Hello, I had work done by a builder about a year ago, but since then I have had nothing but problems. The beams in the roof have not been installed correctly, causing major cracks in the loft room and below, the windows have not been installed properly and many other issues. Does anyone know if this sort of thing would be covered by a builder's product liability insurance? He built and installed my roof incorrectly and also installed my windows wrong, which in turn has affected by brickwork. Given that he built and constructed my extension, does that mean any faults found after he left can be claimed for, or would he have to claim for each and every fault that I have found. By the way the builder has accepted that he did bad, so I am going to assume that if the insurance company play fair, they will pay out.

Dear All, In the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, it is suggested that once a warrant is issued against the debtor for a parking offence, then the vehicle cannot be sold or disposed of prior to levy or removal, until the debt is cleared. This of course leaves innocent people like Ethel and Albert two pensioners, having purchased a vehicle from London with outstanding parking tickets in a terrible and disgusting position. Along comes a bailiff with ANPR and removes the vehicle. The bailiff then states that the vehicle is subject to outstanding parking tickets, they will not return the vehicle until all the tickets are paid in full including costs of removal, and as such under the Courts and Tribunals Act 2007, they do not have clear title, and they are ordered to seek the return of £7500 for their car from the person who they purchased it from, in this case Mr Jones, who in turn sticks two fingers up to Ethel and Albert. How can it be that innocent people who purchase vehicles with outstanding parking tickets are being subjected to this kind if trauma, it is a terrible [problem], and I cannot imagine that parliament had intended for the bailiffs to interpret the law in the manner they have done. The names used in this story are of course not their real names, but the innocent people concerned are real, and are worried about losing further sums with Newlyn PLC pursing these kinds of dirty tactics. Newlyn PLC have invited the pensioners to take legal action, but are warned that if they dare they will defend it viciously, as they take legal action against them seriously.

British public urged to be aware of poppy merchandise [problem]s READ MORE HERE: https://tinyurl.com/yazrpyph

Public asked for views on the digital economy READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-asked-for-views-on-the-digital-economy Note: Is Open until 7th Dec 2018

Fully digital divorce application launched to the public England and Wales READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fully-digital-divorce-application-launched-to-the-public

Statement on Ofwat and rebuilding public trust in the water sector READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/statement-on-ofwat-and-rebuilding-public-trust-in-the-water-sector

Public Health England urges vigilance about spotting signs of scarlet fever READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/public-health-england-urges-vigilance-about-spotting-signs-of-scarlet-fever

Hi All, Just got a quick question, my company is looking at introducing one of those staff boards that publicly shows your photo and your name. Im not very keen on this as i do not like my picture taken, but also i dont want my details shown on multiple sites i cover. Obviously I had had my picture taken previously for staff ID etc, but that was for internal things only and not fully public facing. Can they try to force me into this?

A new financial guidance service to provide advice on pensions, managing debts and other money issues is to be created by the government. It will replace the heavily criticised Money Advice Service (MAS) as well as two pension advice services. The government thinks a single advisory body will be more efficient but has yet to decide how the new service will actually work. The abolition of the MAS was announced in the Budget in March. It was criticised for failing to help those who needed it most and paying its staff too much. No timetable Like the MAS, the new organisation will be paid for by a levy on financial services companies. The new body will also take on the roles of the Pensions Advisory Service, and Pension Wise - an organisation set up in response to pension reforms introduced in 2015. The government looked at setting up two bodies to replace the MAS and pensions services. But industry and consumer finance groups raised concerns over how they would work together effectively. The new body as yet has no name and there is no timetable for its creation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37597567

Hi again everyone, Im getting older and moaning more about things, I visited my local swimming pool with my nephews last week, I took my snorkel and mask my nephew took his mask, we were using them in the pool till we were told masks are not allowed in the pool I pointed out that there was no signs warning this only no diving in the shallow end It was told to me the life guards need to see our faces in case we got in trouble and the mask covers our nose was not allowed, I said nose clips are allowed but was told it made it difficult for the life guards (I presume to carry out cpr) so the manger was called out to talk to me about the mask he repeated the same I asked for contact details for me to talk to someone about it, He said he would provide them when i leave and i left the masks on the side of the pool. We carried on swimming 15 mins later the whistle blew and we were told swimming was over least to say i was miffed that we only got 35mins too and no time tables are up in the reception area and paid £11.00 to swim. I stopped at the reception on the way out and asked the receptionist to call for the manger he came and gave me the contact details I sent a email that evening pointing out no prices are advertised or timetables and about the face masks got a reply next day, He put in his email that ; Normal operating procedure, Section 3.4.4 Genaral pool rules, bullet point six "No face masks/snorkels/beach balls unless in a designated and supervised session" And also he put in the email that it could take time to carry out CPR, there are timetables on their website or on request from the receptionist or in the wetroom and nothing at all about prices, the next day I visited the centre and spoke to the manger who emailed me and asked him for a copy of the General pool rules, the manger went too obtain a copy and came back 15 mins later told me he spoke to head office and couldn't give me a copy because of the data protection act, While I was waiting for him I noticed they are selling swimming masks for children plus ear plugs (I would have thought some one wearing earplugs in a swimming pool wouldn't be able to ear a wistle very well). The bits I need help with. 1) Does data protection act come into this as it is a public swimming pool and i wanted to see the rules as there are no signs giving warnings or restrictions. 2) Do they have to put time tables and prices at the reception for the public to see, As on better org web sites there are different prices and the time tables can be confusing. 3) The masks are on sale to the public and I was using the mask in the public pool and as we know now Vinnie Jones tells us only to kiss the miss's and pump the chest instead.

I had mortgage arrears over 6 years ago, the lender went for repo and it was suspended. Arrears paid and back on track etc. Credit history now clear and looking to move. Santander have done a credit check on me and told my mortgage adviser that they have found something serious on my file but won't tell him what it is. I have checked my file and there is nothing on there. Am completely worrying now about what it could be. Have never been bankrupt, no IVA or criminal record so this is the only thing I can think of. Would Santander be able to see this somehow? How can I find out what they've found? without knowing, I can't possibly move forward with anything Thanks

A subsidied bus service is required in order to offer transport to a small number of elderly and disabled residents who otherwise would be housebound or severely lose quality of life. One has already ended up in hospital due to not being able to get out. Bus shelters/stops are in place but buses stopped years ago. Bus company is dragging their heels. It would not take much to redirect a small bus to cover this patch. M.P.s not answered request for help. Any way to push this along? ANy relevant legislation? Thanks

Where are these silly rumours coming from. He can't do anything on his own, he would be the leader of a party and anything done would be by consent of parliament. The things being said make his role seem dictatorial, he will be the sole ruler.

Anyone have details to notes for this?

If a used vehicle is sold to a police officer - do they have a right to expect better treatment and can they threaten you with their position if things go wrong ( or not their way?) Also, if this police officer turns out to have actually retired can they continue to inform you ''they are the police'' and you will be in big trouble if you don't do what they want. Would this be deemed as impersonating a police officer?

Hi hoping someone can give advice. A couple of months ago we engaged a builder to do some work. We ended up with water ingress issues. The builder accepted liability and everything was going through the loss adjuster. However last week the adjuster informed us that the builder had decided that as we owe him money (we don't BTW) that the claim cannot move on, basically he is telling us that even if the insurance decided to pay out they would pay directly to the builder to cover his losses. Surely this cannot be right as ; 1. We don't owe him anything and even if we did surely that has to be dealt with separately. 2. The adjuster is also saying that the builder has to give the insurance the OK to pay the money - I thought once the builder had agreed liability then it was between us and the insurance nothing to do with the builder 3. Why is the insurance company saying that they cannot deal with me (won't even answer a question) they say everything has to go the adjuster. Help - advice would be appreciated

We know that DCA's use electoral rolls and other info on public domain So can I by the same token post details of DCA director's Such as name, address, dob, FB profile all of which are freely available on the net?

Public Transport Safety Tips

Public Transport Safety Tips please see PDF:

ASA Adjudication on Hampson Hughes Solicitors Hampson Hughes Solicitors Edward Pavilion Albert Dock Liverpool L3 4AF Date: 5 March 2014 Media: Television Sector: Financial Number of complaints: 1 Complaint Ref: A13-251321 Ad A TV ad for a personal injury claim service featured two costumed characters walking down the street, one of which tripped over an exposed drainhole. The voice-over in the ad stated, "Accidents are never nice, but the £2,000 up-front on accepted cases from Hampson Hughes will make them a lot easier to deal with. Hampson Hughes. Finally something to feel good about." On-screen text stated "£2000 Ts & Cs apply visit http://www.hampsonhughes.com for details". Issue The complainant, who understood there were significant conditions associated with receiving a £2,000 payment, challenged whether the ad was misleading. BCAP Code 3.13.103.12 Response Hampson Hughes Solicitors said they believed the ad clearly stated that the £2,000 up-front payment was subject to acceptance of the case and made clear that the payment was not automatically awarded to clients. They said they encouraged people to visit their website to view the full details of the terms and conditions associated with the offer. Clearcast said the ad stated in the voice-over "£2,000 up-front on all accepted cases" and considered that that made it clear that £2,000 would be paid up-front only if the consumer's case was accepted by the advertiser. They said on-screen text qualified that acceptance was subject to terms and conditions. They said they had been advised by Hampson Hughes that any claim unlikely to result in an award of £3,000 or more would not be eligible for the £2,000 up-front payment, but they did not consider that condition to be so material that it needed to be explicitly stated. They considered that viewers would reasonably expect that any up-front sum would need to be close to any anticipated future financial award or settlement. They did not think that the other conditions of the award were significant enough to be explicitly mentioned in ad and therefore considered the on-screen text to be sufficient. Assessment Upheld The ASA noted that the ad stated "… £2,000 up-front on accepted cases from Hampson Hughes …" and considered that that implied that all cases taken on by Hampson Hughes would receive that up-front cash payment. We understood that there were a number of terms and conditions associated with the advance cash payment offer, including that the offer would not be honoured if the claim was unlikely to result in an award of £3,000 or more, and that therefore in some cases consumers' claims would be pursued by Hampson Hughes, but they would not be eligible to receive the up-front cash payment. Whilst we acknowledged that on-screen text stated "Ts and Cs apply", in the context of the claim in the voice-over we considered that consumers were likely to understand the terms and conditions to qualify whether or not the case would be accepted by Hampson Hughes, and not whether or not the accepted case would be eligible to receive the up-front cash payment. Furthermore, we considered that the exclusion of claims unlikely to result in an award of £3,000 or more was a significant limitation to the offer and therefore should have been clearly stated in the ad. Because we considered that the ad implied that all cases accepted by Hampson Hughes would receive an up-front payment of £2,000 when that was not the case, and because the ad excluded a significant limitation to the offer, we concluded that the ad was misleading. The ad breached BCAP Code rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.10 (Qualification) and 3.12 (Exaggeration). Action The ad must not be broadcast again in its current form. We told Hampson Hughes Solicitors not to imply that an offer was available for all customers if that was not the case, and to make clear any significant limitations and qualifications to offers made in their future advertising. Perhaps they should have got some real legal advice first

After banking scandal, the Co-op wants to sound out the public on the dividends and whether it should continue to make political donations. The Co-operative Group has launched a wide-ranging poll about its future, including whether it should keep making political donations of up to £1m. In what is thought to be the first survey of its kind, the group is also asking the public for its views on the dividend paid to its members and on what it can do to help local communities following a series of scandals inside its banking arm. Euan Sutherland, chief executive of the Co-op group since May, when the problems at the bank were uncovered, wants the survey to help restore the organisation's standing as the UK's biggest mutual. "In recent years, the Co-operative has lost touch with its customers and members and with the communities in which it operates," he warned. "We haven't been listening. As a new management team, we are focusing on reviewing the Co-operative, and the UK public will be vital to that process." Describing the survey as unprecedented, he added: "If we are to successfully serve the communities in which we operate, to become as relevant today as we were in the past, we need to hear directly from the communities and the people we serve. We have seen incredible loyalty from our customers, colleagues and members in recent months – and we want to reward loyalty." The survey closes on 24 March and the results will be announced at the annual general meeting in May, and published online. Have you say HERE

Petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/prime-minister-this-petition-is-to-clean-up-the-financial-enforcement-industry-by-creating-a-public-authority-whose-members-are-selected-by-public-vote This petition is to set up a publicly run body overseeing all debt recovery personnel, debt recovery businesses and government financial penalty issuing authorities. The public body members will be selected by a public vote. The public run body will have full authority to grant licences to, investigate, punish or dismiss any court appointment bailiff, debt recovery agent, enforcement officer or their businesses. The public body will have complete authority and autonomy from government or judicial interference to make decisions based on its own findings on any persons or entities working within the UK who are responsible for collecting monies or issuing financial penalties. The public body will oversee all debt recovery businesses and people within these businesses. The public body will oversee and contribute to regulation on the industry and licences to trade. The purpose of the agency is to: · Ensure ‘fit and proper’ people are working within the industry. · Create a culture of ethical behaviour within the industry. · Create transparency within the industry. · Regulate practice that is deemed publicly fit. · Be an authority for the public to raise serious concerns to and have them investigated as an authority. · Grant compensation to people who are caused serious issues through regulatory negligence or unfit practices. To impose fines upon, investigate, punish or dismiss these persons or companies who are not working within the guidelines set out by the public authority.

Please sign and promote this petition: https://www.change.org/petitions/prime-minister-this-petition-is-to-clean-up-the-financial-enforcement-industry-by-creating-a-public-authority-whose-members-are-selected-by-public-vote This petition is to set up a publicly run body overseeing all debt recovery personnel, debt recovery businesses and government financial penalty issuing authorities. The public body members will be selected by a public vote. The public run body will have full authority to grant licences to, investigate, punish or dismiss any court appointment bailiff, debt recovery agent, enforcement officer or their businesses. The public body will have complete authority and autonomy from government or judicial interference to make decisions based on its own findings on any persons or entities working within the UK who are responsible for collecting monies or issuing financial penalties. The public body will oversee all debt recovery businesses and people within these businesses. The public body will oversee and contribute to regulation on the industry and licences to trade. The purpose of the agency is to: · Ensure ‘fit and proper’ people are working within the industry. · Create a culture of ethical behaviour within the industry. · Create transparency within the industry. · Regulate practice that is deemed publicly fit. · Be an authority for the public to raise serious concerns to and have them investigated as an authority. · Grant compensation to people who are caused serious issues through regulatory negligence or unfit practices. To impose fines upon, investigate, punish or dismiss these persons or companies who are not working within the guidelines set out by the public authority.

HOW TO ACCESS INFORMATION FROM A PUBLIC BODY GUIDE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OFFICE (ICO) This is the Link: http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/official_information

HOW TO ACCESS INFORMATION FROM A PUBLIC BODY GUIDE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER OFFICE (ICO) This is the Link: http://www.ico.org.uk/for_the_public/official_information