I'm not aware of any regulation that states you can board a train without a ticket if the queueing time is over 5 minutes. The general rule is that you must buy a ticket or permit to travel before you board, or be charged the full undiscounted fare for your journey. This means no Cheap Day Returns or Railcard discounts, so it could easily be twice the cheapest fare if you're travelling off-peak. However the Guard has wide discretion to sell you a disounted ticket if he sees fit, particularly if you approach him (it usually is him) instead of waiting to be caught. What South West Trains have said now is that they will discipline any Guard who exercises that discretion, even towards passengers who seek out the Guard to buy a ticket. I think that apporach is misguided for several reasons, not least because the Guard operates alone and this will inevitably increase the risk of assaults. The Guard's primary role is his safety-critical duties and not as a ticket inspector. A pedantic point, the news today is not about Penalty Fares per se, but about the discounted and undiscounted fares.

Yes, it's the badger's nadgers now. Thanks very much.

I can see the value of having output that can't be ripped off. Maybe it's my browser settings but I'm only getting part of the graphic to print. However I can get it to print perfectly if I cut and paste into Paint, which seems a reasonable enough workaround for now.

Am I the only one finding the litigation spreadsheets to be incredibly hard to work with? The results are output as a graphic that fits perfectly inside a browser window but therefore doesn't fit onto an A4 sheet, unless shrunk so small that it becomes illegible. The only alternative I can find is to cut the graphic into chunks and paste them all individually. Maybe I am being dense but I can't find a way of presenting this data legibly. It would be really helpful if we could have this output as for example an Excel spreadsheet we could work with easily.

We have now had confirmation from the ICO that they are investigating our complaint, in the meantime we have had this from Experian: Dear Mrs Badger Thank you for your letter dated 10th May 2007 I note your comments regarding the Cabot financial account and can advise that Credit reference agencies simply store credit accounts on behalf of lenders. As a result, if you have any queries about a credit account you should contact the company direct. I cannot change these records without the lender's consent, a court order or from a ruling by the Information Commissioner. We will make any changes to the information as requested by Cabot or the other mentioned parties promptly. This isn't true, is it? CRA's don't "simply store credit accounts on behalf of lenders". They pass that data on to third parties and are therefore data controllers. To fulfil our obligations and to comply with your rights under Section 159 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Data Protection Act 1998, we queried the accuracy of these accounts with the companies concerned on your behalf. Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd advise that they are unable to amend/delete the account in question at the current time. So, let me get this right. Experian have no responsibility for the accuracy of the data - but now they have obligations! And Cabot don't give any reason for refusing to delete the entries - they won't communicate to us at all and I'm certain they can't have given Experian any evidence to justify this decision. The company concerned has requested that you contact them directly regarding this matter. You should include with your correspondence any documentation to support your comments. What, again? That would be the eighth time I've contacted Cabot about this, and I've had one reply! I've asked Experian to remove the account precisely because Cabot won't communicate with us, won't supply the original credit agreement, can't supply any evidence to justify their claims and don't respond to requests to correct their data. Will leave this in the hands of the ICO for now, unless anyone has any other ideas of how to move forward? Thanks B-B

This thread seems to be going nowhere. RPOV doesn't seem to grasp that the store and the company are one and the same entity. I get the impression he's just trying to get a reaction from us and distract us from more important matters. Frankly I think that anyone who knows anything about SOGA is just laughing at him now. I vote that we leave this thread now and leave RPOV in his little fantasy world - the one where PCWorld's policies are more important than the law. BB

Er, yes it should. I agree that the purpose is to avoid going to court - although the possibility should be prepared for. I don't think it's necessary to go into as much depth in the defence, though I agree that it could be set out in a letter to the claimant. For example, I'm not sure it's appropriate to set out all of the advice which you have received from the CAG or CAB in the defence, or go through the actions of the builder. It just clouds the issues. Keep it simple. B-B

