My credit record has two 'defaults' registered, both originally Egg cards, but following a CCA request for the original docs they were unable to provide those, so in effect unenforceable. One of the entries is by Barclaycard(£5306) the other (£1285) by a DCA, Cabot, I've never had any correspondence from at all (though there have been 4 DCA's trying to get money!). Barclaycard registered a default date of 01/03/12, even though the DCA dealing with it at that time was Moorcroft. Cabot registered the other as 24/01/12. None of these 3 has ever sent any Default Notice of any kind. I understand the legally effective date from which a Statute Bar is applied is either a (lawful) Default Notice, or the last payment made by me to the alleged creditor. That date would be 01/07/11 -I have proof that was the last payment I ever made to Egg via CCCS as it used to be, now Foundation for CRE. I now want to get these two 'defaults' removed from my credit record -I know they will 'drop off' in a few months time,but I want to act now. How should I go about this? Thanks for any help!

I have been scouring the net looking for info on this issue but i literally cant find anything so hope someone can help! The NMW increase to 6.70 on 1st Oct is not being paid by my employer untill November, it seems wrong to me. So I asked for an explanation from them last year and the reason i got was ' we are midway through a payment cycle and it cant be changed' I wasnt happy but i did let it slide, however the same thing is happening this year and Im not letting it slide again. To clarify, the effective date is 1 Oct, i get paid 4 weekly, i am due to get paid tomorow (26th) and the cut off date was 18th October, so should I receive the increase for shifts done between the 1st and the 18th? Is this a legal requirement or a guide for employers? Hey i know its not a great deal of money but its not a small company (500 employees) and if they have pocketed a few quid from each and everyone of us it sharp mounts up! It irks me to get shafted especially when they themselves are penny pinchers. Thanks in advance.

Im going through an issue with work. Im finding the union is a little laid back. Nothing too major yet, but they're very reticent regarding action. Im a little worried they might be weak in the face of my Tribunal (They're the same ones who work with employees of a company which rhymes with 'Besco') I've been so worried ,I've approached a private company who do work on a 'fixed fee' basis. I can afford to go down the fixed fee route. I want to make sure my ex-employer really isn't left off the hook. Would anyone recommend a best route? Its the first time I've ever done this in 25 years of work. Im not asking for definitives, but in the face of an ineffectual union ,but with unlimited access to legal cover, or go for a fixed fee from a firm which I'll be the main focus ie. they'll be working directly for me. Are union legal cover as effective as paid private action?

Here are the current court fees which take effect from today 22nd April 2014. http://hmctsformfinder.justice.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex050-eng.pdf http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?421493-Court-fees-increase-from-22nd-April-2014 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2015/9780111127490

More support for the advice that you should not ignore completely but that you should make it clear that you are up for a fight. Here are some heavily redacted extracts:- Full horrible story here:- http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3698204.ece# Shocking. I had always thought that the United Kingdom Crown Prosecution Service has great integrity

Hi, At age 12 I was diagnosed with ADHD and have been treated with stimulants ever since. Because I was on them for so long, my system got used to them and recently I was moved to a MUCH stronger medication which is a restricted substance too. Despite having had a long history of high Blood Pressure, my GP REFUSES to carry on this ADHD treatment (or any) as the BP takes precedence (in her eyes). Luckily I have a week's worth left so i can pretty much keep a clear mind open, think straight and logically for the next week. I asked her NOT to remove me from the medication, and instead treat my high BP like she would any one else. She refused. I explained that WITHOUT my medication, I am unable to focus, I get badly forgetful, my motivation goes down the drain, I won't be able to do my work (I run some companies), and eventually spiral back down into the pit I was in several years ago when I wasn't being treated. She still refused. Surely I have the right to disagree with what she says? What REALLY concerns me is that not being on ANY medication for my ADHD will affect my companies, start me drinking again (which stopped when I went back on medication), end up with the spin-offs of ADHD again i.e. depression, anxiety and various anti-social disorders. The ADHD specialist which prescribed me this new load of treatment said if the high BP continues, then we are unable to help you any more. I don't give a flying **** about my BP, it's nice to be human again, work positively and be productive... Can ANYONE point me in the right direction as to where I can find out my rights... I'm an inch away from having a panic attack that my entire life will be pulled out from under my feet

