Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'rule'.



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

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 30 results

  1. Justice Secretary announces victim compensation scheme review, scraps unfair rule READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-announces-victim-compensation-scheme-review-scraps-unfair-rule
  2. Could someone please advise on the “6-years and it lapses” rule, I want to know if it still is in place, and also if it then has relevance for the following. 5 years ago I acted on advice from the wonderful people on this forum. I had previously retired at 65 after a business collapse, and was facing constant letters/calls from debt collectors regarding some related debts amounting to £36K across 5 business credit cards, 1 personal card, and a small-business loan. As a result of great advice I was able to hold my ground and even go on the attack, and after a year or so 4 of the debts were wiped out and a 5th “will not be pursued until we can furnish a copy of the original agreement”. That DCA was a total shambles, so that seems extremely unlikely 4+ years later still. My query today relates to the personal credit card, which was being dealt with by DCA 1st Credit. I offered a token payment of £5/mth because at that time I had not discovered this forum and had no idea that the financial sector worked in such heavily self-serving ways, nor that I had options. The offer was accepted and I made 3 payments, though by that point I had found this forum which opened my eyes wide! I wrote to 1st Credit notifying them that the credit card issuer had not dealt acceptably/completely with previous concerns (long story!), that I would not be making any more payments, that they should return the case, and that I would be contacting their client seeking proper action and that they would be included in any subsequent formal complaint themselves if they continued collection processes in the meantime. Other than asking for details once, which I ignored, I never heard from them again. I have now received two letters a few weeks apart advising “1st Credit has now become Intrum UK Ltd”, requesting a payment arrangement for that debt. I don’t know whether 1st Credit just changed their name, or Intrum Justitia (one of ‘my’ earlier DCAs) has bought their book, but either way it seems 1st Credit just shoved it to the back of the shelf 5 yrs ago, not returned it nor done anything with it themselves. My knee-jerk is that if the 6-year rule still applies, they are now trying to resurrect the case before it lapses. Part of me says to ignore them and see where it goes, though another part of me wants to snap-back setting a line of defence advising Intrum to return the case to the card issuer who I am contacting requiring them to deal properly with already-notified matters that they have yet to complete, with a warning of a formal complaint should they continue to chase. I’d greatly prefer getting to a 6 year cutoff however and just washing my hands of the whole stressful matter, than opening a level of formalities all over again and having all the stress for a year at least and most likely on in to our mid-70s. I’d just like to get on with living, as all was extremely upsetting to my wife who was/is not a strong woman after losing all our assets, our house and a second property, and living hand-to-mouth on just our state pension in rented accommodation and not the comfortable retirement we had expected. So regarding the “6-years” rule, is it still in force? If so, would contacting fresh-face Intrum with a stand-down notification letter end the 5 year lack of any contact just a year before it could help close the door? Or maybe has that already been ended with the appearance of Intrum asking for an arrangement, beginning a fresh 6-year requirement? So … should I ignore Intrum’s contact for a while longer, or get in quickly with a defence by going in to attack mode which no doubt would drag out for at least a year … by which time the 6 year rule would apply anyway if it is still in place as a potential backstop as long as I don’t break the silence? I would welcome some focus so I can see more clearly what makes the best sense … and also any pointers to new or changed legislation/codes-of-conduct /proper forms-of-words/etc that may be keeping me unknowingly out of step with things these 5 years later. Many thanks if you can guide me at all.
  3. Civil news: rule change for clients threatened with homelessness READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/civil-news-rule-change-for-clients-threatened-with-homelessness
  4. Civil news: rule change for clients threatened with homelessness READ MORE HERE: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/civil-news-rule-change-for-clients-threatened-with-homelessness
  5. The new MOT! https://uk.news.yahoo.com/heres-everything-need-know-new-mot-test-100311860.html
  6. I bought 6 hard disks just over 2 years ago, 2 have failed just after the warranty, using the consumer rights act 2015 would I have a valid case for getting replaced or repaired? Is 2 years really an appropriate life expectancy for a HD?
