Hi all, Just after some advise as this may be a bit different to other people cases. Today I received a Parking Eye "Parking Charge Notice". It's my car which my wife drove to take me to hospital, she paid using the Pay By Phone app, however she entered her cars registration by mistake. I worry she done this again the following day also! I've appealed and sent a copy of our proof (screenshot with incorrect registration on it) but now I'm wondering should I of come here first before quickly rushing into an appeal? 1 Date of the infringement - 13/09/2018 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] - 27/09/2018 3 Date received - 01/10/2018 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] NO 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? YES 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] YES APPEAL - I have received a Parking Charge Notice for my car, which my wife was driving at the time taking me to hospital. We made payment using the Pay By Phone app, and once I received this letter have only realised that payment was made however it was made for our other car (*OTHER REG*) as my wife has often used her car to make payments as she has been to the hospital a lot recently (as I’m sure you can check by her registration). Unfortunately this has been a simple error and I attach proof that the payment was made and you'll be able to confirm this as her car *OTHER REG* did not enter the hospital car park on this day. Have you had a response? [Y/N?] NO 7 Who is the parking company? Parking EYE 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] - Sunderland Royal Hospital

Contravention Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force (code 02) Parked the car in a suitable spot and used my trusty phone to book and pay for my ticket, the app took the payment and allowed me to park from 16;25pm to 10;00am the next day. At 1653pm I was given a ticket for the above contravention...why? They took my money then 28 minutes of parking they gave me a ticket. The app also tells you when you cannot park in a retricted zone by not taking your money and sends a flash message on screen telling you the zone is closed, on this occassion it sent no such message hence why I parked in this zone. Also there was no visable signage indicating the parking restrictions. Photos are available. I appealed but got told the ticket was issued correctly, Yes it probably was but why take my money on the understanding I can park for 17.5hrs only to book for less than half hour parking...I feel I have been [problem]med. I have now waited for the NTO and want to appeal on the grounds the app has a major flaw. On the other hand they council rely on the effectiveness of the app but will not recognise there is a flaw with it.

Hello Caggers, Hope I am posting in the right area - I would appreciate some advice please on text messages I am receiving from NatWest regarding 'getting their mobile App'. We are at a slatemate as I perceive them to be marketing texts, which I am opted out of, but NatWest are insistent that these are service texts and is a communication which can be relevant to the maintenance of my account. I would like some advice as to whether I should be persuing this further and if so, how. I'll give you the back story, apologies if this is lengthy: In November 2016, after finally having had enough of the numerous text messages I was receiving from NatWest, I made a formal complaint and asked for the messages to stop. In December 2016, NatWest sent their response saying that they did not uphold my complaint as I had been opted out of marketing information on all platforms since 2011 and that these messages were service texts which I agreed to receive as per their terms and conditions. Whilst I was prepared to concede that messages informing me of how much I could put into my ISA account would be "relevant to the operation and maintenance of my account", I did not feel that text messages asking me to sign up to a Rewards account for a monthly fee, engaging in Twitter discussions and messages encouraging me to download their App (complete with web link) were relevant and sought assistance from the Financial Ombudsman. In February 2017, the Financial Ombudsman upheld my complaint, stating that some of the messages would be deemed marketing texts, albeit they did not specify which messages they were or how many. NatWest agreed and I was offered a small amount of compensation. Though I was not entirely happy that they could not guarantee I would not receive any more text messages, I accepted the findings and offered that my mobile number should be removed from their databases should I not be happy going forwards. This resolution was agreed by all parties. Since then, I have had monthly text messages from NatWest relating to new/improved features on their mobile App, all ending in "Get yours today at natwest.com/gettheapp". I am quite 'old school' and don't need the App in order to do my banking and felt that these would still come under marketing texts. Last month, I sent a letter to NatWest's complaint department, asking them to invoke the agreement to remove my mobile number from their databases, explaining why. Today, I have received a final response from NatWest. They have agreed to remove my mobile number from their databases, but do not uphold my overall complaint as "the texts to which you refer to are service texts in that they are advising you of a service we provide that you could benefit from." This statement, to me, is contradictory as the whole point of marketing information is to advise people of a service that they could benefit from. Service information should be updates or changes to services they already use. The clause in the terms and conditions that NatWest refer to is as follows: 1.9 Communications about your account 1.9.1 We will contact you with information relevant to the operation and maintenance of your account by a variety of means including via online banking, mobile banking, email, text message, post and/or telephone. If at any point in the future you change your contact details you should tell us promptly about those changes. I see nothing in the above about what would be deemed as "relevant to the operation and maintenance to my account." By NatWest's own admission when the case went to the FOS that some of the text messages I was being sent would be deemed marketing, it would appear that there is a fine line between what is deemed marketing and what is deemed a service text. I would love to take this up further, even if it was just to get some clarification as to whether this was an acceptable type of service text, but would like some thoughts as to whether I would have a case and how to go about it. It seems such a shame that I have to put myself at risk of fraud as NatWest will no longer be able to reach me promptly, but this appears to be the only way I can stop the text messages. Look forward to hearing from some of you in due course, GS.

