Good thread to bring back up. my vote, had it been possible, would have been NIL. Why? Well how about the interest they make on YOUR money e.g. 10 days (in some accounts) to clear cheque - why does a Gold type of account clear them in a couple of days and a basic bank account take 10 days? Are they seriousl;y trying to suggest that in reality it takes longer to clear a cheque depending on the type of account you have paid it into? You pay a cheque out and it can show as clearing your account in as little as 48 hours but it mysteriously ALWAYS takes 10 days to clear when you pay it it. So you pay me a cheque for say £100 and I pay it in immediately. It clears your account in 2 days but takes another 8 days to clear mine. Where's the money for those 8 days then? Transfers between accounts (even those held at the same branch) taking 5 days - where's the money - MY money - inbetween then? So the banks are making vast profits in interest on OUR money by NOT crediting it to our accounts until the time they stipluate it will take the cheque to clear, NOT when they actually get the funds. Why then, should they charge us when we are using their funds? Should it not at least be offset against the profits they have tactically made from OUR money? This in my opinion would bring the cost down to zero, or less... Remember in the case of a failed direct debit they are charging up to £39 when you may have only been pennies short in your account (and might not have been short at all had they cleared that cheque sooner). So a £10 d/d fails because you only had £5 in your account. But you go £34 overdrawn because they charged you £39 for the failed d/d. Then they charge you excessive interest on that! So OK, you have incurred a charge. Why not leave the £5 in the account and send you a seperate bill for the £39? They would then have to go through the court process to claim it back if you didn't pay, NOT automatically be allowed to take it out of your salary or benefits - no other business is allowed to take money out of your wages without an Attachment of Earnings order or something like that so why are banks allowed to do it? After all, it's not money (in this example) that they have borrowed you, it's charges that they have imposed on you - their choice to do it this way! Surely it can't be legal especially in the case of state benefits where the law determines how much you need to live on and grants you that money. They take the money from you without a court order, they have made billions over the years much of which will not be claimed back, so why should we pay anything for the next two decades at least? Don't forget that there are fat cat directors out there on private yachts, and we've been funding it for years. Now we are talking about fair charges? How about we all work out how much we have lost in time, lost interest for long clearance times - and profits made by the banks with those funds, stress trying to make ends meet while the banks were fleecing us, the only "fair charge" would be to have them all locked up for THEFT while we all struggled to get by, with free banking for us and a decent compensation package. We should even have to fight this, they have been charging us ILLEGALLY for years and EVERYBODY should AUTOMATICALLY be compensated. Sorry about the rant but the whole thing disgusts me.

Given that the make of car is wrong I would consider claiming that it wasn't your car and the plates could have been cloned - it happens! Whilst I would not normally condone flouting the law traffic wardens do it all the time, booking vehicles which should not have been booked in the first place, ignoring obvious breaks in the lines etc, and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. That said, the chances are that the ticket is illegal anyway if the details, make of car in this case, are incorrect. I don't think there is a legal requirement for the tickets to be signed though.

Fair enough but in this case the post to which caro was referring WAS deliberately offensive - I see the intelect of several members of this forum didn't increase - that's a direct attack. Allow that sort of thing and the whole forum will degenerate into a slanging match amongst members - I've seen it happen! A little more decorum is required I feel.

Many thanks all, your support is worth it's weight in gold. Nothing much to tell, we have been given a revised appeal date but don't know what it is yet.

That's the point though Mark, I know people that DO believe in this Most Haunted stuff, otherwise sane ordinary people. My wife's sister for one, she absolutely believes that what she is seeing is real. There must be thousands of people like this who are buynig the DVDs believing it to be real. As for not staging things, they do! I don't watch it personally (the missus does) but I did see some of the "live" ones (well the repeats of them anyway), the two I saw were in Stratford and London Dungeon and there was stuff flying around all over the place! It was sdo obviously staed it was pathetic, but for reasons only they can explain some people really are taken in by it.

No, it's not illegal. The ruling to make them highly visible (i.e. yellow) was only a guideline, I don't think it's legaly binding and in any case would not get you off the speeding offence if it flashed you. Personally I think the signs stating that there are speed cameras on a road where there are none, or the cameras are dummies, are misleading and probably illegal since they are drawing the motorists attention to something that isn't actually there in many cases.

Signed by myself and partner, good information, thank you.