  7. One of my original credit card debts for 6k was with MBNA. they have passed this on to PRA group Ltd. however, checking noddle.. the original account was defalted in jan 2013. but now shows as a 'Satisfied Account'. the PRA entry shows default as june 2014, so mbna have passed the account onto PRA. then PRA have started sending in entries to noddle etc. If companies like experian remove after 6 years automatically, won't this PRA entry be over a year later. ? Another thing ive noticed.. is that on my credit report, i have Credit Cards shown, but there is one at the bottom, which has been purchased, was b/card CC. but now shows as as a separate company.. and the TYPE as BANK. not Credit card. should i be worried about this?
  8. Don't know if this has been discussed previously on here but has anyone any clarification on whether the 90 minutes travel time is calculated by bus/train timetable information or calculated by actual travel time? For example, according to the timetable my morning bus takes 52 minutes to reach town, but as the rush-hour traffic is considerable the journey actually takes 1hr 20 mins on average - sometimes even longer. Add to this the fact that after you get off the bus, a further walk may be required to reach the job. In their usual fashion, the DWP info is totally vague and just mentions 'travel time'. I would class 'travel time' as the actual time it takes to reach the job, not the theoretical time on the timetable. Buses may run nearer to the timetable during the mid-day but they certainly don't during the morning rush hour!
  9. Hi and thanks again for the forum. I purchased a used car from Profiled Cars in Pitsea, Essex on the 21 of September 2015. I drove the car home and went to lock the car with the remote and it would not lock or unlock from the remote. locked the car manually and sent a text to the dealer. He advised at this point that he was not aware the key didn't work and he advised me to change the batteries and to reset the key as per the handbook. T he key wouldn't reset. I texted the dealer back and he advised me to bring the car in at the weekend but to check first when he would be there. Saturday came and he advised me that he wouldn't look at the car. He said that a £200 discount we had agreed before the sale covered and "niggly" faults. He said he would only pay £20.00 towards a repair. I said I'd been quoted at least £80.00. I suggested that I'll get the key fixed and bill him. He advised me that I should not threaten him. It then became apparent that the car had other faults which includes a lazy window motor and knocking from the suspension over bumpy roads (not apparent on the test drive). I've now realised the blower only sends hot air even in the cold position. I emailed the dealer saying I want a full refund because he refused to fix the key. At this point he said that I had verbally agreed to any small faults as a result of the discount. However, this is not true because he agreed the discount before I had even viewed the car. He's now also saying the new 30 day rule is NOT retrospective. The car has a warranty, I've booked into a local garage for the faults to be assessed. The garage will then speak with the warranty company and they will decide if the faults are valid and if they will pay. However, the key is not covered. I want to return the car but naturally the dealer is refusing. What next please ? Many thanks in advance.
  10. So consumers can now hand back faulty goods for a full refund within 30 days of purchase!! How will the motor trade handle this????? On another forum the following points were raised. Viz How does a trader overcome "Buyers Remorse"? What about intermittent faults? Will this increase rouge traders who close one site one day and open up under another name the next day? Even if a full refund is given, the buyer will lose road tax and insurance paid on purchase. What do you think??
  11. Has anyone seen this: https://www.fca.org.uk/your-fca/documents/requirement-notices/preferred-mortgages-limited-vreq I have a Preferred account and have been in constant battle over fees. I received a letter today to say they are refunding overcharged fees from 2009 - 2012 and they have entered into an agreement with FCA to refund overcharged fees plus 8% interest. The fees in the scheme include: Arrears management fees, Litigation management fees and Repossession Management fees.
  12. hayleysbabies

    24 hr rule

    I currently work 23 hours but my employer agreed to pay me for 24 and i do overtime to make the hours back up to them so i can claim tax credits does anyone know if this is allowed as im worrying myself silly over it
  13. Well theres a surprise. EE in the spotlight again, And considering how many times people have complained and NOT got a result.