This one is especially for DX, you see sometimes they do use the word

Now that i have a shiny new smart phone i need a home accounting APP. Free is possible. Personal recommendations are always the best Any recommendations as i am not that Tech Savvy so a dummies guide program will be ideal. Many thanks

I hope this is the correct forum for this. I noticed a couple of days ago that when I switched my mobile phone on a notification was appearing saying that Computrace Agent is safe. I wondered what this was as I had not downloaded this app and could find no trace of it on my phone by using the usual means. I googled Computrace Agent and saw that it is a tracking application installed by EE so that if someone steals my identity and buys a phone from EE then they can block the phone that was purchased. Now I can't for the life of me work out why they need to track my phone and everything I do on it just so they can block one of their phones. I have asked them what right they had to install that app on my phone, which by the way is mine and not under contract to them other than a monthly SIM card, but they cannot tell me. They also say it cannot be uninstalled except by wiping the phone completely and installing the phone manufacturers firmware, whatever that means. Surely this is a breach of privacy in that EE can track whatever I do and wherever I go? I accept that people like Google do this all the time but I know that if I use Google; I did not know or ask EE for this app. Any advice on how I can proceed with this as far as Data protection is concerned would be appreciated. Thanks.

I have a couple of questions re: periscope app firstly, does it work in much the same way as Skype, i:e talking face to face in real time, in other words, if a group of people are doing a live broadcast, do they actually see the people they are communicating with ? Secondly, is it just another app for the phone, or can you download it to your laptop ? Many thanks

Hi, I've spent a few years playing a particular game on my iphone/iwhatever and spent quite a bit to get myself to where I was in the game. Sadly the developers pulled the plug for EU (not the rest of the world), so the game isn't "end of life"... Do I have any rights at all asking for the bits and bobs which I bought over time? On a side note.. Whether a company releases apps to the world, or to one country, it doesn't cost any more or less. The only thing that could drive an app developer out of a particular country would be law (I guess?). I've spoken to apple, but they want me to converse with the actual company first as they are quite clear in their agreements that they've got nothing to do with purchases (despite taking 1/3 cut) Anyway, some feedback would be interesting! Cheers, A

