Care UK faces legal action unless it pays more than £3m in compensation READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/care-uk-faces-legal-action-unless-it-pays-more-than-3m-in-compensation

MasterCard is facing a multi-billion pound damages claim that could reach £19bn for imposing allegedly illegal card charges. The claim, the biggest in UK legal history, will be one of the first to be filed under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The Act enables a collective damages claim to be brought on behalf of a class of people who’ve suffered loss. MasterCard was found, following a long-running legal battle with the European Commission that ended in 2014, to have infringed EU law by imposing charges (known as ‘interchange’ fees) on the use of MasterCard debit and credit cards. MasterCard had the option to accept that its card fees were set at an anti-competitive, high level and reach a settlement with the European Commission to lower its fees. The individual bringing the claim, Walter Merricks CBE, believes that Mastercard did not accept this, and then imposed what he alleges were unlawfully high card fees for nearly 16 years. Mastercard says it firmly disagrees with the basis of the claim. The claim is being brought as class representative by Merricks, as representative of the class of UK consumers that have suffered loss. http://creditstrategy.co.uk/article/18379/online-news/mastercard-faces-19bn-claim-over-card-charges Mastercard to pay out £68 million over fees Mastercard have been ordered to pay Sainsbury's £68 million over excessive fees.The people at the Competition Appeal Tribunal awarded the damages to the supermarket for "interchange fees", which MasterCard had levied over a six year period. This means that a host of other retailers will be able to start their own claims against MasterCard, and the cases could total £400 million. This is slightly different from the case which might get customers compensated. This revolves around an interchange fee which retailers pay every time a customer uses a credit or debit card. It has been decided by the European Commission that fees of around 0.9% of the value of each card card transaction is too high, and they've now capped that to 0.3% for credit cards and 0.2% for debit cards. However, the tribunal also said that these fees were not being passed on to customers. This doesn't harm the other class action suit, where MasterCard are looking at a claim worth £19 billion, which could see consumers getting themselves £400 for excessive charges. http://www.bitterwallet.com/banking/mastercard-to-pay-out-gbp-68-million-over-fees-92647

The latest thing is the mis-selling of PCP car finance deals, according to the National Association of Commercial Finance Brokers (NACFB). They have said that lawyers have started to look at dealers and finance firms, to see if customers have been sufficiently informed about the higher interest rates for PCPs, and the like. With around a million cars being sold on PCP deals last year alone, if there's any deception found, this could be huge for the car industry, and indeed, very profitable for claims companies. If it is found that drivers have been poorly informed, or even deliberately mislead about PCP deals, there could be a lot of compensation flying around in the coming months. The NACFB said that two main things are being looked at. The first is that it is thought people taking out a PCP weren't warned that they'd be paying considerably more interest over the term of the loan, than the amount they'd be paying if they bought their vehicle under a hire purchase (HP) agreement. They're also looking at car salesmen, who may have told prospective buyers that, by considering PCP, they'll actually make a profit at the end of the contract, as the car they've bought is likely to be worth more than the final optional 'balloon payment' figure. http://www.bitterwallet.com/motoring/car-industry-faces-ppi-like-claims-92400

Argos owner Home Retail Group is setting aside at least £30m in compensation after admitting thousands of store card customers were overcharged. The company has launched a detailed review into the issue, which relates to "buy now, pay later" plans for some of the retailer's 1.5 million store card holders who were charged excess fees for late payments. Chief executive John Walden said it affected up to 10% of Argos card customers. They are expected to receive compensation of up to £100 each and Home Retail (Other OTC: HMRLF - news) will write to affected customers in the next few weeks. The group said it had found that "a more extensive customer redress programme" would be required than first thought when the issue was discovered earlier this year, increasing the likely cost by about £30m. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/argos-owner-faces-30m-bill-085323975.html?nhp=1

