Santander is to close 140 branches, putting 1,270 jobs at risk, the Spanish-owned bank said.The lender said the closures are in response to how customers are choosing to carry out their banking. Santander has consulted unions on the proposed changes and will seek to find alternative roles for the 1,270 staff members affected, wherever possible. The bank expects to be able to redeploy around a third of that number. Susan Allen, Santander’s head of retail and business banking, said: “The way our customers are choosing to bank with us has changed dramatically in recent years, with more and more customers using online and mobile channels. “As a result, we have had to take some very difficult decisions over our less-visited branches, and those where we have other branches in close proximity. More ...... https://uk.yahoo.com/finance/news/santander-branch-closures-spanish-owned-101010907.html

MOD confirms death of Lance Corporal George Partridge READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-confirms-death-of-lance-corporal-george-partridge My Condolences to the Family, Friends and Regiment RIP

MOD confirms the death of Corporal Jonathan Bayliss, Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team (The Red Arrows) READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mod-confirms-the-death-of-corporal-jonathan-bayliss-royal-air-force-aerobatic-team-the-red-arrows Such sad news my Condolences to his Family/Friends/those who new him and served with him RIP.

MOD confirms the death of Captain Dean Sprouting READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/captain-dean-sprouting-has-died

Devon County County (16 017 119) Decision date: 17th August 2017. Published on the LGO website: 17th November 2017 Vulnerability and bailiff enforcement is a subject that is of great importance and sadly, it is a subject that is very much misunderstood. The LGO have made a number of decisions regarding the 'definition' of vulnerability and the following case is another one where the LGO confirm that a 'vulnerable' debtor must provide evidence to demonstrate how their vulnerability affects their ability to deal with the debt. PS: The following is a shortened copy of the decision. A full copy can be accessed from the link at the foot of the post. Background: (9) Mr B has received 5 penalty charge notices (PCN) for parking offences since 2014. A parking enforcement officer placed two on the car and Mr B received three through the post. On the telephone, Mr B told me that he did not take account of parking laws as he believes there is a law from the year 1600 that means he can’t be fined and so can park anywhere. (16) The Council has said that Mr B first used the words’ vulnerable’ about his wife and him both having Blue Badges on 3 December 2015. (17) The Council said it advised Mr B on 5 July to contact the bailiffs for them to consider his ‘vulnerability’ and for him to provide them with whatever evidence they need to confirm his status as vulnerable. The Council advised Mr B that if the bailiff did deem his to be a vulnerable household the Council would withdraw the warrant and cease activity. (18) The Council said Mr B did not supply the bailiffs with supporting evidence. It has said the blue badge issued to Mr B, shows they have met the criteria of limited mobility to have a blue badge issued but may not necessarily be vulnerable. (19) The Council says that Mr B thinks that his vulnerability means that he is exempt from paying these fines. The Council says it disagrees with Mr B’s interpretation. It considers he is still liable to pay these fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how these fines are paid, e.g. deferring payment periods, accepting lower instalments until debts paid. (20) The Council has asked Mr B to provide supporting written evidence of his ‘vulnerability’ for it to find out if there are other conditions from which he suffers that may fit his interpretation of vulnerability, e.g. Mental health, depression, post- traumatic stress, at risk of self-harm, inability to understand and engage with the process. The Council says that if Mr B does meet any of these criteria, then it may withdraw the warrants and close the cases. Mr B has not provided supporting evidence. Analysis from the Local Government Ombudsman: (23) Mr B complained a business centre issued the warrants rather than a court and so were invalid. The TEC is the court appointed by the Secretary of State and the Department of Transport to deal with registration of debts arising from penalty charge notices. I can find no fault on this point. (24) Mr B complains the bailiffs did not have the correct warrants. The Council has said the court sends the warrants electronically and so there are no paper copies. For completeness, I will ask the Council to send me its electronic records showing the warrants but I can see no evidence of fault on this point. (25) Mr B believes that under the Taking Control of Goods National Standards 2010, (updated 2015) as soon as he told the bailiff company finds out he is vulnerable (with no explanation) they have to withdraw. He believes that he does not need to provide details of his details of his vulnerability; it is then the Council’s job to prove he isn’t. (26) The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, part 2, regulation 10 set out the circumstances in which an enforcement agent may not take control of goods. It says an enforcement agent may not take control of goods of a debtor where a child or vulnerable person is the only person present. The legislation does not give any further guidance about how a vulnerable person is defined. (27) Mr B told the Council he was a vulnerable person. However, he has not explained why he considers he is vulnerable. He considers that it is the Council’s job to prove he is not. (28) It cannot be right that a person can say they are vulnerable and all outstanding debts are written off without them giving further information. If this was the case, then there would be no way for the Council to enforce any debt collection as anybody could claim vulnerability without evidence. I do consider it reasonable for Mr B to explain why he considers himself to be vulnerable. (29) In any case, a vulnerable person still has to pay the fines, but any vulnerability means the Council has to consider extra discretion over how the debtor pays the fines, e.g. deferring payment periods or accepting lower instalments. It should also allow the vulnerable person time to get help and advice. (30) I have found no fault in the Council’s actions. The Council gave Mr B the opportunity to appeal the PCN’s and to appeal to the court. No further recovery action has been taken once he told the bailiffs and Council he is vulnerable. However, I do consider it reasonable for him to give details of his vulnerability if he wants the Council to consider removing the warrants. http://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/transport-and-highways/parking-and-other-penalties/16-017-119

