Totally agree with you Conniff, but he raises the question 'Is a deemed contract compliant with the CCA 1974 ?' The deemed contract may well be enough to instigate proceedings in the county court, but is it enough to satisfy the demands of the CCA ? If it is, why are more companies not using a 'deemed contract' as a way around the specific requirements of the CCA ?

I'll say again: Why are the company instigating disciplinary procedures against someone with less than 24 months service ? Why not just dismiss them ?

I see 2 problems with this thread: 1 - As the OP has less than 24 months service, the employer doesn't need to initiate any disciplinary process, they can be terminated at any time for no reason. 2 - If the employer wants to take the disciplinary process to the end and refuse resignation, they risk the OP dragging the process out and taking it over the 24 month threshold. The employers actions dont make sense.

Why don't you tell me which part of my last post is incorrect. I'm not explaining the legal basis or compliance, i'm explaining what the process is and what the effective outcomes are.

You are missing the point of a police caution/FPN. If you know you are guilty, it is a plea bargain, an offer to accept a lesser sentence and avoid having to appear in court, which would incur a heavier sentence/fine, along with the cost/victim surcharge. It also wont appear in the local newspaper. If you are innocent, you can refuse the caution or not pay the FPN. You can then have your day in court. Or if you know you are guilty, you can do the same and roll the dice in court. The police do not decide your guilt or innocence. Either YOU accept the caution/pay the FPN and in effect plead guilty, or YOU go to court and have it decided there.

All this talk of depriving of human rights is nonsense.You have 21 days to either pay it or challenge it. If you challenge it, the CPS will decide whether or not to prosecute you. If there isn't a lot of evidence against you they may decide it's not worth the hassle and just let the matter rest.You should use the 21 days to take legal advice on the "realistic prospect of a conviction" should the CPS decide to prosecute you.

If he had a 12-month final written warning in Feb 2013, that wouldn't be on his file or taken into account after Feb 2014, so his previous warning should have no bearing on the current incident. In other words it would be 'spent'. Or am I missing something ?

The NIP isn't for exceeding 70mph though, is it ? It is specifically for exceeding the relevant speed limit in a 'goods vehicle-manned equipment'. Once he has dealt with this NIP, another one may or may not arrive for the alternative offence. If or when that happens, he can deal with that then.

I would also make a complaint to Swinton that the cancellation has happened entirely due to them attempting to take the d/d early. And request that any bank charges are refunded by Swinton.

Why does the insurance policy require all surviving children to sign. The estate is claiming on the policy. The only signature required is that of the holder of the letters. I would write back to the insurers, marking your letter 'Letter Before Action', requiring them to honour the policy and telling them that you WILL take legal action if this claim is not completed. The DWP were incorrect in using the DPA to refuse to discuss your's mothers pension account with you. As you hold the letters, when you speak or write to them, you hold all rights of access to information that your mother had. The bank are correct in that they will not discuss with you an account in EB's name. The bank don't know why the money was paid into the account, even if it is clearly your mothers pension money from the DWP. They won't know what arrangements were agreed to regarding EB receiving the money. If the following is what the bank said to you: That implies that your mother had a joint/trustee account with the bank. If she did have a joint account, the surviving joint owner automatically owns the money. The money does not form part of the deceased person's estate. You would need to show a court that EB fraudulently obtained the money. Don't go through the local branch, write to the banks bereavement department, they are used to actually helping people and are more clued up on what they are obliged to do. Unfortunately, you can't SAR the bank under the DPA for a deceased persons records, but the bereavement dept should supply copies of statements if you ask. You need a lot more information. Concentrate on your mothers affairs, ignore your own previous dealings with EB, they are not relevant and will only cloud the issue. It seems like a complicated situation, you would be better off getting some proper legal advice as EB doesn't look like he will be helping you at all, and you may need to go to court to force the issue, or maybe a strongly worded solicitors letter with threats of court action may make him realise you are serious and might prod him into action.

You should have received a deduction schedule when you were assessed. If you have changed to part-time hours recently, you should have told them as soon as your hours reduced, otherwise they will assume you are working your 'normal' hours. It is unjust that the CSA assess you for a cash deduction rather than a percentage. They use percentages in their calculation, but then turn it into a cash amount. Then if your earnings reduce, you will still have the full cash amount deducted. That is why you need to tell them about any changes immediately.

I missed the bit about it being in EB's name. Still, the OP needs to use the grant to get as much information on his mothers affairs as possible, and to stop EB having access to the same info/accounts. Information including which account his mothers money was paid into. As he can't get access to accounts in EB's name, once he has info which points to EB's accounts, he can, and should, take it to court.

