Wilsonio, was it made clear to to you at any time that the deposit would be taken at that point? Did you give your consent to the sum being taken from you?

Rubbish. Of course the bank has the money in reserve to lend to you, if only the right to draw that from other banks It's a term from Roman law relating to the status of Roman citizens and so is about 2,000 years out of date. It means the maximum loss of status but doesn't have anything to do with capitalization. "Capitis" in this sense refers to "Status" Utter drivel.

I have sent a copy to the Court but I wondered if anyone had heard of anything like this before?

Evening all, I am being chased by a utility company for an unpaid bill from a property I lived in a couple of years ago. I don't dispute that I owe them something, however they have never sent me a closing bill and I believe the sum they are claiming is incorrect. I have asked for a correct bill but they have ignored my letters and just kept threatening me with Court. Finally a few weeks ago they started proceedings against me. However they have misspelled my name, and in the meantime I have moved again. I have entered a Defence and told the Court of my correct name and address. I have also given the Claimant this information. This morning I received an Allocation Questionnaire from the Court and notice that the case is being transferred to my local court - all issued to my correct name and address. However, in the same post I received an envelope from the Claimant containing a Judgment by Default allegedly made by the Court - in my old name and address. What's more, the Court stamp is not right, the typeface is different, and round the edges you can see the marks where the original image has been scanned before being overtyped. All in all, it doesn't look a bit like it came from the Court. Any ideas, anyone? Thanks B-B

I agree with Andrew. The long (16 digit) number is the card number. The purpose of quoting it is to demonstrate that the card was present when the cheque was signed. Not all guarantee cards have the small number at the bottom, and in any case this is usually the account number. As this is also printed on the front of the cheque there would be little point in writing it on the back too.

No. The right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute. Furthermore with regard to S3(A), the question is whether the L/Ls request for access is "likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household". A short visit necessary for the L/Ls business does not fall into this category.

I would suggest that those who claim that the Landlord has no right of access read the very helpful sticky on this point :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/landlords-tenants/74053-access-property-landlord.html Reasonable access from the L/L, after due notice has been given, does not breach the Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment. This would only be the case if the frequency of the L/L's visits were unreasonable or notice were not given.

Sorry, but this could not be more wrong. The long (16 digit) card number is unique to the card and does not contain the account number. The short number is the account number. It is essential to quote the long number as the account number is obviously on the cheque itself already.

You really need to take more water with it.

Ashford County Court are staying claims if requested by the Bank, not automatically. However the DJ did instruct us to use the extra time to reach a settlement and told us she would award Wasted Costs against a party which refused.

Barclays will be there and will request a stay. If you do not agree, they will apply to have your case struck out on the basis of the decision in Berwick -v- Lloyds. Be sure to have your case against a stay ready, and also be ready to defend yourself against a strikeout. (Remember, the Berwick decision was made on the basis that he was not in breach of his contract with the Bank. You disagree, you definitely are in breach, so it does not apply in your case.)

If they have taken Crossie's £1 as a payment on the account, they will claim that the clock has restarted and there is another six years left to run before it is statute-barred. IMHO it is imperative to point out to Crapbot that this was the statutory fee - do not just ignore them because this will come back to haunt you later.

I would definitely report this bunch to the DTI. If they are serial offenders they can be disqualified from acting as Directors. However I'm not sure that it will be possible to pursue the Directors personally for the unpaid wages. Normally Directors do not have to meet their Company's debts except under very specific circumstances, usually allowing the company to trade after it has become insolvent ("wrongful trading")

Whether the clauses are enforceable would be a matter for the court, so obviously they would have to hear the case in order to decide whether they are enforceable or not. Clear?

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. A precedent is a definitive statement of the law, binding on lower courts. As such, it is the law of the land. You may well have the inalienable right to take your case to court but, in deciding your case, the court will have to follow the precedent laid down by the higher courts. If there is a precedent about to be set, the courts are entitled to wait for it, in order to ensure consistency. Like I've said, there are excellent resources here for resisting a stay. But this isn't one of them, quite frankly it's just a lot of woolly words without any real meaning.

A precedent is the law of the land to the extent that it states the law definitively. Courts lower in the hierarchy are bound to follow that precedent.

Well, it's wrong to the extent that none of it is actually right. It's just plain wrong to say "there is no such thing as a test case". The courts are entitled to stay actions if there is a precendent about to be set by a higher court. Whether it's right for them to do so in each case is a different matter, and there are some great resources on this site to help people defend an application. However this is not one of them.

This is just so wrong!

Guys I must confess I'm a bit baffled by some of the comments in this thread. We have been pressing the OFT for some time to take action on bank charges, and now that they have done so we're up in arms about it. I agree that the delay will be a bit of a bummer (and I speak as someone who was due in court next week), but to be honest I feel it's unreasonable to expect the courts to continue to decide cases when the High Court is about to decide the law once and for all. Some people have complained about a delay until Christmas as though it were the end of the world, but as far as the courts are concerned that's really quite a short time. And as far as the FOS is concerned, it is up to the courts to determine the law - so their view, not unreasonably, is that they should allow them to do so now they've been asked. Let me put it this way - how would those who are pressing for their day in court before the High Court decision feel if they were to lose their case - and therefore all their money - only for the OFT to win a little later? We have been confident all along that the law is on our side. We should have confidence that the High Court is about to give the banks a bloody nose - almost every judge up to now has jumped at the chance. Let's get a bit of perspective and give up on the conspiracy theories.

Why is is being a "ridiculous jobsworth" to do the job you're being paid to do, and to uphold the law? Is it so unreasonable to object to going to work spending your time inhaling toxic cigarette smoke, before coming home stinking of other people's fags?

I think you will find that the Train Operators have banned smoking on platforms using their powers under the Railway Byelaws rather than the new Act. Consequently the platform need not be covered.

There are also several links to commercial sites in the "Quick Links" section of this site: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/ B-B

Next instalment - have received the following from Patrick Hill at Cabot :- Currently polishing off a reply, will post when it's done. B-B

The level of the Penalty Fare is laid down by law. Equally, the National Conditions of Carriage and the Railway Byelaws make it clear that tickets must be bought before boarding where facilities are available. Being made to pay the full fare isn't a penalty as such, but it is a sad fact that many of the people who board without buying a ticket first are actually trying to get away without paying at all. Passengers who have queued up deserve protection from passengers who drive up fares by not paying at all. As far as commission is concerned, i think all Conductors get 5% of their revenue in commission. But that's mostly an incentive to actually go through the train checking tickets as opposed to sitting at the back drinking tea. I don't think that the level of commission on an individual ticket (which is likely to be few pence in any case) makes much of a difference when selling a ticket.

I can't see that this is a breach of their Franchising Agreement - they're just upholding the law, albeit harshly. They are entitled to make a profit, they are a private company after all. And in the case of SWT, they aren't subsidised at all, they pay the Government a premium for their Franchise. I think part of the background to this is that they are struggling to raise the revenue to pay the premium and make a profit, and passengers are being squeezed. But that doesn't make it illegal.