My solicitor issued court proceedings against a builder. The builder did not acknowledge service so my solicitor applied for a default judgment. The Judge awarded a default judgment for an amount I overpaid the builder and made an order for a Schedule of Loss to be prepared and served on the court and the Defendant. The Defendant then had 14 days to respond to the Schedule of Loss otherwise the Judge ordered that the Defendant was de-barred from arguing any part of the Schedule or the amount. A date for a disposal hearing was also set. The Defendant did not respond to the Schedule of Loss. He then appointed another solicitor (he has been represented on and off in the last 18 months by 3 different solicitors) who asked for me to agree to set aside the first judgment. My solicitor refused and advised that if the Defendant was going to submit an application to have the first judgment set aside then this should be heard at the disposal hearing to save on costs. The Defendants solicitor waited until after office hours the evening before the Hearing and attempted to serve the Court and my Solicitor with a Defence, Counterclaim and Witness Statement. The Defendant failed to have the application stamped by the court and did not pay the court fee. However, a barrister was instructed by the Defendant. The Judge said he could not hear the Application to setaside the Judgment because the fee had not been paid and the documents had not been served properly. The Judge then ruled on a second Judgment in my favour. My barrister had to point out that a Part 36 offer had been put forward to the Defendant's then solicitor prior to court proceedings so the order was made plus costs. However, the Defendant's Barrister did not have any knowledge of the Part 36 offer and it was very clear that the Defendant's current solicitor had no idea either. Now I know that there is a possibility that the Defendant can submit an application to setaside both judgments. The first has a good chance of being granted because he is playing the failure to serve properly card (the court inputted the incorrect postcode on his papers - although the correct address). Obviously I can enforce judgment after 14 days but can only assume the Defendant will attempt to setaside both judgments in the meantime. I would like to know how the Part 36 will affect the outcome and if he applies to have the second judgment setaside what will happen. I have a copy of his documents and they are filled with lies many of which I can prove. What is also concerning is that the Solicitor has signed the Statement of Truth which I think is highly unusual. Any advice would be gratefully received if anyone has a similar experience.

Hi Guys New to the forum, so hello! Currently looking to source a new purchase mortgage, and had narrowed the choice of with HSBC and Leeds BS. Just to be sure there were no issues with the applications I signed up to Experian and Equifax to take a look. Experian 940 Good / Equifax 463 Good - so naturally didn't think I would have any problems moving forward. Went to see HSBC on sat, they did a very quick check and gave us an AIP - then spoke to Leeds this morning who said they would run a check for an AIP. They called back to say I had been declined due to adverse credit on my Equifax report, she couldn't go into detail over the phone, but I explained about my scores and she asked me to send them through and she would take a look, I also asked for some feedback to point to what she thought was the problem. Now I can't see anything untoward except for an AP on my NatWest Current account from 2012 - the circumstances are NatWest was my main current account and I always had an authorised overdraft of £500 - In early 2012 my partner and I decided to use her account as a joint account (HSBC) so all my salary went there. I didn't automatically close the NatWest account as I thought you never know! I was still being charged for the advantage gold fee and interest on the authorised borrowing, then I received a letter from them asking me to get in touch about unauthorized lending, turns out the account had gone over the £500 limit and charges were being added. I got in touch with NatWest and they took me off advantage gold, and refunded the charges and then I set up a direct debit to clear the account. So the question is, how likely is that the actual issue, and how do I get that corrected, also will HSBC look at that too with a full application and think it's an issue also. Any help or advice would be hugely appreciated Neil

I have lost all my personalised settings, favourite places in the MSN weather app. I read somewhere that deleting cookies may have had something to do with it. I have uninstalled>reboot>reinstall but without success.