The following is a short extract from a press report in today's Daily Telegraph regarding the Reverend Paul Nicolson's forthcoming court appearance at Tottenham Magistrates Court: By the end of next week, Paul Nicolson could be facing prison and bankruptcy – an unexpected turn of events for an 84-year-old retired vicar who has never previously been in this type of trouble. On 15 June, he will appear at Tottenham magistrates court in north London for non-payment of council tax since 2013: he owes £2,831.42. Meanwhile, he must decide what to do about the £47,000 in costs awarded against him last month after he lost, in the high court, a case he brought against Haringey council over the level of court charges imposed on residents for non-payment of council tax. It is all a great deal of money that he doesn’t have, but he appears to be delighted at the potential scandal that the imprisonment of a retired vicar could stir up, and the useful attention that his case could bring to a little-understood aspect of welfare reform. “I am really not in the slightest bit afraid of prison,” Nicolson says. He is looking forward to his court appearance, where he will have the opportunity to explain why he has decided not to pay his bills. “One of the joys of refusing to pay,” he says, is that there is a “wonderful opportunity” to tell the story of why the 2013 abolition of a centralised council tax benefit has had such catastrophic consequences for hundreds of thousands of people. Tottenham’s magistrates would be wise to steel themselves for Nicolson’s 10 o’clock appearance in the dock, because his arguments are likely to be delivered with the mesmerisingly stern precision of a 1940s BBC newsreader. A group of protesters are due to gather outside the court in support of his campaign. http://www.theguardian.com/global/2016/jun/08/vicar-dibley-paul-nicolson-council-tax-refusing-benefit-cuts-jail-prison?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Scoop

The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) has launched enforcement action against Ryanair. This action follows a review by the regulator that found Ryanair is not complying fully with European consumer law designed to support passengers following flight disruption. Ryanair is now required to make policy changes or face the prospect of further enforcement steps leading to court action, if the airline remains non-compliant. The CAA has concluded that: • It is not satisfied that Ryanair is dealing with compensation claims for disruption caused by routine technical faults in line with applicable consumer law – this is despite the UK Court of Appeal (in the case of Jet2.com v Huzar) clarifying how such claims are to be treated and assurances given to the CAA by Ryanair; and, • Ryanair is attempting to impose a contractual two-year time limit, from the date of the flight, for passengers to issue compensation claims at court – despite previously publicly committing to a six year time limit and in spite of the UK Court of Appeal (Dawson v Thomson Airways) ruling that passengers have up to six years to issue such claims at court. Ryanair is now required to make policy changes or face the prospect of further enforcement steps leading to court action, if the airline remains non-compliant. https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2484

These are from a book called Disorder in the Courts and are things people actually said ...in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters that had the torment of staying calm while the exchanges were taking place. ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning? WITNESS: He said, 'Where am I, Cathy?' ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you? WITNESS: My name is Susan! _______________________________ ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact? WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active? WITNESS: No, I just lie there. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth? WITNESS: July 18th. ATTORNEY: What year? WITNESS: Every year. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you? WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which. ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you? WITNESS: Forty-five years. _________________________________ ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory? WITNESS: I forget.. ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot? ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning? WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam? ____________________________________ ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he? WITNESS: He's 20, much like your IQ. ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken? WITNESS: Are you sh*tting me? _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time? WITNESS: Getting laid ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: She had three children , right? WITNESS: Yes. ATTORNEY: How many were boys? WITNESS: None. ATTORNEY: Were there any girls? WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney? ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated? WITNESS: By death.. ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated? WITNESS: Take a guess. ___________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual? WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female? WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male. _____________________________________ ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney? WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work. ______________________________________ ATTORNEY: Doctor , how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people? WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight. _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to? WITNESS: Oral... _________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body? WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time? WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished. ____________________________________________ ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample? WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question? ______________________________________ And last: ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing? WITNESS: No.. ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy? WITNESS: No. ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor? WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar. ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless? WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.

