Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'discussion'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 14 results

  1. If you have any comments, questions, insights or suggestions about the new GDPR regime which comes in force on 25 May, please post them here. New template here
  2. I started an important thread earlier today concerning a recent court judgment where a debtor was ordered to pay £7,000 in costs after losing his claim against Harrow Council and their agent; Newlyn. The background and Judgment can be read by way of the following link: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?477808-Paying-the-creditor-direct-to-avoid-paying-bailiff-fees-has-landed-a-debtor-with-a-%A37-000-cost-order.(32-Viewing)-nbsp To ensure that the original thread does not go 'off topic', discussions about the judgment can be posted here.
  3. There have been a few threads recently from people who have suffered accidents where the third party is 100% at fault and the third party insurers have accepted responsibility. There are then questions raised about whether to claim on your own insurance policy or claim directly with the third parties insurers. There is no perfect answer about the best way to proceed, as it can depend on so many factors. You have to notify your own insurance company first anyway and you should discuss with them your options. If you have personal injuries to claim for, then it is not really wise to go to the third party insurers for the car damage only, as you will want deal with the whole claim properly using any professional advice you can get. You might have legal cover under your own policy or can use an accident management company to deal with all aspects. Firstly, claiming off your own policy If you have comprehensive cover, you can claim off your own policy, but you then will normally have to pay an excess and claim this back from the third party insurers. The excess is payable before any repairs are carried out or deducted from any write off settlement. It might take several months, before a third party insurers refunds the excess to you, after you have submitted your request for reimbursement. So if you are short on funds, this might cause you a problem. If you have a car which is written off with a smallish value, say less than £3,000 and replacing it would be quite difficult, then you need to be aware of a few things. Firstly you have the excess which might take a few months to get back. Secondly, if you pay your premium monthly, your Insurers are quite likely to reduce the claim settlement, by deducting the remaining premium. So for a car worth £3,000, you might have say £250 excess and say £750 remaining premium deducted, leaving you with £2,000 to buy a replacement car. If you are short on funds you might be unhappy you don't have the money to buy a similar car. Thirdly, if your claim is being dealt with by an accident management company on behalf of your insurers, you can expect your claim to be delayed. They have a habit of drawing out claims and providing credit hire cars, to make money from third party insurers. The advantage of using your own insurers, is that you have a contract with them and rights to use the FOS if you are unhappy. Your Insurers are responsible for the repairs they authorise, so if a car is returned with substandard repairs, you have a right to ask your insurers to pay for additional repair work if necessary. With a third party insurers, it is more difficult to deal with repair issues and you can't use the FOS. If a car is wriiten off, you can go to the FOS to complain about your insurers offer. With a third party insurers, you would have to go to court, as you don't have FOS option. Claiming off third party insurers If a third party insurers is interested in dealing with your accident claim directly and there is no personal injury involved, then it can be worth it, for some of the reasons mentioned above. They won't deduct an excess, they won't deduct any remaining premium from a write off and they will normally pay you the book value for a write off. You might have to use the insurers authorised repairers, but can ask to use your own local garage, if they agree to any repair quote provided. The difficulty can be where you are not happy with repairs or write off value, as you are not dealing with your own insurers. The option of dealing with a third party insurers is not going to be suitable for everyone, if they are not confident in dealing with such issues or have a car of reasonable value they feel happier having repaired via their own insurers. Quite often the third party insurers will arrange a hire car for the period needed and to pay for it. It can be less hassle than a hire car via your own insurers, who will be conscious about the hire cost, as it will need to be claimed back off the third party insurers. It depends on what hire or courtesy car cover your own policy offers, as to pros/cons of claiming on own policy or third party in regard to the accident claim. It can be a problem area, as disputes can arise about hire car costs. If you are asked to sign for a hire car, be careful about what you are signing, as to whether you could be liable for any costs. This post is not an exhaustive complete item on these issues and there may be more information which would be helpful to people using the site. I thought it would be useful for a discussion thread, so people can add their experience or thoughts.
