Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'justified'.



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
  • chilleddrivingtuition

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 2 results

  1. Energy regulator imposes £750,000 penalty on ScottishPower for failing to justify £180 premium for different payment methods - but says £80 differential now charged by energy companies is fair Energy regulator Ofgem has come under fire after claiming energy suppliers are justified in charging £80 more for not paying by direct debit - despite leaving most elderly and vulnerable customers worse off. The ruling came as Ofgem announced that one supplier, ScottishPower, would pay a £750,000 penalty for failing to justify the unusually high premium of £180 it used to charge for non-direct debit payment methods. But controversially the regulator concluded that the average £80 premium now charged by suppliers for customers with pre-payment meters or paying by standard quarterly bills was justified by the higher costs they entailed. The regulator admitted that "low income customers and those in vulnerable situations", such as the elderly, would typically be left paying more, because they were "more likely to pay by means other than direct debit". But after examining evidence from suppliers it said it "found no evidence to suggest that costs are being unjustifiably added to the bills of typical prepayment and standard credit customers". More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10843585/80-charge-if-you-dont-pay-for-energy-by-direct-debit-is-justified-says-Ofgem.html
  2. Being new here, I will do my best to get the detail to you. I have no debts, judgements, or other oustanding items. I named my first born after me, some 27 years ago. He moved out of my home in Sept this year. I found a flyer in my letter box "REMOVAL 5pm TODAY" dated 20th Nov. The bailiffs buzzed on my garden entrance intercom on 21st Nov.(3pm) He said he had clamped my car and wanted £495ish or would remove it. I told him that it was my car and I was not the person he was looking for. He was rude, beligerant and somewhat threatening because he thought I was lying. I called the police and after some time an officer turned up to stop any "breach of the peace" The bailiff had no interest in my explanation of what the true circumstances were. The officer entered my house, checked all my documentation and was wholly satisfied that I was indeed the owner of the vehicle, and that my son was indeed the debtor. He relayed all those facts to the bailiff, and was perplexed at the bailiffs stance that he intended to leave my vehicle clamped. The officer felt that he had no power to act and suggested I ring the council, which I did. They saw that there indeed there could be an issue and I am led to believe they contacted Jacobs Bailiffs. After phone calls to and fro (me & council / me & Jacobs ) the bailiff left, leaving my car clamped and it was clamped for 24 hours before they came to release it. Because it was clamped in front of my garage, my wifes car was also unavailable. I have processed a Form 4 complaint. Do you think I have a valid case. There are two issues here. The wrongful clamping and the excessive and I believe illegal fees that they are attempting to charge my son. At this point I am only trying to deal with the clamping issue. I have never been in debt in my life and they treat me like a common criminal.
×
×
  • Create New...