthorised" overdraft request, refused either for a cash or purchases. The bank have always acted in their interests and allowed the transaction and then charged him for going overdrawn. If on a few occasions the request had been refused then I wouldn't be asking this question, but it does seem very one sided. At one time they allowed him to exceed his overdraft by seven yes SEVEN times his limit and just kept piling on the charges. In one 2 year period he was charged over £3000.

Would it be considered unfair treatment under BCOBS if a bank always acted and made decisions that were in favour of the bank?

Finally after sending a "put up or shut up" letter as suggested by CitizenB we have received a response to our CCA request. Frankly it isn't worth the paper it's written on, just a blank pro forma credit card application onto which someone has copied my sons name and his address at the time he applied for the card. That's it, the rest of the form is blank. Is that typical of the result from a CCA request?