I am trying to support someone who has been rejected P.I.P and having requested copy of Consultation report it appears that their decision is based on information supplied from 1) Claimant's questionnaire 2015 2) Claimant's questionnaire 2017 3) Psychologoical therapy plan 2015 4) Date of Tribunal 2015 5) Psychiatrist report 2012 She has struggled to get the treatment recommended by the Psychiatrist in 2012 and some of which is only (JUST) being put into place. Social Services were responisble for not referring her to the relevent treatment organisations and we have had to fight hard to get her where she is today. She puts a stiff upper lip on things some days to get her through but she does not and cannot cope with the outside world! I am just drafting up a new appeal letter and would appreciate your views on whether the data they are relying on is a valid reason to reject the Mandatory Reconsideration? TIA

Good afternoon, On 07/10/2016 I parked in the Bradford Forster Square carpark, lost track of time, and overstayed by 37 minutes. On 17/10/16 I received a Parking Charge Notice for £85, payment to be made within 28 days of issue (of notice); discounted to £50 if I pay within 14 days. They have stated the Date Issued as 13/10/2016 in the reference section and 10/11/2016 in the big black box, but that is probably irrelevant. I have entries on my bank statement to prove I went to Costa there, I actually spent all morning there catching up with an old friend, but the entries are dated 08/10/16. I guess their payments don't show up automatically. I have emailed Costa for help, they replied immediately saying they have no influence. I also emailed the land owner, British Land but have had no response yet. I have read quite a lot about parking charges in the last few days, mostly about Beavis... I remember reading on one thread on this forum that the company placing the parking restriction signs must have planning permission. I have checked Bradford's planning portal and cannot find an application for PP for parking restriction signs at Forster Square. I then telephoned Bradford's planning dept and was told that the signs were probably small enough not to require PP. I told him the signs are 0.9m x 0.7m, to which he suggested that I email the enforcement team. I have done this and included the measurements and a photo of a sign. I know the enforcement team are thin on the ground and I think it unlikely that they'll carry out an investigation in a time scale that will be of help to me. What I would like to know from the kind people on this forum is, do I have a case for no contract because of a lack of PP for the signs? I have read The Town & Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regs and I think I have a case, but I'm not a lawyer ! I hope to use this in ParkingEye's appeals process. If I am unsuccessful I will probably pay up as I do not want to pay the full charge, which I'll have to pay if I go over 14 days.

I was wondering whether someone might be able to help me. I put in a request for my previous 6 years of statements in order to claim my bank charges back in 2009. I still have the statements and would like to put in a claim as I still fit the category of 'financial hardship'. However, I was wondering if these statements can still be used as proof of charges as after speaking to them today, the bank currently has no records of my account (they only keep 6 years). I also have over 150 pages to send (!) will this be accepted? I closed the account down around 2009. Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated.

Dear all, I have a few questions I wonder if anyone can help with. The scenario is thus: I live in a block of flats with parking. Each flat has its own allocated bay. I own my own flat (leasehold, not renting) and I am sure (but I suppose I would have to check the leasehold) that means I own my own parking bay too. I have today received a letter saying "owing to complaints from residents regarding parking, we are implementing permits and ticketing". The letter also states "We, [management company] have no control over revoking parking tickets. Any issues with parking control must be addressed to [parking company]". The management company (or a parent company or sub-company or similar) is also the landowner. Yes, it's annoying if someone nicks your space, but I can't help but think there are going to be a lot more complaints from residents who get tickets. I have been given a permit to display. I'll put it in the car, of course, but... On what basis can they implement this? As I understand it, the 'parking charge' from a ticket is essentially damages either for trespass or breach of contract. If trespass: 1) surely the parking bay is mine to do with as I please; 2) how can the landowner say they are not involved in revoking tickets? Any 'damages' claim would have to be in their name and they can decide whether to pursue it or not. If contractual, how can I have agreed to this 'contract' when there is nothing in my lease? If (assuming the worst) I was to receive a ticket for parking in my own space, would I have any redress against the management co. for a) interfering with my right to park in my space / my right to a peaceful existence; 2) employing gibbons to do the ticketing; 3) saying I'm a party to a contract when I'm not? Cheers in advance

I have learnt the it is the governments intention to allow learndirect ( a profit making college that sells educational courses) to force the unemployed to take its courses and pay for them out of their benefits whether they want to take them or not or lose their entire benefits. I don't know about you but this looks to me like a massive failure of human rights and makes a mockery of any pretence that consumers are protected in the UK. How can they do this? This is like me arriving at your door to tell you that unless you buY this CAR/TV FROM ME YOU WILL LOSE YOUR INCOME BY LAW!