I normally park on Sandford Road, Bromley which operates residents permit parking and pay and display bays. The ticket machines accept cash or you can pay using your mobile, via the Ringo App and the location code 6031 (I used it every day so know it off by heart!). On 13th Oct '14, Sandford Road parking bays were all full and a big blue sign said "Pay and Display Parking 7 Spaces" with a big arrow pointing towards Streamside Close. Streamside Close is a cul-de-sac off of Sandford Road and has a solitary parking machine which I have now learned serves ONLY those 7 parking bays. I parked in Streamside Close and purchsed my ticket via the Ringo App but used the Sandford Road location code as I usually did. I was not aware that these 7 bays had a dedicated machine as the blue sign gave the impression that Streamside Close was an extension of Sandford Road. The parking charges are exactly the same for both roads and there was nothing to lead me to knowing that each road had a different machine. Given Streamside close only had 7 parking bays it does not seem sensible or practical to have a dedicated machine. What if it was to fail, then surely it would be reasonable to expect to use machines on the adjacent road. I'm really annoyed by all of this as I have actually paid for a full day's parking and was an innocent mistake. The parking attendant would have seen an active parking session on his handheld for my vehicle for the adjacent road. The charges were the same so no advantage to be had by me. It's just unfair and unreasonable to enforce parking like this and it's cases like this that earn Council's their often well deserved bad reputations. This clearly revenue generation as no payment avoidance was made - I paid for the while day. That said, whilst I feel my position is morally sound, is this a legitimate appeal reason for Bromley Council (who are notoriously, greedy revenue generators - they'd tax air if they could!).

Hello! I'm wondering if anyone has used this app? On their website it says you generate a report for your product so the buyer can work out whether what your selling is legit. Has anyone had any success in terms of using it to sell? I've got some uggs but worried about getting less because people think they're fake as they can't actually see them in person.

The OFT has launched an investigation into whether children are being unfairly pressured or encouraged to pay for additional content in 'free' web and app-based games, including upgraded membership or virtual currency such as coins, gems or fruit. Typically, players can access only portions of these games for free, with new levels or features, such as faster game play, costing money. As part of the investigation, the OFT has written to companies offering free web or app-based games, seeking information on in-game marketing to children. The OFT is also asking for parents and consumer groups to contact it with information about potentially misleading or commercially aggressive practices they are aware of in relation to these games. The OFT investigation is exploring whether these games are misleading, commercially aggressive or otherwise unfair. In particular, the OFT is looking into whether these games include 'direct exhortations' to children - a strong encouragement to make a purchase, or to do something that will necessitate making a purchase, or to persuade their parents or other adults to make a purchase for them. This is unlawful under the Consumer Protection (from Unfair Trading) Regulations 2008. http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2013/33-13#.UWfnv6yh79s

Apple is set to pay out around £66m ($100m) to settle a US lawsuit which claims children were improperly charged while playing iPad and iPhone games. It is alleged that poor safeguards meant kids were easily able to buy extra features for the free games without their parents' knowledge or permission. Court papers claim: "Apple failed to adequately disclose that third-party Game Apps, largely available for free and rated as containing content suitable for children, contained the ability to make In-App Purchases." The case dates back to 2010 and 2011, with Apple updating its software to put in more secure controls on in-game purchases from March 2011. It has now agreed to give a £3.30 ($5) credit to an estimated 23 million people who were affected. However, if parents can show they were charged more than £20 ($30) then cash refunds will be offered. The games that were downloaded were designed for children as young as four, claims the lawsuit - which was started by five parents. One of the parents, Garen Meguerian, says his young daughter spent several hundred dollars on "game currency" while playing "highly addictive" apps like Zombie Cafe and Treasure Story. Apple previously required a password to be entered for any download or purchase which was valid for 15 minutes without needing to be re-entered. The system changed in 2011 to make the password mandatory for every transaction, and to warn users that free games might contain the option to buy extra features. Some technology writers have said that parents should be more aware of the consequences of giving children access to their gadgets and passwords. Lawyers bringing the case also want Apple to pay their legal fees of £860,000 ($1.3m). The proposed settlement needs court approval and will go before judges on March 1. Apple has not yet commented on the case. http://news.sky.com/story/1057588/apple-to-pay-66m-over-kids-app-downloads So far this only applies to US consumers, but Apple are under pressure to compensate UK consumers too.