  4. In a landmark case, Parking Eye won an appeal in the High Court with regard to parking charges, this has since been adopted as a standard reference in parking cases and also is beginning to be used in other "Unfair" charges cases. I have started this thread for discussion purposes so all thoughts are welcomed. It is my opinion, much the same as OFT v Abbey National and Others 2009 is irrelevant to credit card claims as it was clearly relevant to bank charges, that PE v Beavis is equally irrelevant to credit card claims as it is for a parking charge. This is just a start to what i am hoping will be a meaningful discussion involving as many ideas and thoughts of caggers as possible. Lets go, air your views
  5. Here on the discussion section of the forum there have been various threads that have touched upon the matter of 'in house' bailiff enforcement. For those unfamiliar with this term....this is where local authorities are setting up their own 'in house' bailiff operations. The decision to do so is mainly a financial one spurred on by the Taking Control of Goods (Fees) Regulations 2014 which provides that enforcement companies may charge a 'Compliance fee' of £75 when sending a statutory Notice of Enforcement to the debtor. If payment (or a payment proposal) is not made within the 'compliance stage, an enforcement agent may make a personal visit. An enforcement fee of £235 is chargeable. To assist with discussions on this subject, it may help to read the view of 'in house' bailiff enforcement from the perspective of the enforcement industry (who are naturally opposed to local authorities taking bailiff enforcement 'in house'). The following is a word copy of an article that featured in a trade magazine a few months ago.
  6. I notice from the reaction I received when I mentioned the basic procedure for processing criminal actions, that there seems to be confusion as to the procedures and terms involved. It is not really surprising as most of the matters discussed here are of a civil nature. But for those not familiar with the fundamentals, here is my take on it. Firstly all criminal proceedings must start in the magistrate’s court. I have read people saying that you can chose where to start an action on say a private prosecution, you cannot. There are two kinds of offences which can be considered at the MC, these are defined by their seriousness, and the maximum fine or term of commitment that can be imposed on conviction. These are: A “summary offence” and “indictable offence” A “summary offence” is for less serious criminal offences. The sentencing is limited to a far lower level than in more serious(indicatable) cases which are passed up to the Crown court An “indictable offence” can only be heard at the crown court, this is after the defendant has attended the magistrate’s court. The magistrates will remand or bail them to appear at the Crown Court after consideration of the case in question. These more serious offences such as theft rape or murder are generally heard by a jury. In addition to these there are also “each way” offences; this is where the action could fall into either of the two categories. On application to the magistrate, they will make the decision as to which court is most appropriate for the offence, and assign it to the relevant one. Most legislation which presents the possibility of criminal charges will also state the kind of action which may be taken. For instance in section 68 of the Tribunals Act schedule 12, the action which may be taken for obstructing an EA in the course of his duty, is prescribed as “on summary conviction”. 68(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally obstructs a person lawfully acting as an enforcement agent. (2)A person is guilty of an offence if he intentionally interferes with controlled goods without lawful excuse. (3)A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable on summary conviction to— (a)imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks, or (b)a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or ©both. Similarly the theft act of instance will say by indictment and the fraud act may say either way.
  7. A number of frequent posters on the forum have said that they would like to have a thread so that we can discuss the procedures available for debtors if they consider that a bailiff has done something wrong. The thread can be used to discuss a variety of scenarios such as: What is the correct procedure for debtors to take if a bailiff clamps their car which is on finance? What should a debtor do if the bailiff has clamped or removed their car and it is needed for their employment. Can a bailiff charge a fee if the address on the warrant is wrong. PS: We had a similar thread when the new regulations came into effect on 6th April and that was extremely useful and provided a great source of information to frequent posters on the forum. This new thread should be the same.
  8. It's generally accepted that a CCA doesn't have to be provided when creditors provide information under a SAR, but I've never quite got why that is. A friend recently sent a SAR to Barclaycard, who sent plenty of information up to exactly 10 years old. The one thing that they provided which was older was a copy of a signed application for a card. My friend had other cards with BC too but there were no CCAs or applications for them. Are we right to accept that a CCA doesn't have to be provided in response to a SAR, or are we being hoodwinked?
