To quote from Thames Water on their Assessed Household Charge Now I was assessed in late 2008 and placed in band 1 and have been billed band 1 ever since. Only recently did I discover that the single rate also exists so have applied for it and been accepted. Now luckily I have a copy of my original meter assessment form (completed and signed on the day of my assessment) which states on it 1 bed 1 person.......... I can't remember a bill or leaflet that advertised that they had brought in a lower rate I was eligible for or I would have applied for it. So the question is since they had the information that I was eligible and failed to adequately advertise the change to me........ Would this be worth pursuing? I know with benefits etc that them having the information but not applying that to future changes is an easy win at appeal but what about this scenario with Thames Water? It could mean a refund of around £700

http://www.expressandstar.com/business/uk-money/2017/01/27/figures-show-steep-rise-in-recorded-personal-insolvencies/

In last week's White Paper on the future of the BBC, the Culture Secretary; John Whittingdale confirmed that watching TV without a valid TV licence will continue to be a criminal offence. At present, 13% (approx 180,000 cases) that go before the magistrates each year are in relation to TV licence evasion. In the consultation paper it was stated that 'more guidance' was required in relation to this offence together with 'proposed culpability factors'. Presently, the Sentencing Council are undertaking a large-scale revamp of sentencing rules for 27 common offences dealt with by the magistrates and if approval is given, the new sentences will take effect in the autumn. Yesterday, it was announced that substantial changes are being proposed by the Sentencing Council in relation to TV licence evasion. These proposals (if approved) could see many of the fines significantly increased, and in many cases....doubled. The most significant part of the Sentencing Council's proposals concerns the new 'culpability factors'. Under the proposal, the crime will be considered more serious if the individual: Has not tried to buy a licence; If they have tried to evade detection; Have additional subscription television service (Sky, BT TV, Netflix or Amazon) The effect will be that JPs will consider that an individual who is a Sky, Netflix, Amazon or BT TV subscriber will have committed a Category Two crime rather than the lesser Category Three offence for which they would currently be guilty. For individuals who have failed to pay for a TV licence for more than six months the offence will be Category One, which would mean the fine would be at the top of the Band B range.

So the issue itself is kinda "resolved" as I'm told to wait up to 4 days for it to arrive. But I'm left feeling misslead with the information that was provided when I made my order, and anoyed that whenever anyone from our household orders from Argos it always seems to encounter an issue!? Basicly I orderd a game that was due for release today, and I chose argos as it stated specificly that if I placed it I would get "delivery within 1 days" shame that's not the case however. As it was only till after my payment had been processed did it give me the typical error of, "Unfortunaltey we're unable to confirm your order at this time and will email you soon when it has been confirmed" or well something along those lines at least. Anyway I was paitent waited till the late morning which is now for any updates as I was expecting this today.So heard nothing and then I got in touch with Customer service, asked about the status of my order, I was calm and explained in detail what happend, they were short but quick to pass me onto someonelse who could handle with my queries. When I mentioned that it specificly said "1 day delivery" they told me straight that they "doubt" it said that and was probably for dispatch instead. Which I could understand more if it actually said that, but it didn't so I felt like i'd been misslead and that apperently they "knew" what it actually meant or said despite me seeing it clearly worderd with the words " 1 day delivery" not dispatch. They then proceeded to ignore my other quires and asked me to end chat and fill out the survey. In regards with my other quries which were, with what happend with the system as it's not even able to send notifications out or update my orders status? Or will I even receive SMS notifications at least?? When can I expect to hear any updates??? And then from that service it got me thinking about how this kind of thing has happend before numerous times when we've orderd Cookers, and Washing Machines, Tumble dryers and all sorts from them. I don't know why Me and my family keep trusting them probably becuase I had hopes they'd improve and it was all just unfortunate circumstances but this has been too often now and I'm just rather peeved and needed to vent. Sorry if this isn't the right place or if my spelling/grammar is off, I maybe dyslexic but I'm not blind and can understand the meaning of the difference between the words Delivery and Dispatch. Honestly it'd be nice to know at least that I'm not the only one who's experienced repeated poor service so I feel less of a personal target by them even if it's unintentonal and just system/human errors. ~ Sincerly a foolish customer.

I have been studying as always after reading up on various posts, I now have a what I deem a very good question and would like some input please the question is as follows. For enforcement purposes which is the correct "vulnerability" to use as a method of protecting a debtor that falls into either category 1.Vulnerable adult. definition here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/446/regulation/2/made 2.Vulnerable household. As mentioned in many a post thanks for looking and replying 3.Does a vulnerable adult have more protection than a vulnerable household? As under PACE the vulnerable adult is very protected. 4. Does the vulnerable adult give the same protection to the household as well? IE does the household then become vulnerable and has the same protection as a vulnerable household as stated. If the adult is vulnerable and is the debtor, is it correct that the Bailiff must retire until an appropriate adult is present, as the debtor is at possible risk of being taken advantage of? Also if the Bailiff manages to bluff his way in a lays a levy will this then be deemed as an incorrect levy? How can such an adult now be protected from any Bailiff enforcement action under the new legislation and what recourse does the appropriate adult have and how would they get help in this matter? To give an example using myself as the subject ok As far as Social Services are concerned they state for safety purposes I am classed as vulnerable, due to my physical as well as mental disabilities. Because I am a danger to myself and to others and do not understand the dangers and put myself at risk without understanding the dangers, so I may harm myself or put others at risk of danger or harm, so therefore I have to have a carer to assist me in everyday chores, to make sure that the tasks are done correctly and without danger to myself But I am left alone at times to have "free time to myself on my own" so under PACE I get full protection and the need for an appropriate adult before questioning, but what of Bailiff enforcement action what protection would I have from them? MM

