Jump to content

Showing results for tags 'theory'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Helpful Organisations
    • The Bear Garden – for off-topic chat
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
    • Non-Retail subforums
    • Retail Subforums
  • Work, Social and Community
    • Work, Social and Community Subforums:
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
    • Debt subforums:
    • PayDay loan and other Short Term Loans subforum:
  • Motoring
    • Motoring subforums
  • Legal Forums
    • Legal Issues subforums

Categories

  • News from the National Consumer Service
  • News from the Web

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Location

Found 3 results

  1. The cost of car and motorcycle theory tests will drop from £25 to £23 for tests taken from 1 October 2015. Theory test fees for other types of vehicle will also be reduced at the same time. Book tests at the new price The changes apply to theory tests taken from 1 October 2015. You can now book tests for this date onwards. You'll have to pay the old fee if you choose a test date before 1 October 2015. Find out more about the changes to theory test fees.
  2. Tougher rules to let customers exit their contract New rules being introduced by Ofcom will let broadband customers exit their contract at any time if they aren’t getting the speed quoted by their provider. Currently customers can only cancel their broadband deal penalty free within the first three months of the contract. After that time they are charged a penalty fee to exit, even if their broadband speed is slow. Under the new rules customers can cancel at any time, if the speed they receive is slower than the speed they were quoted when they signed up. http://www.which.co.uk/news/2015/06/slow-broadband-speeds-now-you-can-cancel-406021/ That's the theory, meanwhile in the real world: Three in four households pay for internet speeds they never receive – but very few can use new Ofcom rules to switch providers More than 13 million households who pay for internet speeds they never receive are unable to use new rules allowing people to exit slow broadband contracts. As well as the headline speed, the provider must give a so-called "minimum guaranteed" speed. This is the highest speed available to the slowest 10 per cent of households in their customer base. The new rules introduced by Ofcom last week allow people to leave contracts early only if the speed is below this "minimum" level. Experts said it was therefore likely that just 10 per cent of the 22 million British households with broadband will be able to make use of the new rules to leave their provider. Customers who receive speeds just above the minimum threshold may be unable to argue their cases and will face fees to terminate their contract early. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/shopping-and-consumer-news/11682353/Millions-with-slow-broadband-cant-use-new-exit-rules.html ADVERTISING
  3. First hello all - and a big thank you to this site: Okay, I am not going to reproduce the whole of my case here (it will get lengthy...), but focus on the relevant features with respect to a sketch of an argument I am thinking about. I probably won't use this argument in my N244 application to set aside a judgment, mostly because I think I have other tried and true options available, but then if a good response comes, maybe... Case history (super short version) *MBNA credit card... health problems... late payment... negotiation... CCJ... Charging order (note they were ******s, and after they sent the account to Reston's I found out what '******' really means...) Okay, some more relevant background to the issue and argument: *House has NEGATIVE equity and unlikely to improve for a long time *claimaint not seeking to force sale *in fact, claimant refusing to let me IVA or bankrupt *I am making small payments to which they have agreed *they are not charging interest at this point *CCA request produced a statement of account without any mention of default *But account was registered as in default way back when with a CFA Okay, yes, I am aware that the default thing is where I can probably get a set aside on the CCJ and is my best bet, but my argument and question and issue here is a little different: First, why would they take the time and cost etc to pursue this charging order? There is absolutely no hope of recouping losses whatsoever, and may well never be. Answer I think is that it allows them to treat the debt as a secured debt now on paper and, especially by not recognizing this debt as in default anymore, and receiving regular agreed payments, it might almost actually look like a good debt on paper.... This is my guess. Now, if this is what it is about, then this is what they tried to get out of the charging order, right? And in my case, it is conceivable that this can be demonstrated rather well. I think. However, what I am wondering is whether they can seek a charging order NOT to enforce payment of debt (remember, it seems they do NOT want me actually to pay off the debt or negotiate, etc.) but rather to set up a secured debt. The distinction is subtle and it turns on the meaning of 'debt' and other issues, but for example, they could not enforse the debt by lots of means, including sending me to Australia. What I have been looking for here are the precise acts and rules upone which the charging order directions are based - and, importantly, an overview of the principle Stare Decisis over no doubt a long history, and a sense of the basic legal philosophy that has informed the way these charging laws have evolved. So, consider: Suppose the claimant has a judgment and they are now seeking enforcement. Now suppose that I have a goose, and my good just so happens to lay golden eggs from time to time. However, because the goose is rather fussy, it will only do this while in my possession, and for some reason it will only lay eggs for me. And so it is IMPOSSIBLE for me to sell. Now because this goose is so odd it is widely known to perform in this curious way and there are a lot of creditors out there, for example, who would be very happy to trust that I would pay them back if they lent me money. Afterall, I have these golden eggs from time to time... Now, could the claimant seek enforcement NOT by taking the goose from me, nor even the eggs, but rather by having an (IMPOSSIBLE to realize) right to the goose should I ever sell it? Could they then sell this right to another party for the silver they want? Suppose they could, and moreover, they can sell that impossible right for more silver than the ccj they have attached to my a*s. What significance would that introduce? Suppose it was a LOT more... Hopefully my sketch is bringing out the sallient points. Would really love to hear / read some legal thinking on this issue... Cheers! Pilot
×
×
  • Create New...