Copied from my PIP thread so that more people are likely to see it:- I know that we're not allowed (for all practical purposes, anyway) to audio record PIP assessments but I have severe memory issues AND I find writing very difficult so I often use an electronic note taker which is in effect a voice recorder, it just puts the sound into words for me to save me the effort of transcribing. Does anyone know if I'll be able to use this during a PIP assessment? Should I also accidentally leave my phone on voice recorder, that would of course be a different issue. And if my companion also had their phone on voice record so that if asked to stop, we would of course turn off the phone that had been noticed ......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33353318 I have a better idea - how about we start actually controlling private rent levels, which is what is driving the increase in housing benefit. But no, let the well off keep the money and penalise the poor instead.

In September 2013 I started writing on the forum about the procedure that debtors were expected to take in cases where a bailiff took control of a vehicle (or other goods) that either did not belong to to debtor or which the debtor considered (for one reason or another) to be 'exempt' from being taken. To avoid repeating myself a copy of the thread is below: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?418396-Third-Party-Goods-Interpleaders-and-the-serious-potential-to-damage-the-new-Bailiff-Reforms-on-6th-April During that period (mid to late 2013) I spent a considerable amount of time writing to many organisations (including finance companies etc) and in my correspondence to government departments, I urged them to consider implementing a procedure whereby debtors could avoid the costs (and considerable delay) of court action by the debtor making an initial 'informal' claim to the enforcement company. I was delighted to hear that my suggestion was implemented (with minor amendments) and the position from 6th April 2014 is that instead of a debtor (or third party) having to issue court proceedings a simple informal procedure MUST first be made to the enforcement company within 7 days. The procedures are outlined under section 85 of the Civil Procedure Rules and came into effect on 6th April 2014. If a debtor considers that a vehicle should not be clamped or removed as it is thought to be 'exempt' (maybe as it is subject to finance or 'necessary' for employment) ) then it is a simple matter of writing to the enforcement agent to outline the reason why the debtor considers that the vehicle is 'exempt' and to provide any supporting evidence. The enforcement agent must then serve the creditor (normally the local authority) with a copy of the claim and the local authority must decide within a specified number of days whether they 'admit' the claim. If they do, the vehicle is released. On a personal level I have prepared many of these 'claims' over the past 7 years and so far....not one has ever been rejected and the goods are released. As long as the supporting evidence and 'reasons' are clearly outlined there should be no problem at all in the goods (normally a vehicle) being released. It would seem that in the past couple of months debtors are (for one reason or another) bypassing this initial procedure and instead.....making an application to the county court for an injunction. Unfortunately debtors are quickly finding that this procedure is not only wrong but is very expensive and can lead to their car being held in storage etc for a long period of time.

My scheduled date for me appeal to be considered was midweek last week, however I have not yet been notified of an outcome. The parking operator hasn't submitted any evidence for the ticket either. How long do I normally have to wait? and can the operator still submit their paperwork?

I wrote to my MP about whether or not my boyfriend could stay overnight, he stated that if I could prove he was living somewhere else then it would not be considered as living with me if he had letters addressed elsewhere, didn't eat with me, didn't buy things or make any financial offering to me. I checked with Social Services who said your benefit wasn't affected if it was 3 nights per week or less. BUT in 2008, just prior to my partner moving in, I had a letter from DWP saying they were going to visit me as they had had a report that my partner was living with me. I was told, that my partner could not stay overnight 1 night, as this would be considered as living together. I was told if I went away on holiday with him, this would be considered as living together. Surely, 8 years on this can't still be the case???

I everyone, I was just wondering if the above is correct? Unfortunately I have to claim on one of policies (CIC), however the insurer is placing unexpected restrictions on the policy. I was not told this when I took out the policy and if I knew I wouldn't have purchased the cover. They have so far refused to pay out, despite me meeting the (EXTREMELY) harsh criteria. Have I been miss-sold? Cheers

Hi, My son who has special needs and a statement has been denied some of his school options due to the school saying he will not acheive good grades. They would not say this to an average/above average student, and even if they did they should not, it it a bit like saying to a blind person, because you can not see what the teacher is writing/drawing on the board, we will not allow you to to be educated in what you want to , even though a reasonable adjustment would be to provide the books in braile. In my sons case they are not offering him the additional support as per his statement, or asking for more should he need it, but saying he should not do the course. Please note they have consistantly maintained that my son has been doing well for 3 years...untill now. Many thanks