  14. Hello Guys / Gals, I love coming here as there is people that give expert advice, and if followed you can save a scrape or two. I have a mate that works a 6-2, 2-10 pm shift, on this day he has gone in early at 5:45am. He has had a few beers that day before and someone has smelt alcohol on his breath. He has suggested that there is some harresment from some fellow employees. Anyway, he has started work at 6am but got breathalyzed at 6:15am. This had a reading of 36... 1 point over the 35mg limit... West Yorkshire Police do not Prosecute anything under 40mg My mate had, mouth wash and Benylin which apparently can bump up dodgy lion 500 Alcometer readings. They only give one chance on the blow meter, instant termination.... Does he have a chance? He got set on the books, but not been there 2 years.... Ideas?
  15. Hi Im new to this so still trying to find my way around. I have an hsbc loan which when I lost my job I had to default on it in jan 2009, I did go with a debt management company in 2010 which made a few small payments to hsbc, would the statute barred law go from then or from my default in jan 2009 ? any help would be much appreciated as I have just had a letter off hsbc telling me it is going to a recovery agency? Kind Regards Neil
  16. Hi Guys, Wondering if someone can clear this up for me please. A friend of mine has been off work for 10 weeks (been in work over a year) Her contractual sick pay will reduce to half of full pay mid Dec, but there is not much poss of her returning to work before mid Jan. She will not be claiming any benefits (UC, ESA etc) because of her CSP, but will she still be entitled to HB under the 13 week rule? I have seen that this rule is being abolished under certain benefits - especially Universal Credit, but wasn't sure under CSP? Many thanks
  17. Due to extensive renovation work when I purchased my house, it needed my local Valuation Board to band it. They banded it E in 2004 (despite me purchasing the house in 2002). I accepted this as I didn't expect the Band to be different from the neighbouring properties which are all the same size. With the mass of information on the internet in 2009 I asked the Valuation Board to look at my Band and they visited the house, confirmed it was the same as the neighbours', but stated I could not appeal as I was outwith the six months and so was "statute barred". I have argued this over previous years and I have a Court hearing this Thursday (09.10.14) to argue my case that my appeal is still legal despite being outwith the six months. At this hearing I am not allowed to present my argument for a Band change, as this is a further hearing which is only set if I can provide enough evidence that my appeal is legal. My mid-terrace home is an E and the two neighbouring properties are D. Larger properties at the end of the road are E and when viewed even from outside they are obviously much larger houses. Part of my argument is going to be that the six month rule should not apply to my house as the Valuation Board have an obligation to ensure the Valuation List is accurate. They are also putting me at a disadvantage if selling in the property in the future as my Council Tax payments are higher than the neighbours. They are also saying that my property was of a higher value in 1991 and so they have escalated the property price which is illegal. Does anyone know whether the six month rule is a breach of any kind of rights.
  18. Hi, I'm after some advice if you could help me please. I recently receive a PCN for parking part on and part off the pavement in Croydon. I have since learnt that this is not allowed in 'London'. Whereas where I live it is encouraged as the council removed the grass verges along the road (Google street view PO7 7RU, will show). My question is do I have any grounds to appeal due to the fact that along the stretch of road which I was parked, had a continuous dropped kerb. Some of the dropped kerb area is used by a business (Gaybank Construction) to access their parking area, but some of the dropped kerb area would take you to a brick wall. This is the area I was parked. (Google street view CR2 6QB) I could have parked anywhere along this road, there are no yellow lines or parking restrictions and I truly believed I was doing the right thing by parking half off and half on. thanks for any help/advise you could offer regards Darren
  19. CEL rode into Whitby Town in midsummer 2012 and caused uproar with Co-op customers and visitors, especially since Spring 2013 with their "Ten Minute Rule". I've been waging war on them since, and started a Facebook protest page. October 2013 they were sacked! Rumour has it they've lost dozens of other Co-op sites too!! Having had both of my PCNs cancelled I left the Protest Page running, even though a second one started. Where we are now up to is fighting their "ten minute rule" - a moneymaker if ever I saw one, and we now have a set of images and an independent witness letter from myself initially - but we will soon have several. I'd like to hear from anyone either still being chased for payment under this rule, or else who has paid it under pressure. Even if you've lost an appeal to POPLA, all is not lost - their evidence seems to trump yours ..... so far. but I'm confident that is about to change. At present we have a chance with the small numbers we have recruited. They reputedly check these forums so I don't want to put more details here, but if you care to PM me I'll let you know how to take it forward. Remember, no addresses, vehicle or PCN numbers, NOTHING WHICH ENABLES YOU TO BE POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED! I'll post any progress here.