The whole lot needs scrapping. The bailiff laws are archaic anyway, this new bill puts us back in the dark ages. Our basic democratic freedom is being slowly but surely eroded. We are bombarded with rules, regulations and laws at home and at work, mostly for health and safety reasons, e.g. you must get a registered installer to fit your new windows, you have no right to silence and are forced to name the driver of your car caught speeding on camera, you must sort your rubbish and put it in a certain bin, ID cards soon to be forced upon us and so on. The point is, we are becoming a state-controlled society and losing our rights. The Human Rights Act says we have the right to peacefully enjoy our possessions or something like that. The HRA was introduced to protect our rights and UK plc is slowly taking them away. Something needs to change, you will always have chancers who use the system to their advantage and never pay up but we are becoming a state where everything is a crime. It was never a crime to owe money and the extortionate charges by bailiffs mean that those most in need can never repay what they owe because the charges are increasing faster than their ability to pay it off. Bailiffs should be banned completely, scrap the appalling charges and give some genuine help to poorer people on how to manage their money. Murderers, druggies and paedofiles get help, why not ordinary people who's lives are being ruined by the stress of bailiffs visiting when their only "crime" is to not be able to afford to pay their bills? Tonight's rant over, sorry.

Done. 5 more (genuine) sigs from Sey Manors.

Interesting thread, this. I haven't read all of it but here's my experience: Some years ago (8 or 9 years, I'm guessing) I read an article on council tax banding rates. I had moved in with mrs. sey a couple of years before, she has lived in the same house for 20 years. Apparently when banding was first introduced houseowners had a certain length of time to appeal the banding their property had been put in. This wasn't widely publicised and article said that 78% didn't bother, but most of those probably were not even aware that they had been placed in a higher banding than they should have been. I looked into it further and discovered that our modest 3-bed semi should have been in band B according to the valuations at the time. We were paying band D rate. I filled in the neccessary paperwork to appeal and got it reduced to band C. It seems the crafty council b******s had introduced a rule that a successful appeal only warranted a reduction of one band. So I am still paying band C for a property that should be in band B. The law says that the only way this can be appealed again is when the property changes hands, i.e. when we sell up, and the council are appparently legally forcing me to pay a higher band than I should be. I'm betting tens of millions of people have appealed and won but are still paying a higher band than they should be, or haven't appealed, or are blissfully unaware that they are paying more than they should be. Yet another hidden stealth tax.

The point is many people who "trade" on ebay do so on a casual basis, and are unaware of the day-to-day pitfalls of credit card payments. You could argue that they should make themselves aware of the pitfalls but remember these are not professional businessmen, and since ebay and paypal tout the service as being "the safe way to send and receive payments" then that's what it should be! Since it's anything but, they shouldn't say so - simple as! If they insist on proclaiming it's safe then they should accept responsibility when things go tits up - they charge enough to cover these eventualities and it's my belief that they should offer some sort of security against this. As I said, they should not show a sale as completed and describe 'completed' as they do if it's not final and binding. It's one thing to say don't accept paypal but ebay push it so much that many people think you are a dodgy seller if you don't! Certainly your sales suffer, and you almost certainly lose more in sales profit by not accepting paypal than you would through the odd fradulent transaction if you do accept paypal. Paypal and ebay should use one registered address for everything. It's a joke. A friend of mine was suspended by paypal after refusing to pay back a deficit of £47 after they reversed a transaction for an item, like me, he had already sent. He simply opened another paypal account in his girlfriends name but used his own address. Verification was and still is a bank account number (basic bank account in her name) and a telephone call to his own home. So even though his registered and verified paypal address isn't even in his name he is still happily trading with it and has been for three years! Safe? Secure? Don't make me laugh.

Actually I believe there is a case here. If Most Haunted are duping the public via their TV shows into believing this stuff is real, (and selling their DVDs on the same basis), regardless of whether you believe in this nonsense (in my opinion) or not, the fact that they are touting it as the real thing is surely an offence of some sort? Obtaining money by deception springs to mind.

What really annoys me about (ebay-owned) paypal is they claim it's a safe way to send and receive cash, but it isn't! As you log in, they proudly proclaim, "PayPal. Your fast, secure way to pay and get paid online". Really? So could they please explain to me why a £27 item bought on Friday night and shown as "Completed", posted on Saturday, then Saturday night showed up as "Reversed"??? (apparently a stolen credit card was used). "Completed, according to Paypal's own description, means "This status shows that the add funds, withdrawal, payment and money request transactions through PayPal account have been completed successfully." "Completed successfully" means, to me, that the money is safely in my Paypal account!!! So how can a successfully completed transaction be reversed? How can that be safe? The trouble is for sellers like myself who trade seriously on ebay, you MUST accept Paypal because ebay drum it into buyers that it is the safest way to pay, so 90% of your sales are paid for via paypal. Bottom line: If Paypal claim it is safe and a transaction is completed, then they should pay for any loss if 24 hours later they discover the item has been paid for using a stolen credit card. If it's stolen, the transaction should be rejected on the spot and NOT shown as completed, not reversed 24 hours later!