I have a Gaget Insurance Policy for the iPhone in our household - this policy was offered by when taking out my household insurance, I asked at time what did it cover, having two older teens wanted to make sure they were included. Situation - just over a week ago my daughter discovered during the day that her phone was missing, she travels on London transport train and underground, she did the "find my phone" but no response. It is not known whether she was pickpocketed (it was in her side jacket pocket with slanted openings) or whether it was lost, if being the latter she would have heard it drop. I contacted the service provider to cancel the phone and then the next day went to local community police station, two older gentlemen on duty, very helpful though one was showing the other one the ropes, explained about phone and they completed the form, I repeatedly mentioned not known if pick pocketed. Send information to insurance company with proof of purchase, proof of bill, proof of police report and completed form. I called later that evening to ask if I get replacement and they reimburse or do they supply. I was told that my claim had been rejected due to the fact that I am not covered for Accidental Loss, I immediately emailed my response that this was not known whether Loss or Theft but the fact is I have cover for Accidental Loss and Theft. I was told that I do not. I have made a complaint to the insurance broker who are "looking into it", I have again received a letter telling me that my appeal is rejected due to the fact that the phone was lost! and that I do not have cover for this and if I believe I have been misadvised by Paragon then take it up with them. Paragon are looking into it - and in the mean time no phone! My Terms & Conditions clearly state both Accidental Loss and Theft.

good morning all. hoping someone can advise on this. my partner was going to go to a ppi reclaim company but when i said it would be better to do it herself, she asked me to do it for her. ( talked myself into this one somehow). she has had a loan continuously for over ten years, usually using one to clear the preceding loan. she has limited paperwork relating to each loan and so i chose one, pretty much at random, to start with the loan from 2005 with household bank. she has the original credit agreement for this one which states that it was signed in branch. the reasons for her reclaiming the ppi on this loan are that: she was not advised that she could get ppi elsewhere, she has been in employment (very secure with nhs) which offers an extremely generous redundancy and sickness package and so would not need this ppi ( adamant that she would have told them this) and believed that getting the loan was dependant on taking the ppi. are these good grounds for reclaiming? also on the credit agreement it does state that the ppi is optional in several places so does this negate the arguement that she believed she had to the ppi to get the loan? my other question is that on the credit agreement she has although signed on behalf of the household bank it was not signed by her, does this have any bearing or open up any other issues? i was going to start with a sar in the templates library, would this include any loans she has had with other tading names of household bank or should i sar each diiferent loan individually? many thanks for taking the time to read this and any advise given.

Hi guys, Great site....it has helped give me the confidence to confront and repair by financial issues. I am in the process of compiling a letter to the credit card company I owe 6,500. I have been struggling for the last 3 years to make the minimum payments each month (sometimes having to borrow from family & friends) and have finally faced the fact that I can not continue like this. The last 18 months has participially been a challenge with the reduction of my working hours. So much so I rented out my flat and moved in with my brother and his wife to prevent the loss of my home. I've tried to borrow against my home to pay off the card as well as applying for a personal loans, all were denied (thankfully so, now that I am a bit more educated by the advice I've read on this site) I've read that by writing to the company I am in debt to asking for them to freeze interest and accept a monthly payment that I can afford could damage my credit rating. My concern is that I don't wish this to have a detrimental affect on the credit rating of my brothers household possibly causing them to have issues gaining credit in the future. Is there anyway around this? Thanking you in advance for your replies.

Hi Guys, I hope someone can help. I will be as clear as I can - the long and short of it is that I appealed a parking ticket as I was unaware that I had one until the baliffs came calling. All paperwork was sent to my old address so I did not get the opportunity to sort it out. The council dont want to know and I had a hearing at my local court to which they threw my appeal out. The baliffs are demanding £497 (for a £25 ticket) - I have written a letter to the baliff company as advised on one of the forums and stated that guidelines state that where the baliffs are dealing with a vunerable household (ie me) - they should refer it back to the council. I am currently not working as I have been made redundant (and having worked the last 20 years of my life solidly) - and am claiming income support for the first time in my life. I have now received a letter back from the baliff company stating that 'simply benig unemployed and in receipt of income support does not necessarily mean that you are a vunerable person in respect of enforcement action.' The letter goes on that the NSEA is not a legal binding instrument but guidance only. They are therefore going to continue enforcement action. I honestly cannot afford to pay them - the only real asset I have is my car and since we live 11 miles from school and essentially in the middle of nowhere I need trasnsport. there are no buses or trains here and I have three children. I am really worried now and would appreciate anyones help. Thanks so much.

............or any other name they are calling themselves:roll: Tried phoning a couple of companys that reclaim for you, but as its not a straightforward claim they dont want to know. So I thought I would ask here for advice and possibly help and go it alone We took out a loan in 2004, it was more or less said it would be better if we took out the ppi, even though they knew I got 6mths full pay from my employer if I was ill. A few years later I phoned and asked to cancel the ppi only to be told that the only way to do it was, as they no longer did unsecured loans, I would have to take out a secured loan to cover the original loan. So as I didn't want to get a secured loan I just carried on. Unfortunately, in 2009 I was made redundent, so as I had the ppi, I claimed on it for the 12mths. I managed to get a job, but on reduced hours and money and arranged to reduce payments. I have recently found out that the ppi policy has been cancelled because of the reduced payments. I also believe the policy is what is known as front loaded. I also have the agreement that shows this. So, what I want to know is, do you think its worth me claiming?