Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'regulation'.



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/Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - Please register
    • 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


Location

Found 15 results

  1. CMA considers regulation for heat networks READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-considers-regulation-for-heat-networks
  2. Hi, Looking for help regarding Everest conservatory sale procedure when the point of sale is on customer premises. We have a long running dispute with Everest going back to 2014, when we were mis-sold a conservatory. We clearly asked the salesman for a specific type of foundation and base work, but as his sales tool was unable to specifically detail the type of foundations being requested, we made certain it was written on to the sales contract. To set the picture, the contract was signed very late on a Thursday night, and the salesman used an excuse that he couldn’t take our deposit money and consequently said he was unable to leave the signed sales document or the technical sales agreement with us. [yes, we now know this was breach of the consumer regulations act] We paid the deposit to the head-office the following week. What has happened since, Everest has used a different foundation (plus delivered lots of other problems) and since we don’t have a copy of the sales contract we are finding it difficult to prove our request with Everest. Everest have provided copies of the technical sales agreement, but their system was not configured to state what type of piling was requested, so Everest are claiming they have provided what was stated on the sales agreement. As instructed by Consumer advice/Trading standards we have asked for a copy of the sales contract under the Consumer Regulations Act, yet they only send repeated copies of the technical sales agreement stating that it is the binding contract. And per Consumer Advice, we have now also requested a Subject Access Request per the data protection act again specifically asking for the sales contract plus any other documentation with our details on them. We doubt Everest ware going to share a copy of the sales contract unless we can show them an example Everest conservatory sales contract, and demand they provide our copy. Can anyone share a copy of their sales contract? I’m not after your specifics but just what does the Everest Conservatory sales contract look like, because we cannot remember. Alternatively, anyone out there who has a copy of their Everest conservatory technical sales agreement, where it specifies Shire piling or Helix piling and/or a Quikbase base solution? It doesn’t need to be a contract in dispute, this can be any one that has been successfully installed and the customer is happy with it, either will do. Many thanks in advance, if you can help.
  3. The Solicitors Regulation Authority, hold themselves up to be a professional body in place to uphold the professional standards of ALL solicitors, ensuring highest stanards are adhered to at all times. Or so their literature professes. This group do not provide a service for joe public to raise issues, more, they take a complaint twist it around with lies and unfetted supposed undisclosible data and then tell you there is no case to answer, when clearly on the evidence there is. This organistion does not aid the public faith in solicitors and the like, even their own statistics prove this, in 2014 they received 10000 complaints against solicitors and only 50 were upheld, to the point that the solicitor in question was sent a letter telling them to up their game, no disciplinary action or penalties were imposed. Even someone not conversant with stats can see this is not a 'norm' of predications for any complaints procedure in whatever field . So if anyone is considering using the SRA forget it along with the Legal Ombudsman, they will both look for an angle for the legal professional and you as a citizen will not get any recourse. Best form of redress is find a web/blog and blast your issues there whilst providing tags/links/searches everywhere so that the world can see what charlatens these people and their organisations are.
  4. I made a Freedom of Information request to my council because it smells bad near of my council library. I was dissatisfied with the result and I made a request for an Internal Review of the handling of my FOI request. Unfortunately the council told me that it has no obligation to reply to this request for an Internal Review because it has considered my Freedom of Information Request under the Environmental Information Regulation Act 2004 and under Regulation 11 of this act a request for Internal Review should be made within 40 working days of the last correspondences of the council concerning my Freedom of Information request and I have made my request 50 working days after the last correspondence. I made my request for an Internal Review 50 working days after the last correspondence of the council because I was not aware that my FOI request was considered under the Environmental Information Regulation Act 2004 and that there is a 40 working days deadline. 1. In the email that I received from the council acknowledging receipt of my Freedom of Information Request and giving me a reference number it is stated that my request will be considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 but it is not stated that it will be considered also under the Environmental Information Regulations Act 2004 because in the acknowledgement email of the council it is stated the following: “I am responding to your request under the Freedom of lnformation Act 2000, which we received on 10 May 2016, for information held by the Council” However I have found in the Internet that contrary to my council when other councils acknowledge a Freedom of Information request and consider it under the Environmental Information Regulation Act 2004 they inform the applicant of this fact because I find the following in the Internet “Thank you for your request for information regarding the conservation area in Parkgate, which we received on 07 October 2015. We are dealing with your request under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004” Therefore the council did not inform me that it will consider my FOI request under the Environmental Information Regulation Act 2004. I would like to know if it is at the time that the council receives a FOI request that it has to decide whether or not to treat it as environmental information request and it has a legal duty to inform the applicant of its decision in its acknowledgment email? I learnt it only because I made a request for an Internal Review. 