Hi All I am a 34yo male who suffers from daily debilitating headaches, this i have suffered from for some 8 years now. My condition is covered under the scope of the equality act. The employer referred me to an occupational health who suggested home working, as the office environment is a likely trigger factor. His recommendation was a 50/50 split between the office and home office extension. If this were put into place the o/h doctor expected that i could resume my role in its entirety. I subsequently submitted a flexible working application, stating the o/h report, they sanctioned, as the basis for this. This was reviewed and subsequently declined two weeks later. I appealed the decision, and the appeal has subsequently been declined. The reasons stated are listed within the regulation guidelines, detriment to customer service, lack of work, and i would have to work unsupported. Having worked in the business for some 5 years i found these reasons disappointing and not a true reflection of what would happen. I've been left with two options: 1. Work condensed hours, with a period of phased return. I.e. work 8 - 6 Mon - Thursday with Friday off of work. This was trialed previously and had a negative impact on customer service. 2. Part-time hours. This i know would cause a problem for the business due to the numbers of colleagues working job share or part-time hours already. I feel I have been left with no option but to return to work and 'put up with' the side effects the office causes me. This is achievable to a certain extent, but what happens when i suffer repeat attacks and need to take subsequent time off of work? Back to square one.... I've also been told that i have no sickness benefit remaining, however i do not class this as sickness absence as it is a disability/condition I suffer from. I'm waiting to hear back from my union to discuss what to do next. The letter ended with a statement that the appeal has finished and that the decision is final :/ My employer is large with >15,000 employees. Kind regards Gary

Is it possible? Is there a program that can do this? I've done basic Googling, but it's all a bit confusing to me.

Westminster council is trialling a new technology to make it easier to find an on-street parking space. It's early days but the technology seems to work, albeit a very small trial covering just a handful of streets Throughout October 2012, you can download an app that will allow you to see if an on-street parking space is available on an individual road. If the Bay Sensor trial continues to be a success, the council will evaluate it and decide if the scheme can be rolled out city-wide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19732371 http://www.westminster.gov.uk/services/transportandstreets/parking/bay-sensor-technology/

can anyone recommend me a good wifi network mapper. it needs to distingish between security types and open networks. it needs to be able to tell if a network uses wps (wifi protected setup) it then needs to map where it was detexted using the gps. its because concerns have been raised about securities of wifi in local shops and the payment details sent over them this is very important although it maps them i require that it NEVER tries to connect to it.

Here's the chronology 1) Claim received - two card debts rolled into one 2) Returned a defence of statute barred 3) Cabot wish to continue, transfer of proceedings 4) Send CPR 31.14 Request, as I am keen to see some documentation 5) No reply to CPR request from Cabot 6) Cabot send over copy of their completed Allocation questionnaire - they would like to try and settle, requesting one month stay, in the reason box they state " the claimant shall endeavour to provide advance disclosure following which mediation may be appropriate" 7) I post my allocation questionnaire - not looking to settle reason: statute barred defence plus Claimant has failed to respond to my CPR request. Send copy of CPR Request with Allocation questionnaire. In the future applications box on questionnaire I state "yes" and "N244 Compelling disclosure of particulars of claim." That's where I am right now. I want to make the correct N244 application / order for direction etc to get this Claim thrown out. A) I think that my current route of CPR 31.14 request followed by N244 compelling disclosure may be weak as the Cabot POC is deliberately vague and they can potentially rightly ignore my request. B) I have heard another option is CPR 16 with a N244 requiring claimant to plead their case effectively. C) Maybe there are other CPR routes that can be taken? D) Can i easily get a "Summary judgement"? What do the Forum Experts feel is the best route for getting this thrown out? I would greatly value any advice.

Has anyone managed to set up two accounts on the iphone app, yet? It clearly shows that can be done on their pic examples on the app, but a 40 minute wait to speak to the customer service clueless one says no, you can only have ONE account on the app. Their brief and example shots say otherwise, but it wouldn't really be the first time where someone who was just walking down the street would know more than anyone who works for Barclays help desks in a far away country. I am well aware that when that phone is picked up and it's from abroad, my phone call will not get a solution, and don't know why I bother even trying with them