I agree that you have got them bang to rights and that Trading Standards and the Information Commissioner should be informed. I'm not sure that the defence needs to be so detailed (all of the background can come out in court, in the highly unlikely event that it ever gets that far). I would suggest this which is more along the lines that the banks use when the POC aren't detailed enough : - Defence is filed and served without prejudice to either party having right to strike out claim. The Defendant is embarrassed by the lack of particularity pleaded in the Particulars of Claim to the extent that the Particulars of Claim fail to disclose reasonable grounds for bringing a claim against the Defendant. In particular, the Particulars of Claim do not disclose any legally recognisable claim against the Defendant. The Defendant denies that any contract exists or has ever existed between himself and the Claimant. Further the Defendant denies that the Claimant has valuable consideration of the cheque because it is marked “Account Payee Only” and is therefore only payable to the payee “builder” in accordance with Section 81(A) of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 as amended by the Cheques Act 1992. The Defendant denies any contractual, tortuous or other liability to the Defendant. The Defendant invites the Claimant to remedy the above. In the event that the Claimant fails to do so within 14 days of the service of the Defence then the Defendant will apply to the Court for an Order striking out the Particulars of Claim. The Defendant reserves the right to plead further to the Particulars of Claim once and if the Claimant properly particularises the same. In the meantime, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whether as pleaded or at all. I agree that they are just trying to bully you into paying up with the threat of legal proceedings which they no have no merit. Regards B-B

Hi All My wife has two defaults on her file with Experian. I think I recognise one, which is an old debt to HFC (ex Beneficial Bank), no idea what the other one is about. To the best of my belief we have never received a Default Notice about these accounts. We have done a CCA request to Cabot last October and since then we have heard.... nothing. No copy of the original agreement, but no demands for payment either. Despite numerous reminders they are ingoring us! As they are now seriously in criminal default I have complained to Kent Trading Standards. In the meantime we have asked Experian to delete the defaults on the grounds that there's no evidence that they are accurate. They refuse on the grounds that they cannot do so without Cabot's consent. Now we have received a letter from Experian saying Cabot would like us to contact them direct! I have replied pointing out that we have already contacted Cabot seven times about this, without reply. Experian are the Data Controllers and cannot hide behind Cabot like this. Given the long wait without action we have asked the Information Commissioner for a ruling. So now we have two open complaints: one to TS about Cabot and one to the Information Commissioners Office about Experian. Will keep you all posted about progress. Next step is an S.A.R to both Cabot companies (I know, I know, should have done this already...) Regards B-B

Send the letter which I have linked to above to your landlord by recorded delivery. It doesn't sound like he has much of a leg to stand on - the onus is on him to prove that he is entitled to the deposit. Give him 14 days to pay up, and then if necessary follow it up with an LBA.

She would be jointly and severally liable for the debt until the date at which he moved out and solely responsible for the Council Tax (at the reduced rate) thereafter. If he has buggered off leaving her with the debt it could be taken into account when considering a divorce settlement. In the meantime, has she made an application for Council Tax Benefit? You can only be imprisoned for non-payment of Council Tax on the grounds of culpable neglect or wilful refusal to pay, not just for inability to pay.

A couple of questions: Was an inventory taken when you left the property? Has the amount deducted from your deposit been broken down in any way, eg so much for the garden, so much for the lightbulbs etc? Was the rent paid up-to-date when you left? The law says that the deposit must be returned to you unless your landlord can prove that he needs it to rememdy any breaches of the tenancy agreement by you. That's very difficult if there were no inventories taken at all. In the first instance I would send him a letter along the lines of this excellent one:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/landlords-tenants/74170-unfair-deposit-deductions.html Good luck! B-B

Dave Statutory Instruments prior to 1988 are not available online. Unless someone has copied it somewhere (which looks unlikely) you can order the printed version from HMSO, cost about £6 I think. Sorry B-B

It also says: If the recipient accepted a number of packages at the same time, they may have printed and signed their name across a number of signature areas. If your ePOD only has a portion of a signature and you need to confirm who received the item, please contact the Track & Trace Helpline, on 08457 001 200. B-B

You are entitled to receive what you have paid for, in this case a voucher for the correct network. If Sainsburys have issued the wrong voucher that's their problem and not yours. I would send copies of all the paperwork to Sainsbury's head office requesting a refund in full or the correct voucher. Give them 14 days to respond. If that doesn't work then follow it up with an LBA.