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19952457

ECJ Gender directive. Background. Draft Directive on Equal Treatment On 2 July 2008, under its ‘Renewed Social Agenda’, the European Commission adopted a non discrimination package including a proposal for a new directive on equal treatment. This proposal prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, sexual orientation and religion or belief outside the employment sphere, in the areas of social protection, including social security and health care; education; and access to and supply of goods and services which are commercially available to the public, including housing and transport. The new directive would come on top of four other directives; one on discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin, both within and outside the labour market; one on discrimination in the labour market; one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to employment; and one on equal treatment between men and women as regards access to and supply of goods and services. On the 2nd April 2009 the proposed directive was adopted by the European Parliament. The Government Equalities Office ran a 12 week public consultation from 5 May to 28 July in 2009 on the Commission’s Proposal. It has since published a summary of the responses. Negotiations on the Directive are continuing in Europe. Gender Directive Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive allows Member States to permit differences relating to gender in respect of insurance premiums and benefits if gender is a determining risk factor and that can be substantiated by relevant, accurate, and regularly updated actuarial and statistical data. st On 1 March 2011,in its final ruling on the Test Achats case regarding the opt out in Article 5(2) of the Gender Directive2004 the European Court of Justice(ECJ)declared Article 5(2) to be void with effect from 21 December 2012. As of this date, all Member States must consider the provision to be invalid. The ruling applies from December 2012,however its impact on insurance contracts concluded prior to this date and on those that remain in force beyond it is not yet clear. Test Achats, the Belgian Consumer Association, originally brought their case, before the Belgian Constitutional Court in 2009. They argued that the opt out provision in Article 5(2) was contrary to the principle of gender equality as enshrined in primary Community law, and in particular to article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union**. The Belgian Constitutional Court referred the case to the ECJ. The Advocate General gave her opinion to the ECJ on 30 September 2010 that the derogation should be annulled. IMPLICATIONS; Car Insurance,Over a long period,Insurers calculated premiums based on whether a driver was male or female.although statics showed that there was little difference in the amount of accidents occurred between women and men,there is evidence to show that costs to address incidents by women for the Insurers were significantly less. Young and new drivers are expected to be hit the hardest and already face high premiums. Traditionally,drivers with no history gave women an upper hand as they were rated as a lower risk than male drivers. A report from one leading Insurance company in July 2012,has revealed that insurance for a new male driver averaged £1060 more than that of a female in the 17-25 age group. The new ruling means that this mode of decision making will be unlawful. It is expected that young womens policies will rise,whilst young mens will fall slightly,and could see a 10% benefit. Young women meanwhile could face increases of up to 25%. As the December deadline approaches,It is a good idea for those women likely to be affected to sort out policies ASAP. Another way of softening the blow is for drivers to consider telematics (Black Box technology) which give scope for young drivers to prove their abilities as safe drivers,and enjoy discounts as a result. LIFE INSURANCE The ruling is likely to impact on life and health insurance too,since women have longer life expectancy than men. Whilst there is not much information available at the moment,it is accepted that womens premiums are expected to rise,although not by the 25% expected in the case of young womens car insurance premiums.Index linked or guaranteed policies are unlikely to be affected. Variable premiums however,could see an increase or decrease. Some experts are suggesting that those with variable policies should think about switching to a fixed one,but consider that prices could go either way. As always The CAG suggests that you seek independent expert advise before making any decisions. HEALTH INSURANCE Little changes are forecast,since women and men already pay similar rates,although women could see a small drop in payments for Income Protection Policies,which pay out for sickness,with men seeing a slight rise in policy payments. Looking around for a better policy before December is an option for those who think they may benefit.