I've experienced various problems with retailers delivering items which require a signature only to return home from work finding it stuffed behind the bin or on the doorstep. Next once left an item behind my dustbin and when I rung to question them about delivery, they said it had been left in the shed - I don't have one! So they were confused about it as I was. The problem with catalogue companies and, increasingly, bigger retailers such as Tesco Direct is that they employ local people to deliver items for a fee - which isn't paid until the item is delivered. Therefore, there are occasions when items are not delivered but left on the doorstep or somewhere else and a signature is scrawled on the delivery note. They will make you jump through hoops to show it's not been delivered - otherwise everyone would ring up and tell them something had not been delivered.

You may have a number of options - council or local authority housing may be an option for you to reduce the rent. With regards to studying, I presume you are doing this via correspondance as you work full time? In which instance, I don't think you will be entitled to any 'student' benefits as such. However, for advice on benefits see Department for Work and Pensions or contact a citizen's advice bureau for more information on any financial help you could be awarded.

Defaults are only on your credit file for 6 years, so if it was put on in 2001, it will be automatically removed in 2007. You made need to get a copy of your credit report to see the month in 2001 in which it was put on, but it won't be on there for much longer.

Above is true - one of the simplest (but rarest) defences for a fixed penalty!

As Barracad said, don't for get you are entitled to a full AND immediate refund - many banks won't do this, but under the guarantee they have to. It's the rules! They will try and fob you off, but it's worth pursuing. See >> Direct Debit - Your rights

Most have a get out clause that if they cannot provide the same service to you at your new address, they will cancel the contract at no cost to you. I know of NTL who can do this, not sure about other providers but you do sign up to a certain level of service whic, if you move and can't recieve it, then they contract is not really valid.

who was the cheque made payable to?

That is the law for you, never straightforward!

I was going to say - this is UPS? and USPS (in America) is United States Parcel Service? But glad all sorted

Yes, but the question was relating to claiming charges on accounts which had been included in bankruptcy - well, this is what I was led to believe. Anyhow, any money owed to or owed by the bankrupt at the time of bankruptcy now offically belong to the Insolvency Service (or the OR, or trustee). The fact that debt prior to the judgement is dissolved is also true to credits owed as well.

There are mixed messages regarding this subject. As far as I am aware, when you are declared insolvent (either through bankruptcy or an IVA) you transfer all interest in your estate to the Official Receiver. Any money you owed at the time of going bankrupt is included, and the reverse is true - any money owed to you is also included in your estate. As these charges were owed to him at the time, if he was to successfully claim (which would not happen due to everyone involved knowing that he was declared insolvent), then this money would legally belong to the trustee to distribute amongst the creditors evenly. I would imagine the banks may go ahead with the refund, but offset it against the debt which they lost in the bankruptcy. The only legal way of doing this would be is that if there was enough evidence to show that the unfair charges on the accounts were sufficient enough to force an individual into bankruptcy, these can be claimed back and the bankruptcy annulled - however, I have yet to hear of a claim of this nature being successful.

Not too late to inform the police at all! In fact, when they record a crime they record the bank as the 'victim' because it is you who will recieve the money back, and it is them who claim it back from their insurers. The fact that the banks have lost so much money is one of the reasons they are unsure about how to comply with the law. Your post above looks like Nationwide took you to mean that you didn't make the transactions. I think they have got it wrong. And when your card is cloned, you DO have the card in your possession and they KNOW your PIN number!! Otherwise, your card would have been stolen! Nationwide are so stupid, that's why I've stopped banking with them! Get the police to log a crime reference number, phone Nationwide, get firm with them and get them to sort it out!

Although I work in business finance, my organisation also owns a bank. When we credit search individuals, we take no notice of the credit score, the number of searches or any irrelevant data. It is based on the amount of finance they have and their payment history. One default = a rejection. My partner has an unblemished credit history with one credit card, one solvent bank account and a couple of happily settled accounts. However, he was defaulted on a catalogue nearly 2 years ago and due to this, he cannot get credit anywhere just because of the one default.

Hmm, I'm a bit confused as to why jumping a red light was caused by a parked vehicle?? Perhaps some more info would be good?? Also, the letter he has is an Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) which needs to be sent back within 28 days, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the offence. It's not an admission of guilt, it is simply stating who the driver is. He needs to complete this and, because it's the law, identify himself as the driver. A few days after, he will receive the conditional offer of a fixed penalty. It is then that contesting the allegation begins. However, an amendment to the Freedom of Information Act came into force not so long ago, which gives the Police the right to withold certain information which may interfere with any investigation. They also now state that photographs and other pieces of information requested from them will only be granted if you wish for this matter to be taken to court - well, simply if you intend to contest it, they will say this but if the allegation is supported by an acceptable defence, then it won't go to court. He must write to them and ask to see the photographic information - sometimes this isn't available and *boom* - there is no evidence to support the allegation and they cannot prove it was you. However, he WILL need evidence beyond reasonable doubt that he had just cause for contravening the Road Traffic Act - successful defences are driving under duress (i.e. being tailgated, road-raged etc) or due to an emergency vehicle, forcing you to take immediate action etc. So, the circumstances you mention need to be explained a bit more in detail for anyone to advise.

No you can't. The Limitation Act 1980 bars you from claiming charges from over 6 years ago.

The Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40 makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor's agent (often a debt collection agency) to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing "alarm, distress or humiliation, because of their frequency or publicity or manner". Equally, a creditor will be committing an offence if they falsely imply that non-payment of the debt will lead to criminal proceedings; or the creditor pretends to be someone they are not e.g. a court official or bailiff. It is also an offence to send a person a document which looks like it has been sent from a court. If you feel you are subject to Debt Collection Harassment then this too could be classed as a criminal offence. Harassment can be verbal or in writing and would include making repeated calls to your workplace or in anti social hours. The Protection from Harassment Act makes it a Criminal Offence for any person to pursue a course of action "which they know, or ought to know, amounts to harassment of another person". First step is to complain to Trading Standards. The OFT don't investigate these matters, but collects the information from other official bodies and can use that so that the guilty party could have their Consumer Credit License revoked in addition to a fine.

I would only warn you that if anything went wrong in the future, and it was shown that you asked for £10k (for example) for home improvements that cost only £5k, you can get into trouble for it. In the County Courts when people are declared bankrupt, it is found that situations like this do occur when they look into how the finance was applied and used for. Sometimes, people do say "buying a car" but really it was to buy an old banger and have 2 weeks in the Carribean! Bear in mind that by borrowing more than the property value, you are heading into negative equity. Never a good place to be - if your house burnt down, got damaged, fell apart or had to be demolished (in the worst case scenario), you would only get the property value back and not your mortgage - depending on how much into negative equity you were, you could be facing a huge shortfall. The new consumer credit act will maker the lenders criminally liable if found they have leant money without "due cause or reason" and so if they don't check what it is they are lending for, then they could get into trouble.

It is a breach of contract, and you are entitled to sue them for what is yours...but not best for employee relations. Diskmandave is right - ACAS are really good at sorting disputes out without going legal and normally resolve issues without any bad feelings.

Hmm, does sound like he has done a runner to be honest. Is it a local address? I mean, without going to knock on his door, you could see if he lived there or not? A claim is likely to not go very far a) if he's bankrupt, as if he had anything of any value, they would have taken it and b) there is no fixed abode for him and c) if you did get a default judgement, would he be able to pay it? If he's bankrupt, he's probably cash in hand and has no assets of his own. It will catch up with him one day, as he'll leave a footprint and be gone. He won't be able to get credit and everything will have to be done on the sly, which is never good if you're in business. He's obviously not bothered at all! However, maybe some bad media will help? Long shot, but naming and shaming seems to do well these days!

When you say years ago, how many? If over 6 (i.e. not heard from them at all) then it's statute barred and they cannot use legal methods to pursue you for it under the Limitations Act 1980. Also, do NOT acknowledge the debt!! If you speak to them on the phone, they normally ask "Are you calling regarding your debt?" or something similar and, without thinking, you say "yes, I am" and BANG - you've acknowledged it (legally) without thinking! So be careful!!

I notice some of his feedback shows "slow ebayer" - could it be that he's ordering them from somewhere first before sending on to you? Why not report him to the police for deception? They can visit him for you and pay for the court fees!

Have you read: Enforcing judgment

Give the court a ring and ask them to confirm they have received it. Sometimes, the clerks are a bit slack on sending out confirmation and some don't send it at all due to the amount of work they have on. You should receive a full settlement prior to the court date though.

This story is funny, as almost identical to a scenario I had as a law student when studying contract law, except it was a case where A asked B to build a house, and due to A stalling and mucking him around, it started 2 months later.... Anyhow! There are two seperate contracts in force here. Elderly couple vs Homebase, and Elderly couple vs your boyfriend. 2 clear, different and seperate contracts. The contract with Homebase is that they will supply goods of a reasonable quality and will be fit for the purpose intended - clearly not in this case, but it is up to the elderly couple to argue this out - the goods were not of reasonable quality and were not fit for the purpose intended. But this contract does not involve your boyfriend, he was not party to it and did not influence the contract in either way. Secondly, he was contracted to do his job on the basis that the first contract was executed successfully. However, a contract cannot be voided purely because the job is made either more expensive or takes a longer period of time. So the contract to complete the kitchen is not impossible but will take longer. At this time, the elderly couple has the option to discharge the contract in frustration but that would mean your boyfriend would not be able to ask for any further money because he has not completely fulfilled his obligation (unfair, but this is the law) as it was to complete the kitchen and the fact he hasn't done so, despite factors beyond his control, means that he would discharged without further cause for action - i.e. walk away. However, in this day and age, what person would walk away from an elderly couple with no kitchen?? Legally, he can do this but morally I doubt if he would, as would anyone. As they are elderly, maybe your boyfriend could assist them a little - Homebase may take the mick, and they MUST have another kitchen unit somewhere in the country as a replacement - if not the same, then a similar one? I can't believe they have nothing to offer. The couple can take the kitchen back and get a refund, and then go to B&Q, MFI or somewhere else and get one for him to fit if this is an option to you? With regards to the loss of earnings, your boyfriend would need to show evidence that he put time aside for this work - i.e. 5 days or however long it may have taken him. If the delay caused by Homebase meant that he had to cancel or turn down other work (and had evidence of this) he could then present a claim. However, has he got the time or patience (or indeed, evidence) to do this? The law of contract is complex, and the defendant in this case would be Homebase, but then there are disclaimers all over their receipts and delivery notes saying they will not be held responsible for a multitude of things - one of them is bound to be commercial loss, inconvenience or loss of earnings - and I doubt it would get far as well. I have the world of sympathy for your boyfriend and the elderly couple - non for Homebase, and think they should be challenged as far as you can go and make yourself heard!

2 years would be beyond the 'prescribed' time for faults to develop in any 'product' - of which, dogs are classed as 'goods' in the eyes of the law, which is why killing a dog is criminal damage...