The Electoral Registration Officer should be using the Postal Address File in the same way as everyone else. If the problem seems to be there, I would approach him and ask him to correct matters with Experian.

Hmmm.. I'm sorry, but I think you'll find your local postmistress is mistaken. Recorded items are not tracked at all except at the point of delivery. When delivered, it is common practice for the recipient to sign once for a batch of items. The items are listed individually on the receipt, and this happens at the recipient's risk, so if an item is listed on the receipt but isn't actually there, the addressee loses the right to claim that they never received it. This isn't fraud - it is clearly explained on the Royal Mail website that this may happen. They are obliged to obtain a signature for every item delivered - but one signature can cover more than one item. I used to have a job where I had to sign for numerous recorded items every day - sometimes more than 100 in each delivery. I'd never have got any work done if I'd had to sign 100 times. So I would give one signature to accept every item, accepting the risk that the odd item would have gone astray. However, having said that I used to send all the outgoing post by Special Delivery. I think some of the confusion has arisen because now you can see the Electronic Proof of Delivery online, and you might now only be able to see a partial signature or no signature at all. Having said all that, some postmen are a bit crap at getting signatures, so if there isn't one for your item then you should definately get your money back.

I think I would include the following: I have been informed by Experian that the default was registered by yourselves and not by GE Capital. Consequently, the duty to supply the notice is yours alone. As you have previously pointed out, proof of postage must also be supplied.

If, accoprding to Experian, the default was registered by AK, then they must be mistaken in believing that GE sent it to them originally. As they have helpfully pointed out, they do need to prove that they sent it to you. So I would point out that the legal duty falls upon them and not on GE. I would guess that they actually have no record of actually having sent it to you, which is why they have tried to pass the buck onto GE. In the meantime you need to SAR the original creditor and AK so that you have the full picture. I would also query the default with Experian, at the very least have a Notice of Dispute added.

The right of Social Services to remove your children for their protection has nothing to do with registration. If you didn't register your child's birth, it would still exist.

Blimey, where do I start? Of course companies can enter into contracts. They are incorporated under the Companies Acts and have basically the same rights and duties as any other person. It really doesn't matter whether your name is in block capitals or not, it's still your name. And finally, it's just nonsense - and dangerous nonsense - to say that Social Services can take your child away just because you have registered the birth. It doesn't hand over your rights to your child. Your children can only be taken away, when necessary for their own protection, under the legal procedures laid down by the Children Act.

Lookinforinfo, I'm afraid you are wrong in almost all of your interpretations of the above. The magnetic type is in fact added by the drawer's bank, or at least it was when I had the job of doing it. The 1992 Act is irrelevant, it says nothing about postdating. It may well be that Bills of Exchange had two dates on them, but cheques only have the one. This is the date of issue of the cheque, and it should be the date on which the cheque is issued. You can find nothing to abolish the facility to postdate a cheque because that facility never actually existed. As you say, the British Bankers Association are clear that it is legal to present a postdated cheque and that it is the drawer's responsibility to ensure that this doesn't happen. As you helpfully quote, they say: You should be careful to ensure that a post-dated cheque is not presented to a bank before the date on the cheque. Some banks state in their terms and conditions that they will pay a post dated cheque on first presentation if the cheque is otherwise in order. That seems perfectly clear to me. B-B

Shoestring, Oxford Parking Shop make it perfectly clear that they don't deal with Penalty Charge Notices issued by Oxford City Council at present. I am not misleading the thread intitiator - I'm sorry but your advice to him is seriously flawed. I agree that he should be able to pay in cash, but the simple fact is that he can't. If it had been possible, he would have done it already. Maybe you would insist on paying in cash, mon brave, but it's not your money you're wasting, is it?

You're very welcome!