In 2007 I cancelled all PPI from any credit I held as it was only then that I realised they were in fact optional and more importantly, due to my generous employment package in a job I still hold today 20 years later, they would not have paid out anyway. I have tried to claim back the PPI attached to my RBS credit card taken I had 2002 to 2005. Yesterday I received the rejection letter stating largely that it was sold on a Non Advised Basis. I took it out via a postal application sent to me. The PPI box had to be ticked - the wording by the box said strongly recommended that payment protection insurance (PPI) is taken out. I have been reading FOS online PPI resource "our approach to payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-sale complaints" and it states, when talking about internet or postal applications:- Although these are usually non-advised sales, as the application stated “we strongly recommend you take out this PPI”. We were satisfied from the consumer’s account of the sale that he had placed some weight on this – and so we concluded that the sale was advised. Knowing how little I knew about the "why's and wherefores" back then and as it was during the application stage this would have made me think that my application was dependant on this. Any ideas what I do next? Thanks in anticipation.

I am hoping someone will take the time to answer, as I feel the need for a 2nd, 3rd and 4th opinion! I will give as many details in as brief a format as I can.. I have inherited a property from my father who died intestate. Letters of Admin were completed with Solictor and the 6 month claim period is also over. This property is currently occupied by my fathers nephew who despite my giving him 1 months notice, has not vacated and is now refusing to leave. He recently sought Solicitors advice and they informed mine that the nephew will continue to reside in the property according to his uncles (my fathers) wishes as my father had indicated to him that he would be entitled to live in the property for the rest of his life. To add to this, on several occasions my father had verbally told him that the property would be left to him (apparently). My Solictor referred me to her Litigant Colleague who seemed to think that the only procedure to take would be to issue a court order for eviction, which would be defended by the nephew on the basis of the information above. The word Estoppel was mentioned briefly, so I am assuming this would be the claim the nephew would be going for? My Solicitor told me that his chances of success are likely, and my best option would be Mediation. I have a hard time believing this and have done as much research as I possibly can on Estoppel cases but the outcomes do seem to be widely varied. I would really appreciate some more opinions on this as I am being warned that I could be faced with £20,000 + court fees with not much chance of winning. I do not know the nephew at all, only met him a handful of times so can only tell his background as I have been led to believe by him. My father purchased the property, the nephew moved in with him and contributed money each month towards payment of bills. I do not understand why my Solicitor would think that this would be a good basis for a claim. Can anyone advise? Thanks in advance.

A year ago someone reversed into me as I was waiting to pull out onto a main road from a car park and turn left. Traffic on the main road was stationary and the car reversed so that it could get into a parking bay, they did not check their mirrors, I started to reverse out of the way but was hit before i could completely get out of the way. The other driver claims they were stationary and I just pulled out into them. I maintain that the photos show that the position of the vehicles after the bump, back up my version based on the points of impact. It was only the front left corner of my car that touched the rear left corner of their car. Based on the photos if I had pulled out into a stationary car the front of my car would have hit the rear side of their car. After a year of this going nowhere due to the other insurance co dragging their feet and my insurance co not actively chasing them I have been told that they are going to settle 50/50 - I will loose out on £125 of my excess and suffer the extra cost of cover. They do not seem interested in trying to match up the two versions and using an analytical approach to the points of damage, and positions of vehicles I have pushed this as far as I can with the company, spent hours on the phone, and have also raised a complaint about the delays and the fact that no one ever calls back when they say they will. I feel they just want this out the way as it has dragged on too long. They keep telling me that unless they have a completely water tight case they will not go to court for fear of loosing. I feel completely let down by privilege Any help on how to proceed would be really appreciated:-x

Hi, I got a parking ticket for apparently parking in a red route zone for loading only. It was my belief that parking in the bay I did was not in the zone for red route as it was marked the same as all other usual parking bays. I even bought a ticket. Half way through my parking bay was a sign for red route but the red marking bays which I assumed this referred to were in front of my bay. Please take a look at the picture of the bays I was parked in the bay with the arrow and you will see the sign next to it. Ok so I want to appeal this and would like anyone to confirm the following basis and any others I may have missed. A. The bay I parked in does not comply with markings for a red route bay even with the sign in place. B. The zone end sign which is on the opposite side of the road before my bay does not apply as there was not sign on my side of the road. I understand that a zone end sign MUST be placed on both sides of the road. Many thanks.

Posted on pepipoo Parking Eye were asked them about their legal standing to bring any legal action on behalf of their principal and/or in their own name and to provide detailed breakdown of their pre-estimated losses, they claimed was owed to them. VCS v Ibbotson and VCS v HMRC.were also referenced Here is their reply: