Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'london'.



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 96 results

  1. Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was, since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as: - Knowing when to come in out of the rain; - Why the early bird gets the worm; - Life isn't always fair; - And maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you can earn) and reliable strategies (adults, not children, are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well-intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a 6-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job that they themselves had failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer sun lotion or an aspirin to a student; but could not inform parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Common Sense lost the will to live as the churches became businesses; and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar could sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death, -by his parents, Truth and Trust, -by his wife, Discretion, -by his daughter, Responsibility, -and by his son, Reason. He is survived by his 5 stepbrothers; - I Know My Rights - I Want It Now - Someone Else Is To Blame - I'm A Victim - Pay me for Doing Nothing Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone.
  2. Hi, I took out a mortgage with Abbey National in June 2003 and I was advised by the in branch adviser that it would be wise to take the paymentcare policy with the remortgage and additional loan which was added to the mortgage. I have been paying this every month at a cost of £52.55 - which by my calculations means I have paid £9511.55 to date. My issue is that I didn't actually require this insurance at the time of remortgage but the adviser stressed that it would be "very helpful" to my application. Wishing to get the loan agreed I took the paymentcare insurance out. The reason I didn't need it was because I would receive 6 months full pay from work if I was sick, followed by another discretionary 18 months at full pay if required. I also had life insurance with my employer 4 x annual salary so my loan obligations in case of sickness or death would be met. This original mortgage was paid in full when I sold the property. Would someone be able to advise whether I have reason for a claim and if so where do I start? Many thanks for your help.
  3. Hi all, I'm doing this for my brother, who is registered disabled, so assumes that because he had a blue disabled badge on display, he didn't need to pay for a ticket to park here. The following details are the information so far: 1 Date of the infringement 18th Oct, 2017 2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date] 24th Oct, 2017 3 Date received 26th Oct, 2017 4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [y/n?] Yes 5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event? Two small photos showing vehicle registration number plate on entry to, and then exit from, the car park 6 Have you appealed? {y/n?] post up you appeal] no Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up no 7 Who is the parking company? Euro Car Parks 8. Where exactly [carpark name and town] M & B, Toby Carvery, Hollybush Hill, Snaresbrook, London, E11 1PE For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes, BPA POPLA There are two official bodies, the BPA and the IAS. If you are unsure, please check HERE I have told him to hang tight about either appealing, or paying the parking charge, until you guys can give us the next directions on what to do Many thanks for your help. Bloke199
  4. Hi there, I’m having sleepless nights with worry About 2 weeks ago, I went through a self check out and bought 2 things, one of the things was under my arm as I was on the phone at the time. I forgot to pay for it (no sarcasm please) I left the store, showing how innocent I am, I was stood looking in the window of the holiday shop next door browsing at the offers, the security guard approched me and said you hadn’t paid for an item I went back in store, paid for the item, apologised about 8 times. I paid for the item then he said can you come with me, I went to the back office He asked for my name and DOB No address or ID was asked I gave my correct details but obviously there will be more than one John Smiths in London. He said you’re banned for life from all sainsburys and told me to leave. I still apologised; saying I’m sorry Then I left. I haven’t heard anything since? Should there be issue? Would rather just know, but even then it’s hard to see how he’s ever get in contact unless I went back into a store. I work in a financial services job, so was relieved he didn’t ring the police etc, even then I think with no previous criminal record I could probably explain my actions and be let go, as I’ve never been convicted of any offence or even spoken to the police in my life. Can anyone advise? Thanks
  5. People trapped in huge west London tower block inferno – reports A 24-story tower block on Latimer Road in west London has been engulfed in a horrifying blaze, with reports saying people have been trapped in flats in the upper stories. The massive fire has engulfed the Grenfell Tower in North Kensington from the 2nd story to the top floor, the London Fire Brigade has tweeted. It added that at least 40 fire engines and 200 firefighters have been battling the blaze. Live.RT. https://www.rt.com/uk/392135-west-london-tower-inferno/ BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews
  6. The following news article featured on SCOOP today: http://www.publicsectorexecutive.com/Public-Sector-News/london-council-to-launch-ethical-debt-collection-for-residents?dorewrite=false/Page-1749 https://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news
  7. Good Afternoon, I have seen a few posts about this here and would like to ask for some advice on my case. I joined the London fight factory gym in February 2017 and signed for a 6 month contract (£95) per month. Three months into the contract (May) I was transferred in work and to wales and could no longer frequent that gym. At the time I did tell my coach (and owner of the gym) that I was no longer going to be attending. Nevertheless, I carried on paying my monthly installments until the 6th month which was July, before cancelling my direct debit. What I didn't realize was that my last payment bounced and as I had cancelled the direct debit, it didn't go through again. Last week I received an E-mail, which contains half of my new address, not sure how they got that, stating that I owe them £247. I have already E-mailed them stating I will pay them £95 and nothing more (I now realize I probably shouldn't have). To which they replied that because I broke my credit agreement I was liable to all their fees. I have read in a few threads that they can't actually action any of their threats, but can they mess with your credit score? Also, as it was a genuine mistake, (I really thought that last payment went through) is there anything I can do? Thank you in advance.
  8. Hi Guys. My Girlfriend received a Parking Eye Ticket today (07/10/2017). The details of the ticket are as follows: Ref #: ######/###### Vehicle Reg: LN## ### Vehicle Make: Ford Vehile Model: C-MAX TITANIUM Date of event: 22/07/2017 Date Issued: 05/10/2017 Payment Tel: 0330 555 4444 Date: 05/10/2017 HAMPTON BY HILTON LONDON DOCKSIDE Time in car park: 8 Hours 10 Min Arrival Time: 22/07/2017 13:59:11 Depoarture time: 22/07/2017 22:09:50 Parking charge amount £100 Paid before cost: £60 Paid before: 19/10/2017 At the time my partner was visiting me in up north so this cannot have been her. I did notice it has taken them 75 days to send her the notice. (will upload it shortly)
  9. London attack: Fatalities after vehicle and stabbing incidents READ MORE HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40146916
  10. Hi Everyone, I had parked on a single yellow line on a Sunday afternoon in a street in Greenwich in Jan 2017. I was given a ticket for this. I had appealed / challenged the fine on 23.1.2017. I had no response from the Parking Fines office till 14.7.2017 rejecting my challenge and asking me to pay. I have two questions. 1. What is the time limit within which a Parking fine Challenge/ Appeal should be responded? In my case it was 5 months and 2 weeks. 2. What is the rule for displaying parking restriction sign posts in any restricted area? Within how many metres should a sign be put and be visible in the area? In my case there are no sign posts within 100 metres from where I parked. 3. Should I take photos/ videos of the street with no visible restriction sign posts for my next Appeal? Please can someone answer. I shall be grateful for your guidance. Many Thanks. probe
  11. Hi, Travel agent Agoda owe me circa GBP500 and repeated attempts to have them remove their heads from their butts have failed. I've learned that they have a registered office in London, would anyone be able to provide me with the address of that office so that I may do a 'Money Claim Online' on them? Thanks
  12. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/20/leak-shows-devastating-impact-of-planned-nhs-cuts-in-london This is very scary - can the NHS really take more cuts !
  13. I have received a parking ticket from Parking Eye. My wife was driving the car at the time. There is a 1 hour limit on the parking and she over stayed by 17 minutes. They are demanding £85 or £50 if you pay up quick. This is the shortest time limit in Grantham Is there any obligation on my part to inform them that it was my wife driving? How can I check if they have planning permission? Can I ask they directly?
  14. Finsbury Park: 'Several hurt' as vehicle hits pedestrians READ MORE HERE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40322960
  15. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/mar/22/peers-say-brexit-with-no-trade-deal-would-cause-signicicant-damage-to-service-sector-politics-live
  16. READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/iraq-and-afghanistan-memorial-unveiled-in-london
  17. This is so very wrong - back in 2001 the Labour Government encouraged the purchase of Diesel vehicles, reducing diesel and pumping money into the industry. Now those vehicle owners are being heavily penalised with increased fuel, taxes and now parking charges ! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/11007326/Diesel-car-drivers-betrayed-as-EU-cracks-down-on-Britain-over-air-pollution.html https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/01/uk-government-wrong-to-subsidise-diesel-says-former-minister http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/27/new-london-parking-surcharge-diesel-drivers-predicted-spread/
  18. Hi all Looking for some advise with regards to PNC This is on behalf of a friend. He parked in the Auldi car park to do a shop. What he did not do was punch in his reg number. He was there a total of 29 mins (according to PE) He has now received a Notice to Owner, an invoice for £70.00 reduced if paid quickly. He said he is going to appeal. any advise would be gratefully appreciated. Leakie
  19. Many of you who drive in London will know that Speed cameras are calibrated a bit higher than the actual limit to a greater extent than they are out side of London. Indeed you can often get flashed in the outside lane if only doing 30 in a 30 mph area. I got a NIP for doing 35 near Hanger Lane. Now I know I cannot whinge about that since I may have been over the limit but it does seem unfair if you can [along with loads of other motorists] go through most cameras at that speed and not get done and then get done for one "rogue" camera. It is surely one speed for all on all cameras not one speed at some cameras and a different criteria on other cameras within the same speed limit.
  20. I went through the barriers at Oxford Circus with Grandad's freedom pass (which I used by mistake thinking it was my own ticket - we'd gone out to lunch for my 18th and he gave me his stuff to look after) and got stopped rather aggressively by a Revenue Inspector. I got the impression that he was the police 'cos he read me my rights. I was sh .... ing myself cos I'm not from London but had heard stories of brutality from the police. This guy was definitely trying to provoke a physical response from me but I kept my cool 'cos I was in a suit. He questioned me about the freedom ticket and I explained what had happened. He was having none of it. He was so close to my face that he was spraying spit too. I just immediately volunteered to go and get a ticket which I did and after extensive questioning and detaining me, continued my journey. Next thing I know, I've been charged under s.17(1) TFL Bye law (is this a strict liability offence?) for apparently entering a "compulsory ticket area" without a ticket (I'm not a Londoner and so was pretty shocked by Revenue Inspector's behaviour). He is relying on his statement. I am pleading not guilty because having traced my steps back to Oxford Circus I can't see that it is a compulsory ticket area. My mother is livid and wants to countersue for the guy's behaviour. What I want to ask is (a) because I bought a ticket before getting on a train does that get me off the hook (b) the RI's statement is a lie - it's as if I've been framed because of the way he's worded it. Is the RI's statement still valid if I haven't signed it? Can I sue him back? Is there any good case law I can use in my defence, please. Thank you.
  21. Hy. It is a big story but i will try to be as acurate i can. i signed with this agentie Escape to London (EtL) in 10/01/2016 in madrid and i arrived here in London at 2/02/2016. i camed the next they at there offices and nobody knew who i am why i camed there and bla bla bla.... after 40 min a lady camed registred me. After that they sand me for the first interview after 7 days. The interview was so strange. I get there we sit on a tabel he ask me 3 4 questions and after 5 min they told me the big word,you don t have experience .i was send as a waiter and that is true but they knew that the agentie the second interview was after 3 days and was the same exactly the same then after 6 days another interview i could not get there i try to call them back but they didn t answer and always i need to call them. they never have initiative to call me first. After the last interview a lady from the agentie call me and ask how is was and send her a message if they don t hires me. so they didn t hire me i send her the message and after 4 days no call s i call her back and she s say exacly like that. " you send me the message,o sorry i didn t read it" so right now seriosly. i have the message in my phone and contract . soory for my english and i attached the evidence.
  22. Hi, I hope you can help. I received a PCN through the post on Friday 8th April from London Parking Solutions (dated 01/04/2016). I parked in the gated parking area of my partners apartment block (I have a key fob to gain entry) on 29/2/16 they ticketed me on 29/02/2016 but there was no ticket on the windscreen when I went down to my car the following morning. I have emailed them appealing based on having no idea they'd ticketed me. I have an email from the management company telling me that where I parked was an acceptable place for guests to park, however following on from London Parking Solutions ticketing residents parked in their own bays on this last Sunday night (for perceived infractions of permit display) they have now retracted that and are saying that guests aren't allowed to park on site. After watching the chap from LPS skulk round the cars I can't help but think they're a shonky outfit, but should I just pay it and find somewhere else to park? Thanks for your help.
