Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'forthcoming'.



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 6 results

  1. Hi all. Long time no post I know but I've been occupied elsewhere! I have a WCA booked for 7th September, however I had a nasty fall on the 29th July and fractured my upper right arm. I know an injury like this would trigger an automatic ESA claim, but as I'm already on ESA (WRAG) due to other conditions I'm wondering if there is any procedure in place to cover a situation like this? I'm guessing the answer from the DWP will be attend the WCA anyway. Can anyone shed some light? I used to be pretty well read on benefits issues but I'm well and truly rusty and I know some things have changed since I last locked horns with the DWP and ATOS, Maximus taking over the WCA's being just one example. Any help greatly appreciated.
  2. Am seeking advice here due to the issue is with my ex partner. She received a text early November saying the account was been limited due to excessive use and a bill of over £200 been created. The payment was taken by DD even though no bill for the charges has been produced and was requested numerous times. Phone contact did nothing to resolve this issue and she advised them to cancel the contract immediately and send a final bill. She also informed them the DD would be cancelled and if the charges found to be legit then the bill would be paid. The SIM card was removed after that conversation (Early November). I then took possession of the SIM card so know it has not been used since then. T Mobile have now sent a demand for over £200 again for new charges since the last DD was taken in NOV. No bill has been supplied justifying these charges or what they consist of. What is the best way to proceed with this issue. It sounds like the standard not been able to collect DD pay up or else letter. The contract was a 30 rolling 2400 Minutes,unlimited text and internet so i myself would like to see how these excessive bills have come about.
  3. I really dont know where to start here but i will try and explain as best i can. The main reason for the post is to find out if the repossession is legal which is only the tip of the iceberg here. A financial adviser is contacted to source funding for a small residential development. The adviser contacts a company who happen to be a broker. The broker sources funding from a lender and charges £1,000 app fee. The application is made to LENDER which was successful, no issues. The name of the company at the top of the facility Letter is lets say "The Lender" There is no address or contact information of any kind within the contract other than the name of the company at the top. As the contract was to release the funding in stages, the first stage was released and work carried out to complete all underbuilding work. Not further funding was released after this due to the lenders demands outwith the contract. One thing led to another and the issue was unable to be resolved. The lender decided it was time to both serve a calling up notice and subsequently a court writ to repossess the partially developed land. This is where things start to open up and i find out who is who The issue is that the pursuer is a Limited Company, the same Limited company that the broker was a trading name of, effectively what this guy is saying is, the broker and "The Lender" were both trading names of the Limited Company- How was i to know that when the Financial Adviser requested £1,000 app fee payable to the lender and also there would be a £1,500 fee payable to the broker for sourcing the lender? Effectively it now looks like the Director of the limited company not only charged me to find the lender but HE was the Lender. Now, to make things clear. The Limited company using the two so called trading names had a Consumer Credit License (Legal Formation: Body Corporate) (Nature of Business- Mortgage Broker) (Category-Credit Brokerage) this is very clear from OFT. "The Lender" also had their own CCL as a separate entity,(Legal Formation: Partnership) (Nature of Business-Mortgages) (Category- Credit Brokerage and Consumer Credit) this is very clear from OFT. "The Lender" from the mass of information i found out about them has been a Partnership company for many years but the Limited company who is pursuing the repossession has only been set up for over a year. I am of the thinking that, as nothing mentioned in the contract about a trading name of the Limited Company (which would be a breach of the Companies Act) if it were the case. The limited company did not hold any CCL to be a lender. The Partnership was established at least 10 years prior to the Limited Company being set up, and most importantly, there will be litigation against the lender for breaching the contract it is simply a move to limit the liabilities to the Limited Company that seemingly does not much in the way of liquid funds. Another slight twist is that, the broker and lender have no association whatsoever with the Limited company now they are now trading names of two other Limited companies this guy has set up and the CCL status of all companies is that they are Mortgage Broker NO MORE BEING A LENDER! Again, just to add a little spice. the three individuals who own the Partnership/Limited companies have between them Dissolved over 40 companies within the last 8 years or so. Should it not be "The Lender" named within the contract pursuing repossession. Should i be suing a company not named on the contract and also unauthorised to lend? As i mentioned, this is the tip of the iceberg, Thanks in advance
  4. I am obliged to Sir Malcolm Rifkind for passing on concerns about proposed new Crime and Courts Bill and kindly took my concerns up with Helen Grant-permanent Under Secretary of State for Justice. HG included a long report back to him on how the consultation has gone and the future implications. It is a long read. One of the interesting snippets was on the section relating to the Cost of Enforcement Amendments. The majority of bailiff companies agree that the costs would be minimal or a couple of thousand pounds at most. All except one which claimed their costs of implementation would be £100,000. One can only conjecture which company it was but it seems no wonder how some bailiffs think nothing of adding extra fees when their head office sets that example. The assessment by the panel selected a figure of £3000. The Government are attempting to simplify the various laws relating to bailiffs and one of their beliefs is that this should cut down on the number of mistaken fees charged by some bailiffs. Those poor dears who levy fees all day and every day are confused apparently by this rather than them being bad at math.. It will just make those bailiffs more creative in how they describe their fees-but I am an old cynic.
  5. Hi, I wonder if anyone might be able to shed a little light on a situation for me, my Solicitor isn't contactable until Tuesday and it's really bugging me! I had an accident at work back in August 2010, the company I work for has always denied liability and (I think) we'll be going to court in July. Anyway, after the accident they took statements from those who were working with me, none witnessed the actual event (all pretty basic) and submitted them to my Solicitor. Anyhow, I received in the post yesterday statements that they had re-taken from all parties (three years later) and they are full to the brim of personal comment, hearsay and all replicate each other pretty much word for word in order to paint me in a poor light. Can they do this? Change these statements so radically after all this time and be so blatant with hearsay and cut & paste? I was shaking with anger, I still have to work with these people (due back off mat leave soon) but now feel that I can't go back, some of what has been alleged is so insulting.
  6. The Prince’s Initiative is a SFEDI Centre of Excellence and we now offer accredited training courses. We believe that workshops are hugely important in the process of starting your own business. Not only are you able to get guidance from an enterprise expert, but you are able to share your ideas, thoughts and troubleshoot within a group of like-minded people. We are building our portfolio of courses and below gives information about each course we offer as well as a calendar of events we are currently running. http://www.prime.org.uk/courses/
×
×
  • Create New...