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/aug/16/daniel-craig-confirms-he-will-play-james-bond-again

Ever since it was known that the government were intending to introduce the 'Interpleader/Third Party' provision into the new regulations it has been my personal opinion that this clause will lead to a significant number of complaints. I am more convinced than ever before of this. Most seriously was the fact that at the Consultation stage it was made very clear that an enforcement agent would only be able to charge a relatively modest sum (of £110) if goods were to be removed and that this fee would cover all costs including the removal through to the sale of vehicles (or household goods). It was a dreadful shock to discover months ago that enforcement agents would also be able to charge daily STORAGE fees for all goods removed. This was NEVER the intention at Consultation stage and MOJ confirmed that as a direct result of the introduction of the 'Third Party Interpleader' clause that it became necessary to apply STORAGE fees. In other words...all debtors will now be charged daily storage fees as a direct consequence of the introduction of a clause that should in effect on apply to a very small number of debtors !!! The introduction of daily storage fees will almost certainly lead to enforcement agents finding that the immediate removal of goods is financially very rewarding for the company. In the past few weeks I have written a number of urgent letters to the Ministry of Justice (and others) as I was aware from conversations with various enforcement companies that they would be looking at 'immediate removal' of goods given that the statutory regulations had been drafted in such a way so as to allow the 'sale fee' (of £110) to be applied to the account at the point when a bailiff 'attended to remove' (in other words..when a call has been made to the office to 'send a removal vehicle'. The current position under the regulations in force today is that this is referred to as an 'aborted van fee' (and highly questionable). Under the new regs, the charging of this fee would be LEGAL. It would seem that the enforcement industry themselves are now worried that what I had been highlighting for many weeks may well be about to happen !!! Below is a 'word copy' of an article that features in a trade magazine today.

The following is a link to an excellent press story featured today regarding the frankly pathetic shambles of private parking enforcement and proof once again that "cowboy clampers" have indeed turned into "cowboy ticketers" . The article also states that apparently POPLA are struggling with appeals and that DVLA have made a fortune from selling personal data. As you will also see, BPA are confirming that CEL are under "investigation" for their failure to abide by the BPA's "recommendations" by capping the maximum charge of their tickets at £100 !!! Only a few days ago local authorities were stunned by the surprise joint Press Release from DCLG and the DfT regarding the plans to curb CCTV cameras because of the damage that was being done to the high street by the excessive ticketing of motorists by local authorities. There can be no doubt that DfT will be putting "private parking companies" under investigation ( if they are not already doing so). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2442223/Private-spy-cameras-used-tickets-clamping-banned-private-land.html

Hi guys Found this here