Do you have the grant of probate/representation, granted by your local probate registry office ? Is it in your sole name ? If so, take a copy into your local bank branch and TELL them what you have. If you need to, ask to speak to the manager, and put the grant infront of his face and TELL him that he MUST comply with your wishes. Once they know you hold the grant all correspondence MUST be with you. If you have the grant, then EB has no standing in the estates affairs. This is part of the letter I sent to one financial institution who were being obstructive when my father died: P.S: As certified copies of the grant cost money to obtain, always send an original copy, but ask for it to be returned.

The problem is, once OP obtained the grant/letters of representation, THEY are now the personal representative, with all the responsibilites, but which they can't fulfill. I had a quick look at the legislation, but couldn't find anything which covers PREVIOUS PR's, which is why I suggested going to the police, to get them to retrieve the info from EB. The OP doesn't need to go to court to get info from financial institutions, e.g: the bank. If they have the grant/letters then they can just write to the bank and demand the info, and also tell the institutions that the OP is the one they should be communicating with, not EB.

I'm not sure of the exact law, but it is probably contained in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. Contacting the Office of The Public Guardian is a good idea, to get their take on the situation. Your letter to EB should simply say:

If you are in possession of a grant of representation and are the sole holder, you need to be forceful. Write to all concerned and DEMAND (yes demand) that they turn over all financial documents/effects/posessions that belong to the estate. If they refuse, go to the police. There are strict rules regarding the administration of estates, breaking many of them is an offence. Regarding the credit file, write to the CRA's enclosing a copy of the death cert and letters of administration, again DEMANDING that they supply you with a copy.

Were you definitely caught on camera? If not, i suggest that as it was a rollup, maybe you smoked it till it was very short, then it got very hot like short rollups do and you (as a reflex) had to drop it or you would have burnt your fingers. Then just as you were about to bend down and retrieve it, a jobsworth (in a hi-vis no doubt) jumped out of his hiding place with his notebook in his hand. Are you sure it didn't happen like that?

There seems to be some confusion on which part of the cigarette you are alleged to have discarded. Was it from the 'ash' end or was it the whole 'filter' end ? If the former, you have grounds to appeal the FPN. If the latter, as my post above states, you are 'bang to rights', if they do indeed have the requisite evidence of the allegted offence.

I don't think he meant the 'lit ash' end of the cigarette, rather the 'filter' end. Section 27 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 makes changes to the Environmental Protection Act 1990:

I fully agree with the sentiment of your comment, but this was a widely reported story in July 2008! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030798/Muslim-outrage-police-advert-featuring-cute-puppy-sitting-policemans-hat.html http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/tayside-police-apologise-after-muslims-982219 http://www.scotsman.com/news/apology-on-the-cards-as-police-pup-picture-sparks-warning-over-offence-to-muslims-1-1078393 http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/828514/Police-apologise-puppy-ad-offended-Muslims/?HAYILC=RELATED http://metro.co.uk/2008/07/01/police-apologise-over-offensive-puppy-ad-230376/

A lack of MOT does not automatically invalidate an insurance policy, unless it is a specific clause of the policy that the vehicle must hold a valid MOT. You should check your policy. But the vehicle MUST be in a roadworthy condition to be used on the road, or you would be committing an offence and more importantly, your insurance WILL be invalidated, as that is a standard clause in vehicle insurance policies.

This: Shows that the restaurant didn't have a confirmed booking for your party, so why did they assume you were coming and hold the table for you ? Surely, it also shows that no contract was entered into.

Do the police still issue 'producers' at the roadside ? Or is the failing to produce offence because she ignored the original speeding ticket, which she had no knowledge of ? If the latter is the case, she shouldn't be charged with ignoring something that the court now accept she couldn't possibly have dealt with. I would plead not guilty.

And I would be asking them what is the definition of 'litter'. Have a read of this: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/local/legislation/cnea/documents/litter-refuse.pdf, specifically page 5 and the start of page 6, which says: but also says If a bag of rubbish (I mean actual dirty smelly rubbish) is outside the scope of Section 87, a carefully placed bag of clean folded clothes, gifted to a charity to help those less fortunate, should also fall outside the scope of Section 87.

Even if you do have the IMEI, as the buyer paid cash they can't get a refund through paypal, so just ignore them. If you really wanted to find out the IMEI, you could ask your mobile number provider what IMEI was associated with your mobile number on a particular date/time.