The point is that each individual bookie does make money out of it in the long run. You are playing bookies off against each other. HSBC I mean this with the greatest possible respect (seriously!) but it comes across that you dont really know or understand MB. If you did you would understand what I am trying to say. There is clearly always the risk that someone makes the jump from matched betting to general gambling. However, with this caveat, I dont think its fair to give blanket advice stating dont do it. Its a tried and tested method.

Fair comment well made.

Bear in mind HSBC that the whole point of matched betting itself is that it isnt betting - i.e. there is zero risk (virtually).

What bills??? It is rarely the landlords remit to enforce bill payment. Whos name were the bills in ? Was there not a guarantor on the agreement?

Why do you think that Bernie? The error/offence/negligence of one person in an unrelated matter (which it is in effect) shouldnt affect his ability to claim against the negligence/error of another?

"Braked too suddenly". They can try and sue him on this basis but they would fail dismally. You are supposed to drive so that you can stop your vehicle if the vehicle in front has to perform an emergency stop, never mind sudden braking at a junction (which I assume this was). Did the police speak to you regarding this?

Theres an excellent thread/forum over at Moneysavingexpert on MB. If you can be bothered, its worth doing. Unfortunately, a lot of the sites have clicked onto this scheme now and make it harder - still doable, just less return per matched bet. I did it for a little while but found that the time I was putting in wasnt worth the return. You also need a largish cash flow in comparison to the gains.

Uninsured means just that - uninsured. It doesnt mean liable.

I dont think thats true?

No 2Grumpy, thats not the case (not with witholding anyways).

Subbing!

OK so as long as we do that at the same time as changing insurance that should be fine? Thanks guys!

Hi all, Stupid technical question. I am purchasing my mothers car, and I am timing it to coincide with renewal of insurance. However, the insurance policy states that I am to be registered keeper of the car. As such, how do I time this all? Do I send the slip off to the DVLA on the day of change of insurance? Do I do it in advance - if so, will that invalidate my mothers insurance as she is no longer registered keeper?

If the DPS wont help, then you would resort to the old fashioned methods - i.e. sue the landlord.

You are welcome. Please do let us know how it pans out - I think the agents actions are ridiculous here, and I very very strongly suspect that there is an ulterior motive (i.e. they are holding onto the deposit as long as possible).

Can only echo the above posters. Whether you will force a gas safety check in the three weeks before you move is questionable but you should certainly try. Without initial condition report, the landlord cant prove any damages.

Wrong. Common law favours assignment, so unless it is explicitly prohibited, it is allowed.

You are aware I assume that as a months notice needs to be given to end at the end of a rent period, you are liable for rent right up until the 8th of Dec?

Can you show me where this is stated in law? I disagree. To be fair, this should have been thought about before the account was defaulted. The rest of your post is addressed by my first point above. Also, I dont think I need to put emoticons to justify my opinion!!

I like the last idea I wrote a letter back on the 10th, to which they assured me the refund would be imminent. What a surprise, no refund yet! I emailed the CEO yesterday. I'll give it until the end of tomorrow and will then write an LBA I think!

You have taken an absurd comment made by me (the flip side of your own argument) and taken it seriously.... Yes they can, legally. Wrong. If the consumer received valid notice of assignment, then of course the consumer is under obligation to pay someone else. If he didnt, then he isnt, but the debt is still owed to 3UK! There really are two points here buzby. 1) It is farcical to state that the debt is not owed to SOMEONE. Should the proper process have been followed, the debt is owed to the DCA. If it hasnt, the debt is owed to 3UK. But it most certainly has not disappered. This is an amount of credit that has been ran up and it most certainly is owed somewhere. If the company it is owed to decides not to accept payment for it, that is a different issue. 2) Moreover (as your argument appears to be falling more on the moral side than the legal one, but failing on both), on which moral basis do you feel this debt isnt owed? (BTW - I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is meant - fostering debate and discussion, and not some personal attack on your position - you are entitled to your opinion of course!)

- If you are planning on contesting the rent arrears then yes, you should go into those reasons. - You cannot counterclaim for late payment - not the right place to do so. - Irrespective of the above, I would advise against claiming for late protection as given current rules, it is unlikely to succeed now that the deposit is in fact protected. - When was your due rent date? - Have you returned the keys? As a point of note, I am interested to see if a Section 8 hearing will be entertained now that you are no longer in the property.

They dont need a signed agreement, but they do need to prove a contract existed with you. It didnt - the only contract existed between them and the agent.

Then they have no agreement with you and they should be politely told where to go.

Did you order it with them, or did the estate agent?