Hi all, I have read up on some threads about fare evasion in general and felt that it would be useful if some experts could advise me on my specific case. So to lay it out - my girlfriend graduated last year and has been jobhunting for a while. She obtained a temporary job which required regular travel and i thought I could let her use my student oyster (she paid for travelcards herself). I personally used a PAYG oyster as I prefer to walk/cycle when the weather is nice and only tube when the weather is horrible. Obviously, she was caught at the station with my card and was informed that we would receive a letter from TfL soon and face prosecution having signed a statement of some sort. We realise now how stupid it was and would never do it again - a criminal record for a new graduate in the current climate would really ruin our lives. I should mention that this is a first time offence if it's not obvious. As i understand, we should soon be receiving a letter for TfL and a court summons shortly after. I intend on writing to the prosecution manager as soon as possible with an apology and hope that TfL will not continue with the prosecution (it's in my opinion that the prosecution would probably be successful. It's hard to deny that she was using my student card when it is linked to her bank account payments, as well as regular travel) Could you give me any advice on how to proceed? Specific advice on how to write the letter and what to include would be really much appreciated - what would construed as "exceptional circumstances" (referring to tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/revenue-enforcement-and-prosecutions-policy.pdf, section 8.3(e)? Any advice I would be incredibly grateful for. EDIT: Edit with details of questioning by the inspector: She was taken aside by the ticket inspector and was asked to show a valid ticket - she showed my card She was asked who's card it was - answered that it was mine and admitted that she had been using my card She was cautioned about upcoming questions Ticket Inspector asked questions, noting down questions and responses as follows: Do you realise you're not supposed to use someone's card? Yes - realised, but didn't realise seriousness of consequences Do you know it's an offence not to have a valid ticket? Yes What was your previous card for travel? Student Oyster card and recently graduated Do you have another card to use? No How long have you been using the card? November but unsure. Asked again who's card it was and reason for having it - boyfriend's card and used it because he began to cycle What is your occupation? Temporary work having recently graduated I'm not sure if this can help in any way but I thought the additional information may be useful to get a better idea of the situation.

At least 1,400 soldiers have received unfair sanctions, including dismissal and missed promotion, because the Army spent several years wrongly disciplining anyone who received a police caution. Minutes and briefing notes from two Army Justice Board meetings show that the Adjutant-General, the Army’s most senior personnel officer, knew as early as 2011 of the problem, which is related to changes in the law on rehabilitating offenders. It is unclear, however, whether those affected by the mistake have been informed that potentially career-ending penalties should not have been enforced against them. One senior army officer told The Times that compensating for the error could cost millions of pounds and that the damage to soldiers’ careers would be irreparable. “The Army has unlawfully taken action in 1,400 cases, including dismissing soldiers — and they are covering it up,” the officer claimed. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/defence/article3649756.ece Full article; http://www.arrse.co.uk/current-affairs-news-analysis/192588-times-army-faces-huge-bill-victims-rough-justice.html

Please read this very carefully. As you may be aware jbw enforcement limited has recently changed name and has also been reincorporated. As follows : J.B.W. GROUP LIMITED MIDAS HOUSE 62 GOLDSWORTH ROAD WOKING SURREY GU21 6LQ Company No. 04118149Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 01/12/2000 Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC(03)): 7487 - Other business activities Accounting Reference Date: 31/03 Last Accounts Made Up To: 31/03/2007 (FULL) Next Accounts Due: 31/01/2009 Last Return Made Up To: 01/12/2007 Next Return Due: 29/12/2008 Last Members List: 01/12/2007 Previous Names:Date of changePrevious Name25/09/2008J.B.W. ENFORCEMENT LIMITEDSo jbw 1 is now jbw group limited as of 25/09/08 look below and you have the new jbw enforcement limited which was incorporated on 25/09/08 Name & Registered Office: J.B.W. ENFORCEMENT LIMITED 16 HEWETT STREET LONDON ENGLAND EC2A 3NN Company No. 06708297 Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 25/09/2008 Country of Origin: United Kingdom Company Type: Private Limited Company Nature of Business (SIC(03)): None Supplied Accounting Reference Date: 30/09 Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED) Next Accounts Due: 25/06/2010 Last Return Made Up To: Next Return Due: 23/10/2009 The catch. If you were levied on by jbw enforcement ltd on or before the 25/09/08 then you need to address all complaints/claims etc to jbw group limited. If you are levied on after the 25/09/08 then it is jbw enforcement limited which you need to complain or claim against. It would not come as a surprise to anybody if jbw again change their name. How ever recently jbw enforcement 1 bought out the debt collector tj meagher. According to companies house this company is in liquidation. However this does not stop anybody from buying the debt ledger at silly money and then collecting of people ?