2. The only deadline to which the council makes reference in its emails is that he will reply to my FOI within 20 workings days but no reference is made to a 40 working days deadline. Contrary to other councils in the website of my council it is not made any reference to this 40 working days deadline In none of the emails that I received from the council about my Freedom of Information request it is made reference to the Environmental Information Regulation Act 2004 and to this 40 working days deadline. Nowhere in the complaint form for Internal Review it is made reference to this 40 working days deadline In the last email that I received from the council about my Freedom of Information request the council advises me that I can make a request for an Internal Review of the handling of my Freedom of Information request but the council did not advise me to do this within 40 working days. I would like to know if because it has made reference to a deadline of 20 working days the council had a duty to make reference to all deadlines including the 40 working days deadline? 3. I would like to know if the fact that the council does not say in its acknowledgement email and in none of its correspondences that my FOI request is considered under the Environment Information Regulations Act 2004 means that the council did not consider it under this act and has changed its mind later when I made my request for Internal Review to use as an excuse the 40 days deadline to refuse me this request because it is too embarrassing? 4. I would like to know if the 40 days deadline starts when I was aware that I my FOI request was considered under the Environmental Information Regulation Act 2004 i.e. when I was told that my request for Internal Review was refused? For the reason that paragraph 2 of this act says “Representations under paragraph (1) shall be made in writing to the public authority no later than 40 working days after the date on which the applicant believes that the public authority has failed to comply with the requirement” 5. I made my request for an Internal Review of the handling of my FOI request only few days after the 40 working days deadline, In this circumstance I would like to know if I can advise the council to accept to process my request for Internal Review and to amend its website and to inform properly the applicant in case his Freedom of Information Request is considered under the Environmental Information Regulation Act 2004 and that there is an important 40 working days deadline I have read the Environment Information Regulations Act 2004 and I found out that according to Regulation 14 of this Act in case the council refuses to provide the information requested under the FOI request the council has a duty to inform the claimant that he has the right to complain against this refusal within 40 working days under Regulation 11 of this Act. Regulation 14 of the EIR 2004 states: "14.—(1) If a request for environmental information is refused by a public authority under regulations 12(1) or 13(1), the refusal shall be made in writing and comply with the following provisions of this regulation (5) The refusal shall inform the applicant— (a)that he may make representations to the public authority under regulation 11; and (b)of the enforcement and appeal provisions of the Act applied by regulation 18." Regulation 11 of the EIR 2004 states: ["11.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), an applicant may make representations to a public authority in relation to the applicant’s request for environmental information if it appears to the applicant that the authority has failed to comply with a requirement of these Regulations in relation to the request. (2) Representations under paragraph (1) shall be made in writing to the public authority no later than 40 working days after the date on which the applicant believes that the public authority has failed to comply with the requirement." However I have not found in this Act that it is stated that in case the council accepts to provide the information request but the claimant is not satisfied with the information provided or with the handling of his FOI request the council has also the duty to inform him that he has the right to complain within 40 working days under Regulation 11 of this Act. I have not found also in this act that it is stated that when the council decides to consider a FOI request under the Environment Information Regulations Act 2004 it has a duty to inform the claimant I have maybe not properly read the Environment Information Regulations Act 2004. Therefore I would like to know if some of you know where it is made reference to these two important requirements in this Act or in another piece of legislation. I think that somewhere it should made reference to these two requirements because for example it would be unfair to deal with a FOI request under the Environment Information Regulations Act 2004 without the claimant being aware of this fact and without being aware that if he wants to make a request for an Internal Review he should do this without 40 working days. I need this information to convince the council to accept my request for Internal Review without the need to make a complaint to the Information Commissioner
  5. This new bill seems to have escaped debate on any of the forums. It was introduced last month in the Commons under the ten minute rule and is due for second reading on the 11th March http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/regulationofenforcementagentscollectionofcounciltaxarrears.html http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm151028/debtext/151028-0001.htm#15102833000002 Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the use of bailiffs and other enforcement agents by local authorities to collect council tax arrears; to establish a code of practice for enforcement agents; to create an independent bailiffs ombudsman to administer the code and to investigate and adjudicate complaints; and for connected purposes. This Bill deals with two interrelated problems which, taken together, are pushing too many people into a debt trap by forcing them to borrow more to pay council tax arrears and unaffordable bailiff fees. The first problem is that local councils are too ready to call in the bailiffs when people fall into arrears on their council tax bill. This is despite guidance that is meant to encourage local authorities to look towards establishing affordable repayment plans in such situations and thus avoid the bailiffs. The Bill gives people a stronger right to challenge councils to offer an affordable repayment option before instructing the bailiffs.