  9. I've just finished the work programme at Ingeus two weeks ago. Absolute waste of my life. But I think everyone who's been on it agrees - even the JCP advisers I've had agree but say it's just a hoop we have to jump through if we want our money. But my question is why do so many people who have nothing - no money, no stake in society, no job, etc, get so obsessed with data protection issues, like it's the CIA trying to gain information on them? Who cares? Why does it matter if you sign a form or not? Is it just a way to hold on to a sense that we are still important even though we are at the bottom of society's barrel? Surely there are bigger battles to win in the fight against getting sanctioned than just being adversarial all the time on data protection technicalities? I'll sign any form they want if it means I can keep getting my meagre benefit each week, short of the form that authorizes them sending me to the gas chamber, (Which judging by new reforms doesn't seem that long off). Serious question though - based on my fellow WP contestants, why do the disempowered always get such a bee in their caps about 'data protection' all the time? The successful/rich people I've met never cared less about signing Data protection forms. Any insight?
  10. Hey, I've been addicted to this forum for a long while now and what I've realised is most people talking about ESA problems are always talking exclusively about 'Anxiety/Depression' issues - not physical illnesses. It's all relative of course, but I suffered from massive anxiety and depression back in 09, I never took the easy option of looking for ESA WRAG group because I felt there was a stigma attached. (I'm now in a big financial hole because I didn't and have been stuck on JSA jumping through crazy hoops). But the point I'd like to make is that now five years later - even though my life is terrible and I have no money, I'm not looking for easy get-out-clauses. The worst thing you could have told me back in 09 was to give in and get 'on the sick' signed off. Sometimes with things like depression and anxiety we need it for a few months, but it's usually a temporary condition due to circumstances and chemical imbalances in the brain. The worst thing you can say to someone with anxiety is that - 'it's alright, you're now useless to society, so we'll indulge you and here's a letter that says you never have to make an effort again'. Sometimes we can't engage with society because we feel awful. Fair enough, we've paid in to a system that allows us to take some time out and get free money. But eventually we need to get back stuck in. The worst thing is to get a diagnosis that explains why we can't help ourselves and then look for people who'll pander to our new found victimhood status? Hope no one takes me wrong with this opinion. But thank god no one wrote me off when I was anxious and depressed as a permanent no hope of change - unlike someone with a physical condition that no amount of money or therapy would ever fix.
  11. Hi guys, I thought I'd come back for some clarification after reading the BBC news on tv licence excuses. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22947160 First of all, I have noted that there still are 2 bands - Black and White £49 and Colour £149. Seriously who in 2013 has a black and white TV? I thought that was pre 1990s? Second of all, this is the most trickiest bit I have picked up, if you say you dont have to pay a TV licence, you have to prove this. And if you have "any equipment" that can receieve live TV then you must pay. So, someone who doesn't have a TV, but they have a PC with internet - you still have to pay? Or they got a PC, a console, and a TV to use as a monitor for those things, yet no TV aerial, digi box or sky box, you still have to pay? So from my understanding, if you got the internet and a laptop/pc you have to pay TV licence? Shouldn't it be the other way round they have to prove that we watch live TV on the PC? This law is seriously outdated especially with the black and white band. No one even produces black and white tellys to my knowledge...