Yes, it was a magistrates court. I was just generalising given that the "speeding" post wasn't really a discussion about that case, just my way of pointing out that this is the sort of thing we are up against when fighting the authorities on any level. It's not a fair fight (even if you're innocent), you never get a rational explanation of anything, you are simply told that they do this (whatever the issue is) because the law says they can, hence that makes it Ok because it's legally correct. You can apply this to bankrupcy, speeding fines, parking tickets, you name it.

Yes, I would say so, particularly if you receive a reminder notice with the Noitce Number on it. You could then truthfully argue that you have not got been issued a PCN with that number on it!

Thanks, Tom. The Official Receiver's fees are apparently up to £550 already. For what, exactly? I will be asking for a breakdown of the costs! What makes me really bitter is I am having to shell out thousands of pounds that I don't have because of the bankruptcy procedure. The council have incurred this expense on us because they want their money, yet at the same time are refusing to accept my repeated offer of payment! You couldn't make it up. Sadly, you don't have to.

Absolute disgrace, it takes them five years but I bet they only gave you so man days to pay! You MUST fight this, try to get copies of the tickets (EXACT photocopies, many councils now send out a computer printout with (alegedly) the same details that were on the ticket, not good enough.

Hi all, We have asked for an adjournment to allow the solicitor to go through the paperwork properly and get replies from the council/Incasso. However having read through everything he seems to feel that we are now less likely to get an annulment mainly on the basis that the judge is going to say that we still owe the money and will want to know if we are in a position to pay it. I'm going to argue that whether we owe the money or not is irrelevant, the point is that proper procedures were not followed. The irony is that we could have possibly just scraped the 4k owing but much of that is now being taken up in legal fees. To be honest, the O.R. has been fairly reasonable, and hasn't published the bankruptcy yet, it's the council I hold the grudge against. I will be sending letters to them stating that I hold them responsible for the fees I am having to pay on my partner's behalf because they refuse to accept my payment, I am claiming that the case is between my partner and themselves and as such should not affect me in any way. Going off at a tangent slightly, here is a good example of how the legal system has turned into complete farce in this country: Last Friday I went to Fleetwood court to defend a "Failing to name the driver" charge. Again I never received any documents relating to the initial speeding charge and the documents relating to the first hearing in June 2006 went to the wrong address. I knew nothing about it until I had to go to court in October to explain why I had not paid the fine and I had to go and ask "What fine???" I explained to the judge I had received no documents and the fine was overturned. The police then summoned me BACK to court on 3rd January. Unbelievably the summons for THAT hearing went to the wrong address (it was actually wrong on the summons AND on the envelope, no. 61 instead of no. 64, wrong postcode too. That was adjourned until last Friday because I pleaded not guilty. I pointed out having now received copies of the original speeding ticket (speed camera, my car, correct address on ticket), June 2005 (YES 2005!!!), and copies of the original summons for Failing to name the driver (dated Jan 2006 but hearing was not until June 2006), it would have been impossible 12 months on to name the driver even if I had received the original documents. The judge didn't believe I hadn't received the original speeding ticket (what's that got to do with it? The case was for Failing to name the driver, not for the original speeding offence), found me guilty and fined me £150 + £60 costs. I'm bloody fuming - £210 + 3 points for not being able to name the driver when my car was flashed for speeding over 18 months ago? £210 for a "crime" with no victim, no accident, and orginating from a speeding offence that because that issue had never been to court, was not even proven! This concocted law is a disgrace, right to silence taken away and fined for well what exactly? Seven days to pay, that's up tomorrow and I only got the paperwork today. What is even more ludicrous is the enclosed "Notice of requirement to produce driving licence" which states that "Your driving licence was suspended and is of no effect until it is produced to me." Huh? Why, since I have seven days to produce? Total farce, my point being this is just the soprt of thing we are up against.

Incidentally I thought the main reason for melting it down was to burn off any impurities? EVERYTHING is contaminated from the moment it is produced, cans have glue on them from the labels that were stuck on them (probably still are), grease from fingerprints having been handled by who knows how many people with who knows what illnesses, and so on.

Everybody has sympathy I'm sure with the problems that come with your job, but the whole system is complete nonsense. First of all, if the government want to do something serious about the issue, BRING IN LAWS WITH REGARD TO OVERPACKAGING! We don't want it, we don't need it, many of us lead busy lifestyles and sorting out rubbish that we don't want in the first place is just another job to do. I often wonder how much energy is expended in recycling the stuff, much of which isn't wanted or needed in the first place - including the calendars, circulars etc. We got a circular hand delivered by council staff reminding us to recycle (we have three bloody great wheelie bins outside the door, we're hardly likely to forget), next day came a questionnaire about the trading standards service, the day after that a circular about college courses etc. The govenment without a shadow of a doubt PRODUCES most of the waste through unnecceasry leaflets about just about everything! Walk into a hospital or council office, tax office, in fact any government office you care to name and there will be a choice of hundreds of leaflets about just about anything you care to name! WE DON'T NEED IT! As for washing out the cans etc, although the reasons for this are understandable, how much water is being wasted by doing this? How much energy when the combi boiler fires up when you go to wash out that can? How much energy is expended in collecting it and recycling it all, not to mention manufacturing it in the first place, whether it be paper, plastic, cans, glass or whatever. I say again, we don't want it, we certainly don't need it, STOP PRODUCING IT! It's a complete farce, man.