  6. The council has recently put double yellow lines down near me. Do they need a TRO to be able to enforce them, by issuing a parking ticket? If so, how do I find out if a TRO is in place? Is there somewhere on the internet where I can search for them? Thanks
  7. Does anyone know from a legal or banking perspective the date I have made payment if I use a debit card over the phone? Is it the date I give the card details or Is it the date the payment shows on my statement? The organisation I am dealing with is not authorised to go in my credit file due to the terms of the loan agreement unless I go into arrears. They are doing their best to make that happen. Am I in arrears if the payment is still 'pending' on the day it is due even if I phoned the day before? Thanks
  8. The secondary ticketing market, which allows fans to resell unwanted gig tickets, will become more transparent and potentially safer to use, after the government agreed on 24 February to back legislation that seeks to protect fans from fraud. The proposals also aim to counter the issue of professional touts buying tickets in bulk and reselling them at inflated prices through secondary ticketing agencies. The proposals, collected together in an amendment to the consumer rights bill tabled by Conservative peer Lord Moynihan, will ensure that fans buying tickets from reselling companies such as Viagogo, Stubhub and Seatwave will know the precise details of the ticket they are purchasing (row, seat, face value, age restrictions, its original seller) – currently not legally required – helping to stamp out the sale of both counterfeit tickets and speculative tickets being sold on the secondary market sometimes before they’re commercially available from event organisers. http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/feb/25/touts-suffer-blow-government-backs-regulation-secondary-ticketing
  9. Guys!!! This is wonderful news and was reported by Martin Lewis from MSE Also through Sky Below; http://news.sky.com/story/1149590/payday-lenders-set-for-tougher-controls
  10. A group of MPs has hit out against the Office of Fair Trading, criticising its “timid” approach to the regulation of payday lenders. In an investigation of the UK’s consumer credit market, the public accounts committee say the regulator has never fined any of the 72,000 firms with consumer credit licences, which includes payday lenders, suggesting a ”timid rather than tough [approach] in its enforcement”. Unscrupulous behaviour from firms in the sector is estimated to cost consumers at least £450m a year, at a time when the OFT is accused of failing to proactively identify risks of malpractice. The committee found that between 2011 and 2012, the OFT spent £11.5m regulating the entire consumer credit market which lent £176bn to consumers, or £1 for every £15,300 in the market. Between 2004 and 2010 payday lending levels increased nearly 20 fold from £100m to £1.9 billion, and the number of customers using these loans is approaching 2 million. Although the investigation found evidence of consumer credit licences having been revoked, the occurrences were limited and capable of taking as long as two years to achieve. The current system of revoking licences also fails to prevent “phoenixing” whereby firms set up new firms under a different name in order to re-obtain a licence. The report says the OFT does not has a sufficient understanding of the sector and is overly reliant on complaints from consumers and information from third parties. The report says: “The OFT lacks basic information about the consumer credit market, such as the amount of lending by each firm, the products sold by each firm and the types of consumers buying the products. “It has not attempted to quantify the level of harm due to firms not complying with the Consumer Credit Act. This basic information, broken down by types of consumers and types of products, is essential if the regulator is to better understand the market and target its resources in the most effective way to protect customers.” The committee says the OFT could have improved its standing as a regulator if it had raised the fees it charges for a licence, which are currently “ridiculously low and unrelated to the size of the business.” The OFT recently published guidance on when and how it intends to use the power to suspend consumer credit licences, which will apply to businesses found to have engaged in practices that cause, or have the potential to cause, physical, economic or other harm to consumers. The OFT has also published a report into payday lending which highlights “widespread” and “irresponsible” behaviour by the largest 50 payday lenders and given them a deadline of the end of May to show improvement. Since the compliance review was started, two payday lenders have surrendered their licences, three have had their licences revoked and formal investigations into the practices of three more have begun. The regulator says it will make a decision on whether to refer the UK’s payday market to the Competition Commission in June. The committee says it has been encouraged by the OFT’s recent actions and hopes it marks “the start of a genuine step up from the timid approach.” Trade association the Consumer Finance Association recently established an independent supervisory body for payday lenders with the power to sanction lenders for non-compliance. Brokers were quick to dismiss the body as “toothless” however, since it did not address lenders’ abilities to operate outside of the trade association. Link: http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/latest-news/mps-criticise-timid-regulation-of-pay-day-lenders/1072055.article
  11. Citizens Advice Bureau are asking people to donate a tweet and tell the Government that it wasnt OK to drop the Bailiff Regulation. CitizensAdvice We'd really like people to donate a tweet and tell the Government it wasn't OK to drop bailiff regulation thunderclap.it/projects/1554-… Link to the Thunderclap Project https://www.thunderclap.it/projects/1554-let-bailiff-victims-complain
  12. The OFT have a publication entitled: "Guidance for Second Hand Car Dealers. Compliance with the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as ammended) (Sadly I can't post the link as I'm new here and don't have enough posts to do this. Easily found on a Google search.) On the main page click on 'new guidance' (pdf 174kb) and go to page 29 paragraph 9.17 “The consumer can request a full refund ………..The consumer is not obliged to return the vehicle to you but must make it available for collection.” The underlined statement is the issue I’m having with a used car dealer. I rejected a vehicle within 24 hours of purchase. Dealer agreed to accept return providing I take it back but I said they had to collect due to faults (unroadworthy) I would doubt the OFT would make such an emphatic statement unless supported by law or regulation and despite studying the two regs I cannot find any reference to this obligation. Can anyone find the regulation with section and number specifically confirming this statement. Thanks PS I’ve contacted the OFT – no reply as they don't handle consumer questions. Also spoke to Trading Standards who referred me to the CAB and they didn’t know !
  13. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/4580992/5607040-APR-interest-rate-shock-as-payday-lenders-blasted.html http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article4580511.ece
×
×
  • Create New...