  12. i need assistance with employment law, and personal injury claims. i would appreciate any advice that fellow CAG's can provided Work Related Breakdown i suffered a work related breakdown a year ago approx, however despite the problems at work i loved the actually job itself and always intended to return to work when i was well enough to do so, however i was pre empted financially and returned October last year and at that point formally started my grievance. like most people i had not idea of how a grievance procedure would work, so it was a massive learning curve. it is so unbelievably stressful and im still not fully well. all of the stresses remain as nothing had changed within the team on my return and my health has again deteriorated. Occ Health have recommended in writing that my place of work is toxic to my full recovery and i should leave. my p/trist is saying the same, as is my counsellor. they have all made clear that outside of that environment my health should improve enough for me to get another job doing the same type of work but with a different organisation! my question is this. is it possible for me to take civil action over and above tribunal action against my employer for the pysiatric injury they have caused me, in addition to which i had lost all my body hair. my head remains bald and i have to wear a wig, my eyebrow are going again, my arm and leg hair have gone, however my pubic hair did grow back a little. i am very grateful that my eyelashes have grown back - but for how long. i have been tested medically, the is no physical reason for the universal hair loss. constructive dismissal i am aware that the issue of constructive dismissal and discrimination can only be held in a Tribunal. but i would want to know how p/injury would work in a civil court, and could this take place more quickly than a Tribunal, and although not the right venue, will the issues of the discrimination, harrassment, bullying and victimisation come out at a civil hearing? i have an outstanding grievance appeal taking place by the end of March, it is likely to be negative, a little more detail first 'last straw' - manager held PPP (nearly 2 years since the previous one) tells me basically im c.... and that my colleagues have all complained about me, and gives examples of complaint. Fair enough. however all of this has come out of nowhere. manager provides no discussion or plan on how to resolve the situation between me and the rest of team, and goes off on 2 weeks holiday. naturally this has a devasting affect on my feeling toward the manager and the rest of the team, i have believed what he is saying. i make complaint to manager on his return and challenge all his accusation and complain that if the situation were true how is it he didnt try to help resolve the situation? i copy in HR. manager writes back taking no responsibility claiming i have misinterpreted and didnt say some of the things. my complaint was comprehensive and i gave back to him all the examples that he had used! a meeting was held. HR had lead me to believe that the meeting was a grievance as laid out in their policy, but it was a mediation meeting whereby the manager states again that i have mis interpreted and that in fact no one had complained about me - he failed to give any further information. he actually stated that i was made for the job. on hearing this however instead of making me feel better it devasted me further. i couldnt understand how he had done this to me in the first place. i had worked so hard and was so proud of the work. i went into freefall. from the time of the meeting with manager to what i thought was a grievance meeting was just over 2 months during which time there was a complete and utter breakdown between me and the rest of the team. i was signed off sick with work sky high blood pressure and related stress which i had desperately been trying to ward off. emloyer contact during sick leave during sick leave, the manager above my manager demanded to to see me, didnt advise that i could be accompanied and during the meeting told me basically that the best thing for me was to get my arse back on my chair and that in their experience involving the medical profession would mean that i would be off work longer! remember this talk at me is whilst i am unwell and vulnerable. end result even more freefall. during my sick leave there were a bombardment of letters from work, which stressed me out further than you can believe i felt hounded. i thought that it would be better to return to work even thougth my GP didnt think i was ready. i thought that it would be best to stop the hounding and make sure their were no more meetings with my managers manager. phased return meeting GP formally recommended this. unfortunately he did not specify a time. managers manager didnt want to follow GP's advice and tried to insist instead that if i felt tied i went home. luckily an HR officer was present and had to remind manager that it was normal in such circumstance and length of time away that a phased return take place. manager reluctantly agreed to 1 week! there was mention of a review, but no details of when the review would take place or who with. naturally 1 week was not enough. situation with team not resolved. i approach HR for help and am basically told to go away. i return to my GP who tries not to give the 'i told you so' and signs me off again. long term sick which brings me back to my return last year. Discrimination bullying and harrassment prior to the first last straw i had been suffering discrimination harrassment and bullying from another member of the team for a couple of year which i didnt handle very well. i absorbed it - but this just caused me to lose my body hair. i genuinely believe that this new member of staff would get used to me being there, also i had hoped that other members of the team would come to my defence when i was under attack from this 'colleague' - but no one did, some of them even joined in. this colleague was good at getting others to express their prejudices and the others knew better. i felt so isolated, ashamed and scared to say anything