Hi, this is my first time on any forum so here i go. I drove into London not knowing what the sign you are entering a low emission zone incurred. I was sent 20 penalty notices in two batches to which i appealed, the county courts found in my favor and told me that they would take no further actions on the pnc's, but informed me that the tfl might not agree and they did not. TFL then sent me 20 copies of the original pnc's, i called them to tell my van complied to the low emission zone they asked me to send a picture of my vin plate which i did, that was in June of 2013. I heard no more them i thought the matter over. November 2013 i was sent 20 pnc's. to which i appealed they gave me four different dates for an adjudication hearing finally i got a date in August 2014. At the hearing they told me that they had sent me a warning letter i told them that i did not recived a warning letter, they then told me that every one in the country had been sent a letter explaining about the charge on entering the low emissinon zone in older vehicles. The adjudicator then said that she agreeded that i might not had been sent a warning letter - but ignorance was no excuse found in favor of TFL and the fines would stand and gave me 14 days to find £5000. I have not paid this is now up to £20,000 with the bailifs letters, i got to admit i burried my head in the sand with this. I just don't know which way to turn can you help? Many thanks

Hi All I have been having a battle with LLoyds over credit card default charges from 2004 and earlier. Lloyds rejected the case on the basis of it was over 6 years since I closed the card and also that they felt the the charges were appropriate, even tho I have refered to the OFT credit card statement. I referred the case to the FOS and the adjudicator has written back to advise that the charges of £12 are broadly in line with the actual and estimated costs with the legal principles of OFT April 2006 statement. The charges levied on my case were £36 a time not £12. Any help would be appreciated.

I moved out this month following a 12 year tenancy. I ended the tenancy (which had become a rolling tenancy) giving the requisite 1 rental period in notice. For a number of reasons such as health and bereavement that are not material, I was unable to get the property fully cleaned and returned in the state it was when I moved in. I fully expect to hve some costs taken from the £1000 deposit in respect of cleaning and disposing of the few things I did not have time to dispose of before moving out (I had several skips, but turnaround time meant there were a couple of old cupboards left - all spare time was spent taking things to storage so there wasn't time to dump these). My landlord says that the carpets are soiled beyond use and that there is blutac on the walls, and is threatening to take me to court for more than the amount of the deposit to have the carpet replaced and the house repainted. My question is not so much about the rights and wrongs of the case. It is this. I have made the landlord what I believe to be a very generous offer of £900 to cover a full professional clean and waste disposal. I believe that if the case went to adjudication or to court, he would be awarded a lower amount - the carpet was of a low quality and after 12 years I cannot find any guidelines that say it would be anything other than expected to be replaced - likewise the painting. Nonetheless, he refuses to go to adjudication (the deposit is protected under TDS) because he wants to pursue me for more than the deposit amount. Finally, the question is this: would the court take my offer into account when deciding whether to issue a judgement against me? If he goes to court and the court decides to award him less than the amount I have offered, would I still have a CCJ against my name, even thouh I am not contesting that amount? Or would I only be subject to a CCJ if he is awarded a higher amount? I can't seem to find any advice on this anywhere online. The letting agent has strongly advised me to settle for a higher amount out of court to avoid a CCJ - whether this is professional or not of them is another matter but I feel under pressure to pay more than I can afford or should have to pay. Thank you in advance

Volkswagen Group UK Ltd t/a Audi Yeomans Drive Blakelands Milton Keynes MK14 5AN Date: 27 March 2013 Media: Internet (on own site) Sector: Motoring Number of complaints: 1 Complaint Ref: A12-210019 Ad Claims on http://www.audi.co.uk, under the heading "Audi A3 TDI - the most fuel efficient Audi ever" stated "The A3 16 TDI is the most fuel-efficient Audi ever returning a quite remarkable 68.9mpg on a combined cycle". Issue The complainant, who had bought the car, challenged whether the claim "68.9mpg" was misleading and could be substantiated, because they had not been able to achieve that fuel consumption. CAP Code (Edition 12) 3.13.103.73.9 Response Volkswagen Group UK Ltd (VW) said the fuel consumption figure quoted was obtained from the manufacturer's tests carried out in accordance with Directive 93/116/EC as amended by Regulation (EC) 692/2008. VW explained that the complaint that a customer had been unable to achieve a quoted fuel consumption figure in real-life driving was occasionally encountered by motor vehicle manufacturers and distributors. Fuel consumption figures did not give an accurate representation of the actual fuel consumption which could be expected from any particular vehicle and were provided only to enable comparisons between different vehicles or models. They pointed out that the VCA (the designated UK Vehicle Type Approval authority) themselves made clear that new car fuel consumption and CO2 emissions official figures were not fully representative of real life driving conditions because of the need to maintain strict comparability of results achieved by the standard tests that were carried out. There were also infinite variations in driving styles and in road, car and weather conditions, all of which could have a bearing on the results achieved. For these reasons the consumption achieved on the road would not necessarily accord with the official test results. They believed that the basis of the VCA guidance was well known by consumers and said the use of such figures in this context and in motor vehicle advertising generally, without explanation as to the way such figures were produced or whether they were representative of real-life driving, was completely standard across the industry. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted that, as VW had explained, the means by which fuel efficiency figures for vehicles should be calculated was set out in European legislation. In practice this was a set of test drive cycles conducted under controlled conditions that produced figures that showed the vehicle's efficiency in urban and extra-urban (faster moving) scenarios. These two figures were then averaged to give a third figure, known as the combined figure, and it was that figure which was given in the website claim. We understood the website had given the correct figure for the model advertised. We understood that such figures, by their nature, had to be generated under test conditions so that consumers could compare them on a like-for-like basis. However, we considered that it was unlikely to be clear to the average consumer that the figure quoted was based on a standardised test and was not necessarily representative of what they would achieve when driving the car themselves. For that reason we considered that VW should have qualified the figure to make clear to readers that it was based on an EU test for comparative purposes and may not reflect real driving results. Because they had not done so we concluded that the claim breached the Code. The claim breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1, 3.3 (Misleading advertising), 3.9 and 3.10 (Qualification) We also investigated the claim under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 3.7 (Substantiation) but did not find it in breach. Action We told VW to ensure they qualified official fuel consumption figures to make clear that they were official EU test figures to be used as a guide for comparative purposes and may not reflect real driving results