  23. Open House London is the capital's largest annual festival of architecture and design, taking place on 17 & 18 September 2016. Open House London is a truly citywide celebration of the buildings, places and spaces where we live and work. It provides a unique opportunity to see, explore and learn about Londonʼs amazing architecture and design over one weekend. With more than 750 buildings opening their doors this year, Open House Londonʼs selection will include beautifully designed residences, innovative infrastructure projects and prestigious civic buildings, alongside a programme of neighbourhood walks, engineering and landscape tours, cycle rides and expertsʼ talks – all for free. http://www.openhouselondon.org.uk/
  24. There's new plans afoot regarding the environment, which could see older cars and vehicles that cause more pollution to be charged a lot more to drive in London. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has spoken about plans to charge vehicles that cause the most pollution £10 per day if they want to drive in the centre of London, in a bid to extend an "ultra low emissions zone". The new plans are looking at a charge', which would apply to vehicles - petrol or diesel - which have pre-Euro 4 emission standards. In short, that effectively means cars that are registered before 2005. If you're thinking 'well, I don't live in London, so why should I care?' - well, there's a chance that this could extend beyond the capital. http://www.bitterwallet.com/motoring/older-cars-to-face-super-charge-in-london-92577
  25. Hi, I received a PCN the other day for failing to pay the London Congestion Charge in time (within 24 hours). I decided to look into the legality of the whole scheme and have come to the conclusion (1) that the PCN issued to me is void (of no legal effect) and (2) that elements of the scheme are unlawful and, in fact, void. This means that many, if not all, congestion charge fines will have to be refunded. My logic is as follows, but I will be grateful for comments (I might have got it wrong): 1. With regard to the PCN itself, the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, 'Penalty charge notices', 12(3)(h) states that a PCN must state 'the effect of regulation 16'. Regulation 16 covers adjudication by an adjudicator. The PCN issued to me does not state the effect of regulation 16, as required by law, and it us therefore void. In other words, in law the document sent to me is not a PCN at all (it can't be because it doesn't fulfil the requirements for a valid PCN as stated in the regulations). If other PCNs are the same (do not explain the effect of regulation 16) then any fines paid on the basis of them were paid on the basis of an unlawful demand (being the PCN in question). ================================================== 2. With regard to the legality of the overall scheme, parliament is presumed to legislate in accordance with the principle of legality. In short, this means that, while Parliament can remove a fundamental legal right, it is presumed not to intend to do so unless it says so in a statute (Act of Parliament) in express terms (clear words) which allow no other interpretation. Of course, while Parliament can expressly remove a fundamental legal right in such a way (by express words), it is certain that no other body can do so (by means of secondary legislation for example) without the express authority of Parliament (and, even then, I doubt that the courts would allow such a delegation of power). This has been stated by courts at the highest level. For example, Lord Steyn in Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parte Pierson, R. v. [1997] UKHL 37 said: 'For at least a century it has been "thought to be in the highest degree improbable that Parliament would depart from the general system of law without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness . . .": see the 4th ed. of Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes, (1905) at 121, and the 12th ed. of the same book, (1969), at 116. The idea is even older. In 1855 Sir John Romilly observed that ". . . the general words of the Act are not to be so construed as to alter the previous policy of the law, unless no sense or meaning can be applied to those words consistently with the intention of preserving the existing policy untouched . . .": Minet v. Leman (1855) 20 Beav. 269, at 278. This observation has been applied in decisions of high authority: National Assistance Board v. Wilkinson [1952] 2 All E.R. 255, at 259, per Lord Goddard, C.J.; Mixnam's Properties Ltd. v. Chertsey U.D.C. [1963] 2 All E.R. 787, at 798, per Diplock L.J. In his Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution; 10th ed., London, (1968), Dicey explained the context in which Parliament legislates as follows (at 414): "By every path we come round to the same conclusion, that Parliamentary sovereignty has favoured the rule of law, and that the supremacy of the law of the land both calls forth the exertion of Parliamentary sovereignty, and leads to its being exercised in a spirit of legality."' just about the most fundamental of all legal rights is a person's right not to be punished for a crime/offence that he did not commit (Can you see where I am heading with this one?). Of course, Parliament, being supreme, can pass a law which punishes a person for a crime/offence that he did not commit, BUT IT CAN ONLY DO SO BY EXPRESS WORDS IN A STATUTE WORDS WHICH ALLOW NO OTHER INTERPRETATION. Apologies, for the use of capitals. PCNs are issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle on the basis that the registered keeper is liable in law to pay it (with certain exceptions) and, in most cases, the registered keeper will be the person who was driving the relevant vehicle at the relevant time. But does the law make the registered keeper liable, in accordance with the principle of legality explained above, if he was not driving the relevant vehicle at the relevant time - and, in fact, may not have given his permission for the car to be driven in the congestion charge zone? To comply with the principle of legality in such a case, the relevant Act of Parliament MUST make the registered keeper liable WITH NO POSSIBILITY THAT ANY OTHER PERSON (THE ACTUAL OFFENDER) COULD BE HELD LIABLE. This is because, as quoted above, if an altenative interpretation of the words in the statute in accordance with the principle of legality is possible, then that alternative interpretation MUST be adopted. In the context of the congestion charge, therefore, it is clear that, where the registered keeper was not actually driving the relevant vehicle at the relevant time (or is otherwise repsonsible), the registered keeper can only be made liable if the words of the relevant Act of Parliament make him liable TO THE EXCLUSION OF ANYONE ELSE. In other words, the registered keeper can only be made liable where he is the only person who can be made liable (under the Act of Parliament). Does the Act of Parliament actually do this (make the registered keeper liable to the exclusion of anyone else)? No, s.163(2) Transport Act 2000 states: '(2) Charges imposed in respect of any motor vehicle by a charging scheme under this Part shall be paid — (a) by the registered keeper of the motor vehicle, or (b) in circumstances specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority, by such person as is so specified.' Now this is quite clear. s.163 allows some person other than the registered keeper to be held liable for a charge. It follows that where the registered keeper did not commit the 'offence' (and it is an offence, since it incurs a penalty), he cannot be held liable (in accordance with the principle of legality as explained above) because it is possible to hold someone else liable (the person who committed the offence) and so this must be done. In short, the registered keeper cannot he held liable for an offence he did not commit because the Act does not expressly say he must be. ================================================== 3. Further, it appears to me the requirement to pay the charge within 24 hours is also unlawful. The Greater London Authority Act 1999, Schedule 23 (Scheme to conform with Mayor’s transport strategy), Section 5 states: 'A charging scheme must [note use of the word 'must] be in conformity with the Mayor’s transport strategy.' The Mayor’s Transport Strategy states (p. 37) that the strategy includes an objective to 'enhance the quality of life for all [note the use of the word 'all] Londoners', including 'improving journey experience' and 'improving road user satisfaction (drivers, pedestrians, cyclists)'. So the question is whether the requirement to pay the charge within 24 hours complies with these objectives. Does imposing a 24-hour time limit improve the 'journey experience' and the 'road user satisfaction' of ALL Londoners, including those who incur the penalty charge because they failed to pay the congestion charge within 24 hours? If not then the requirement fails to conform with the Mayor's transport strategy and so is unlawful under Sch. 23. Furthermore, the question has to be asked whether such a short time limit is either necessary or just. If the 24-hour time limit is not necessary for the purpose of collecting the original charge (as opposed to a penalty) then the requirement is merely an exercise in extortion. Can it be part of the Mayor's transport strategy to extort money from Londoners - and how does such extortion improve the 'journey experience' and the 'road user satisfaction' of ALL Londoners? Such an exercise in extrortion must, in any event, be ultra vires; that is, the Mayor has no legal power to extort money from people - it is beyond his lawful authority.
×
×
  • Create New...