The whole issue of parking fines disgusts me, not just because of lack of signage or whatever but the whole overzealous pursuit of our money when in most cases absolutely no harm is being done to anyone, thuse there is no reason to fine anyone in the first place regardless of correct signage or not. Why have my local council put double yellow lines in a smal cul-de-sac with no houses? Why in a lay-by which serves no other purpose (disused former bus stop, lines renewed since it ceased to be used as a bus stop). Weren't parking restrictions brought in to prevent motorists causing an obstuction or to prevent parking where there is a safety hazard? Where's the bloody hazard parking in a disused lay-by or cul-de-sac? Where's the actual victim, the "crime" that warrants a "fine" if you overstay a parking meter by a few minutes? There isn't one! It needs to stop, there has to be a MAJOR review but of course because of the value to local councils it just gets worse. In the meantime, KEEP FIGHTING!

It's my understanding that the colour is only given for guidance and is not compulsory, indeed a lot of parking tickets don't indicate a colour, so forget that one. As for the signage, take your case to NPAS together with a photograph of the signage and fight it on the basis that the sign indicated you were allowed to park on match days regardless of the time and you were! If you were only supposed to park around the time of the event the sign is unclear, that's a good enough basis to fight. Don't worry about the rejection, everything is rejeted by the council first time because they know most people wil pay up rather than fight; most people don't even know about NPAS, it's never been mentioned in any of the literature I have received from the council, so presumably people are expected to find out for themselves. don't expect them to play fair, after all it's your money that they're after so they won't give in just like that. NPAS on the other hand have to abide by the law and generally do so whereas the councils just flaunt it knowing most people will give in and pay up. Disgusting I know but that's what we're up against. No justification for an £80 or even £40 penalty anyway just for parking your car, what makes it OK at certain times and wrong at other times? Complete farce.

Not silly and not funny. It could be anyone on the other end of the line and no way should you give out your details. The banks don't help much. They leave messages asking you to contact "Mr. Smith at 0870.....etc. quoting reference 12345678 without stating who the message was from then you ring up and they ask for you name and address and date of birth etc. It could be anyone! Say someone nicked your credit card details, had your card number, name and address but not your date of birth. You think you are speaking to your bank, but it could be a [problem]. I refuse to give out ANY details unless I know I am talking to my bank and even then I ask them to tell me what details they have and I will confirm if they are correct, rather than volunteering my personal information.

I would love to know the answer to this. I was at Preston Royal hospital last week, you know how it is, huge site, not enough parking spaces, double yellow lines on every available bit of tarmac that wasn't a designated payable car parking space, and "wardens" going around the grounds ticketing those who had parked on the lines because there was simply nowhere else to go. "Enforcement" was by a private company, not the same private company that Preston Council use and no obvious signage that this wasn't a council-controlled area (i.e. not falling within the realms of the 1991 Road Traffic Act. Given that this is surely not private land nor police or council controlled, does the NHS hospital have the right to impose the rules that the RTA encompass and does a private company have any legal right to impose a "parking fine" upon us? I didn't get a ticket personally, just as well as it's more hassle I can do without right now but I would certainly be writing to them and asking under what law or what legislation were they using to legally issue you with a parking fine. Sorry, dress it up any way you like but for me a PCN is a fine whatever they may choose to call it. That's not right, no offence, and no victim = no justification whatsoever.

As for the last one, I phoned them up (profit-making 0870 number, I didn't pay for the call but that's not the point) to ask them to explain why they had sent me the notice as the road mentioned could have been anywhere in the country and the notice didn't specify who Parkwise were acting for, just to hear what they had to say (the relevant letter will follow). Stuck-up moo on the other end of the line told me it was no use trying to be clever because they will get me in the end and it will only cost me more in the long run if I don't pay now (Really? You think?) She said that "You know and we know where you were at the time the ticket was issued (what ticket???) so you're better off just paying the FINE" I reminded her that I hadn't committed an offence so there was no fine to pay, and that where I was at the time was irrelevant - this concerned my vehicle, not me! All nonsense of course, just shows the sort of tactics they use to try to get you to pay up though. Shame I didn't record the call, the implication was made (illegally) that I had committed an offence! You couldn't make it up, then again you don't have to.