just in case they thought i was the one with the problem the one with the 'chip' so i said nothing. there was no one or manager that i had any trust or confidence in that i could take this matter to, so i suffered in silence, until the breakdown came. Employers investigate the complainant on making the complaint my employers carried out an investigation - a shock to me, a bigger shock was later learning that they had carried out an investigation on me too. thank God i was good at my job, good things were said about me. so they cant get me on that angle. grievance 1 outcome it transpired that others had complained also about my 'colleague' and my manager showed up themselves good and proper at the hearing. recommendations. words would be had with colleague and manager, but no grounds for discrimination - however.... appeal 'colleague' had actually admitted to what they thought would be a lesser complaint that they thought they could get away with, but this put employers in difficulty and they had to make a statement at the appeal confirming that at least one act of discrimination had taken place. it was agreed (and is on tape) that i was the brunt of this 'colleagues' abusive behaviour promotion of the main perp it was always the intention of my 'colleague' to get me out of the team and take over my Officer status and effect they way up from what they considered to be a lowly administrative position. they have now achieved this. even with the outcome of the grievance they still hold this position. what does this say? Victimisation (final 'last straw') managers manager has not taken too kindly to my complaint and raised awareness of what's going on in one of their departments and has targeted the 'trouble maker' me. a serious incident of victimisation has recently taken place. but i am covered by a 'protected act' and acted immediately. i put in a grievance about the harrassment and bullying by this particular manager. naturally management have stuck together. so i am just about to put in an appeal. Back to the start again this brings me round to where i started. based on the medical recommendation i think i will have to leave my job immediately i am notified of the appeal decision otherwise i will lose any rights i may have to claim constructive dismissal. i am not sure i want to claim this anyway as i would prefer the matter to go to civil court, where i can completely sue the a... off these people for what has happened to me over the past 18 months. my medical state the complete and utter indignity of having to constantly wear a wig and a cheap one at that as i dont have the money to buy a decent one. how further freakish i look without eyebrows. the constant eye infections because of no eyelashes, or where they were just coming loose and falling into my eye - the constant rubbing. im not so distressed about the rest of the body hair - no on sees any of it. im on medication up to my eyeballs. i have a diagnosed prolapsed disc and whilst of sick couldnt even put my knickers on or use the WC without putting a bucket on it first as i couldnt sit. thankfully my mobility is such that i can get around better, but i walk with a limp now, and still prefer to use the disable WC as they are a little higher. the constant pain in my back, shooting pains and numbness in my left leg is sometimes unbearable. also since being back at work apart from the deterioaration again of my mental state i have the additional indignity of repeated boils on my arse - what the hell is that about? i do hope that there is someone prepared and/or managed to read through this and provide advice or answer my query. Thanks
  13. Hi, I'm new to this and forums, so forgive me if I've put this in the wrong place. My ET1 was accepted. The employers submitted an ET3. Due to 'an administrative error' (Employment Tribunal's phrase), there has been a very long delay between my being physically attacked by my employers and the submitting of forms by them and the employers. I have literally just received the hearing and due process dates and today I have received a letter from my now ex-employers' solicitors, asking for an unbelieveable amount of information, that I would have to get together by this coming Monday. It would take me more than three days under perfect circumstances, but I am on new medication, from the GP, and have been referred to crisis intervention and a psychiatrist, as well as other health care professionals, as in their words, I am very ill, due to the stress of the attack, incidents leading up to the attack, subsequent court case and continuing intimidation and threats. I am too ill to get this replying information in this time frame. How do I word an email to the Employment Tribunal people, to ask for an extension, to get myself together enough, to answer all these questions? I am also suffering side effects from the medications and clinical depression. Also, I have been asked by the tribunal people to describe my disability (also present at the time of employment) under some kind of regulation rules. Do you know how I do this please? I take about ten medications to maintain my hormone levels, including Metformin as I am pre-diabetic and I am diagnosed with Bipolar Affective Disorder, which is triggered by things like stress, including someone trying to kill me. At some point, I will post a full explanation as to what happened, but I need to first remove the stress of being expected to answer a whole heap of intricately detailed questions by Monday. Thank you for taking time to read this; I hope it makes sense (it's hard to concentrate at the moment) and if anyone answers, I thank you, in advance, for your help. If possible, I think I have to ask for the extension today. C
  14. Hello everyone, Myself Steven Brooks. I am new to this forum. I have not found the introduction thread of this forum so, I am giving here my introduction. I want to share my thoughts with all the members of the forum, on the topic about electronics and its uses. If I have done any type of mistake, then forgive me. I wish for your support and cooperation. Thank you, Steven Brooks
×
×
  • Create New...