Hi all Just wanted a bit of help for my daughter if possible. She's a single parent on benefits, and unbeknown to me, she took a couple of doorstep loans out with a company called GR Finance Ltd. Now, she's having trouble paying them. This isn't enitirely her fault, although she should accept much of the blame. She missed a payment before Christmas, but paid it a few days later by debit card. Then the company tried to take the following weeks payment + the missed payment by direct debit (I believe) which bounced due to the extra amount being taken that she wasn't aware of. She then got a bank charge, which left her short and so on. they were charging her card under a CPA and there were bits of money coming out of her account all over the place she asked for a statement of exactly what had been paid etc, and said she wouldn't pay any more until she got it. She got a spreadsheet on excel which she couldn't make head nor tail of, and nor could I, She asked them for something straighforward, showing payment dates, and balances, but they said that was all they would give her. Since then she hasn't paid anything. They are constantly ringing and texting her, and have spoken to her mother, who doesn't even live with her, regarding her debt and missed payments, which they had no authority to do. She can't afford the £20 a week, and should never have taken the loans out, which is her fault, but if they had done proper affordability checks, they shouldn't have granted her any loans either, certainly not the second one, She has tried to offer them a lower payment and asked they freeze the interest, but they point blank refuse to accept anything lower, and would not give her an address to write to (which I see has happened before from another thread on here). Today she got the letter attached, seems completely unprofessional to me, no company number, no CCL number, and when I've searched the company name is actually G R Finance not GR Finance as shown on the letter. The letter also makes it sound as though she will be facing a criminal court, stating 'if you are found guilty' surely that can't be legal? got any advice on what to do, not just on how to go about making an offer of lower payment (now she has an address) but how to respond to the letter and if she has grounds for complaint to anyone about it? Only things I've done to the letter is remove personal information. Many thanks

So, today I had a puncture on the motorway, managed to get the spare on and drove straight to Kwik Fit at Manor Royal in Crawley, which is just a few yards from my work.. Several things happened that are obviously dubious, and repeated thousands of times all over the web where Kwik Fit is concerned. 1. The sales guy tried to quote for new tyres even before he inspected the flat one. 2. When he did look, he pointed out hairline cracks that were found to be superficial by the Mercedes garage. 3. He said both back tyres needed replacing 4. He then checked the front tyres, of which I had to let him down on a sale by telling him they had been replaced two days ago with its new MOT ! 5. The price quoted to replace was £384 , this is TWICE as much as any other garage, including Guy Salmon Jaguar just meters away. 6. The two rear tyres were subsequently inspected and found both to be repairable. So, its very probable that they wont take any notice of this complaint, or even respond, so, in one weeks time I will post this email to all 7000 employees of the company I work for, warning them, although, the ones I have spoken to already are well aware of just these issues first hand with Kwik Fit. Its no wonder Kwik Fit Crawley (Manor Royal) has no cars in for repair...

Hi, I am (unfortunately) having to go to through an employment tribunal process against my present employer. I had an initial case management discussion meeting (CMD) a few months ago. At that meeting my employer's legal representative stated that my employer intended to call several witnesses. The names of these witnesses were not listed in the CMD agenda - even though I had openly listed the names and number of my potential witnesses - and I had expected the employer's side to do the same thing for the CMD meeting. My employer's legal representative stated at the CMD that they (the employer's legal rep) didn't know the names of witnesses, just the number to be called. I have since emailed my employer's internal Legal section several times requesting a list of witnesses names. My employer's Legal section has not even acknowledged receipt of my email requests let alone supply me with the list of names. This refusal to name their witnesses has the potential to weaken my case. Indeed one or two employees which I have sounded out as potential witnesses on my side have instead bailed out (which is unfortunately somewhat understandable in these days of job cuts) explaining that they were doing so because they might actually be called as witnesses on behalf of my employer (which is a lot less easier to forgive I must say!). I'm not interested in recriminations against any of my co-workers who may actually stand as a witness for the employer (I really don't have the enery left for it apart from anything else). However I do feel that I should be entitled to know who may have been 'bagged' for the other side! Does anyone know if I do have a right to know who these employer-side witnesses are and if so, can I make my employer disclose this list of witnesses asap? Any advice would be most welcome.

