There is a huge amount of misinformation regarding the forcing of entry for court fines. In the first instance, a separate warrant is not necessary and is not a requirement. For the avoidance of doubt, forced entry is permitted by the warrant itself. It is not used that often and in most cases, is used where a debtor refuses to engage with the enforcement agent. It is sadly the case that forced entry has also taken place because the debtor himself has been wrongly advised of the legal position. As an example, on Saturday, I received an enquiry where a locksmith was present. In that particular case, the debtor had paid a lot of money (approx £150) to have a statutory declaration prepared claiming that he did not own any of the goods within the house. He was told that the enforcement agent must accept this document as evidence and that he was therefore not allow to gain entry. These statutory declarations are causing a lot of problems at the moment.

Hi Bakatcha, The reason why I am contacting you is connected with my own dilemma with INGEUS!! I have been out of work for sometime & it's tough. The job centre has placed me on a mandatory work program with INGEUS & sadly it's lasted longer than expected. My advisor is using unorthodox ways to find work for me and somewhat intrusive. My advisor thinks it's a good idea if he watches me use the computer when I search/apply for jobs and he also wants me to possibly visit INGEUS on a daily basis. He also thinks it's a good idea if he applies for vacancies without me performing this task and I strongly disagree with that! He even suggested that I sit down with him & log onto my email account so he can check all the jobs I apply for each week, unacceptable in my opinion and I wondered what you make of this.

Hi all, new to the forum and came here because a search on the interweb gave some great information from this site. My problem is that I bought a Dodge Journey diesel auto in April last year. As the garages warranty had run out, and I had some spare cash, decided to take a warranty out as Im not dripping with cash and as this is the most expensive car I had (with finance) wanted to ensure I could always get it repaired. It seemed good timing as less around a month later and with 730+ miles extra on the clock, when pulling out of a junction on my way to work, the gearbox gave up with a big bang and would not move I called WarrantyWise who advised me to take to a VAT registered garage etc and get them to call them. The first garage I went to, a normal place, would not check it as they said it would need to be looked at by a specialist. I then booked in with a gearbox garage, who would deal with warranty firm as well (altho, the man on the reception gave me some horror stories bout warranty wise - couldn't happen to me could it?) The garage have deducted that the mechatronic unit has failed, leading to issues with the clutch etc - Im not sure of the full details but in total they advised to repair would cost around £4,500. They sent the details to warranty wise who requested an independent inspection, the garage requiring my authority at this time as this would mean them having to fully strip the garbox so would then put me into a £6-800 debt with them. I decided to go ahead as required repairing but then......an email advising claim denied. They have denied with the following information : "The reason for the decline is your repairer wishes to replace the following parts on your vehicle: 1) MECHATRONIC UNIT ASSEMBLY 2) FRONT CLUTCH ASSEMBLY 3) GASKETS/SEALS,FILTERS,OIL Unfortunately the Mechatronic assembly is specifically excluded on the 9.4 08/80 level of cover you currently hold and therefore we cannot consider this request. We have also received the independent engineers report and he has concluded that the forward/dual clutch has become damaged consistent with a failure of the mechatronic unit and is a fault common to this particular type of transmission which the repairers have previous experience of. The independent engineer would also have to consider in all reasonable probability that due to the elapsed mileage since plan inception he would have to consider the fault to be progressive and that the fault would have been developing at the time of plan inception or at best the unit was compromised leading to the current defect." In respect of the exclusion of the mechatronic unit, this is due to the following information re gearbox and transmissions : "Parts included : All Internal mechanical and electrical parts of gearbox, transfer gearbox, torque convertor and overdrive (but excluding SMG and DSG hydraulic actuator, internal oil cooler or radiator)" I have now checked on the internet and would seem that the hydraulic actuator is within the mechatronic unit, so I honestly am not sure where I would stand on this. When I mentioned this to WW, they advised that as te mechatronic unit is not an internal part of the gearbox, this is not covered anyway (although, I again have pointed them to several sites where it advises this unit sits inside the DSG). But as I say, Im not a mechanic so I may be totally wrong and it may be an excluded part. What has irked me, and Im hoping someone can really help me with on here, is the fact they are using wear and tear, and the fact that this unit is well known for being a problem, to deny the rest of the claim. The car was running fine up until that moment, so as it requires repair before being able to be used, this should be down to sudden and unexpected failure. As I have advised them, all the reviews I read none of them mentioned an issue with this gearbox (it was normal car reviews) so how would I, a layman, have known there was issues with this? They seem to be using the fact that as these boxes are well known in 'the trade', then that should have been all I needed to know. There is a lot more I could put on here, but if anyone could try and help me and would like more information, please let me know. Thanks

Pension Wise Pensions will change in April 2015. If you’re 55 or over and have a defined contribution pension (a pension based on how much has been paid into your pot), it’s your decision how you take the money. Pension Wise will be a free and impartial service to help you understand what your choices are and how they work. In order to protect consumers from imitators of the service and ensure the guidance brand is trusted, the government will make the imitation of Pension wise illegal through the Pension Schemes Bill. Anyone seeking to pass themselves off as the service could face prosecution. How the pension guidance service can help You’ll be able to get help on the Pension Wise website, over the phone or face to face about: what you can do with your pension pot the different pension types and how they work what’s tax-free and what’s not Register your interest Pension Wise is coming soon and you can register your interest to get early access to the service. You’ll get help and guidance, as well as being able to give feedback about how the service can be improved. More help and guidance You can get help now with pensions by reading about: the State Pension calculator the new State Pension planning your retirement income You can also get information about pensions from: The Pensions Advisory Service The Money Advice Service

In 2011, MBNA got a bit heavy with my husband by doubling his minimum payments even when he said he couldn't afford them. He got a phone call a week or so later from a company called Wise 2 Debt who claimed to be a government funded debt management company who would deal with the MBNA on his behalf and get the interest frozen and to ignore any letters from MBNA and they would deal with it if he just paid them a fixed amount every month. An agreement was made and the letters kept coming from MBNA but they were ignored, as advised. Eventually he rang MBNA who said that hey hadn't received any payments at all when he had paid Wise 2 Debt approx. £1500 over the best part of a year. He was served with a default notice which shouldn't be there as he was paying it but they weren't passing on the money. Wise 2 Debt shut down and re-opened as Lloyd Anderson. We wrote to the Ombudsmen who agreed that Lloyd Anderson should refund the money but we are still waiting over a year later since they told them this. If any one could advise me as to a) who is the authority on these matters and who can force them to cough up, and b) how would we go about getting the default notice removed from his credit record? Any advice much appreciated!