I am thinking about sending this letter to Bannatynes as they are threatening to take me to court. Please let me know what you think. Thank you. Without prejuice : I am writing to express how very disappointed I am with your company. I feel you have failed to address my complaints, and your use of heavy handed collection techniques which I believe have no place in the business of dealing with consumers, as stated in the unfair contract term act 1977. I feel no contract has been broken myself, as I have signed no contract with you. so no terms and conditions were told to me. I believe I need a membership card with a picture of myself to use your facilities I have not received or used, ( i.e set foot in your gym.) I contacted yourselves to cancel my contract within 14 days of the contract starting, stating that I myself did not sign the contract which was in my name. I was informed that I was unable to cancel as it was a 12 month contract, which was very strong. I contacted Sue Roberts the club administor of Ashford kent branch and left messages but received no reply. So i feel that unfair terms in the consumer contacts regulations were have been apposed upon me, so will not stand up in a court of law. I will defend my case and costs will be awarded to me. So far I have paid £480 for faciilties i have never used, didn't sign a contract for and didn't want. As a good goodwill gesture I would have imagined Bannatyne's Health club would have at least changed the membership into my wife's name so she could at the very least use the facilities i was paying for. This was not the case. After speaking with your company several times about the fact that the contract is in the name of Mr x, but not signed by the same name, i would now like a copy of this contract sent to me along with my membership card, which up to this point i have never seen. Please understand that i have tried to resolve this matter with yourselves on several occasions, but since you have now threatened me with a CCJ, i feel i have exhausted every avenue with you. Please find enclosed copies of some case law that i have found relevant to this case, which i am sure the judge will find most useful. For the measure of damages in contract, see 12 Halsbury's Laws (4th edn) paras 1174-1176 and for a case on the subject, see 17(2) Digest (2nd reissue) 248, 1271. Cases referred to in judgments Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488, [1908-10] All ER Rep 1, HL. Bank of New South Wales v Milvain (1884) 10 VLR 3, Vic Full Ct. Bliss v South East Thames Regional Health Authority [1987] ICR 700, CA. Brown v KMR Services Ltd [1995] 4 All ER 598, CA. Davidson v Barclays Bank Ltd [1940] 1 All ER 316. Evans v London and Provincial Bank (1917) 3 LDAB 152. Gibbons v Westminster Bank Ltd [1939] 3 All ER 577, [1939] 2 KB 882. Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341, [1843-60] All ER Rep 461, 156 ER 145. Heron II, The, Koufos v C Czarnikow Ltd [1967] 3 All ER 686, [1969] 1 AC 350, [1967] 3 WLR 1491, HL. Joyce v Sengupta [1993] 1 All ER 897, [1993] 1 WLR 337, CA. Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v Karlshamns (AB) Oljefabriker [1949] 1 All ER 1, [1949] AC 196, HL. Parsons (H) (Livestock) Ltd v Uttley Ingham & Co Ltd [1978] 1 All ER 525, [1978] QB 791, [1977] 3 WLR 990, CA. President of India v La Pintada Cia Navegacion SA [1984] 2 All ER 773, [1985] AC 104, [1984] 3 WLR 10, HL. Rae v Yorkshire Bank plc [1988] BTLC 35, CA. Rolin v Steward (1854) 14 CB 595, 139 ER 245. Wilson v United Counties Bank Ltd [1920] AC 102, [1918-19] All ER Rep 1035, HL. Cases also cited or referred to in skeleton arguments Hill (Christopher) Ltd v Ashington Piggeries Ltd, Christopher Hill Ltd v Fur Farm Supplies Ltd (Norsildmel, third party) [1969] 3 All ER 1496, CA; rvsdsub nom Ashington Piggeries Ltd v Christopher Hill Ltd, Christopher Hill Ltd v Norsildmel [1971] 1 All ER 847, [1972] AC 441 HL. Marzetti v Williams (1830) 1 B & Ad 415, [1824-34] All ER Rep 150, 109 ER 842. Prehn v Royal Bank of Liverpool (1870) LR 5 Exch 92. Seven Seas Properties Ltd v Al-Essa (No 2) [1993] 3 All ER 577, [1993] 1 WLR 1083. Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd (Couldson & Co Ltd, third party) [1949] 1 All ER 997, [1949] 2 KB 528, CA. Appeal and cross-appeal By notice dated 18 May 1994 the plaintiff, Udele Edirin Kpohraror, appealed from the decision of Master Tennant in chambers on 16 February 1994 whereby he awarded the plaintiff damages of £5,500 in respect of an action for breach of contract for wrongful dishonouring of his cheque against the defendants, Woolwich Building Society, contending that he was also entitled to recover special damages for loss of profit on the transaction and on ten further shipments which would have followed from it. By notice dated 7 June 1994 the defendants cross-appealed against the award on the ground that the plaintiff was only entitled to nominal damages. The facts are set out in the judgment of Evans LJ. Daphne Loebl (instructed by Anthony Gold Lerman & Muirhead) for the plaintiff. Katherine McQuail (instructed by Morgan Bruce, Cardiff) for the defendants. Cur adv vult I look forward to a speedy response. Yours Sincerley Mr x