  20. Hello everybody, I am new to this forum, so HELLO EVERYBODY and thanks for the support you offering - it is precious I am desperately worried that I can be refused Housing Benefit, in which case I wouldn't be able to afford paying the rent and finished up living on the streets, please help if there is somebody with some expertise on this issue. My situation is as follow: I married for 19 years ago and moved in into my husband property which he already owned. He remains the sole owner of the property; I was never added to any property deeds and he always was responsible for all bills related to the property such as mortgage, Council Tax, utility bills etc. He also never supported me financially; we never had a shared account, credit card etc. I worked first, but later developed serious mental health problems and relied on Incapacity Benefit and now State Pension (I am 62 years old) and Disability Living Allowance, which I am awarded indefinitely at a highest care component rate and lower mobility component rate. Over the years our relationship irrevocably broke and it come to the point, when it become impossible and detrimental to my mental health to continue to live with him in the same home. I recently found a flat and sign the tenancy agreement with a private landlord, to whom I am not related in any way. I don't know if this has any bearing on the case, but the flat is in the different borough then the properly I moved out from. While filling the Westminster Council HB form I came across the question: "Were you able to afford rent when you moved?" Obviously I had to answer "No" to it. On further research it transpired that there is a rule, I believe 7(1)(1), in the Housing Benefit regulations, called Unnecessary liabilities -whether the claimant can be refused Housing Benefit on the grounds that she or he has taken on an unnecessary liability, which they already knew they could not pay, and which they could have avoided and still been adequately housed. My ex husband is of old age (82y) and of ill health himself, and he continues living in the house, which is his only property. There is no way I can move back to live with him, so if I can afford paying the rent, the only option open to me would be to live on the streets. I don't think I could cope with that. I am quite desperate with the whole situation, I saw a glimmer of hope when I found the landlord who would accept a tenant in my position and was able to move out from the very difficult situation and start to rebuild my life, but now this seems to be sleeping away from me. I would be very grateful for any clarification on the issue and where I can find help if the council refuses me the HB. Many thanks to you all - M
  21. A chap in Bromsgrove decided to take his family out to lunch, they parked their car in one of the council-run car parks and put a £I in the machine for the privilege. When he returned to his car there was a penalty charge on his windscreen for £25. He was 7 minutes late, when you have a couple of kids to control it can take you a little bit longer getting back to your car. (but that is beside the point). This he felt was very hypocritical when, at the same time this car park was taken over by a group of (so called) travellers who were camping in the car park. He thought it would be interesting to see what sort of parking fees or fines they have paid.’ So he wrote to the council and asked them why should motorists be fined for over staying by a few minutes when travellers can occupy a car park for months without having to pay a penny? This is the reply he received. ‘There appears to be some confusion regarding the basis upon which the travellers were on the car park in question. ‘The position in respect of any normal user of the car park is that, by entering and parking their vehicle, they are entering into contract with the Council to pay a sum of money in return for the Council allowing them to leave their vehicle for a specific amount of time. If the vehicle is left for longer than the paid for time, no payment is made, or there is a failure to comply with parking regulations, there is, in effect, a breach of contract which entitles the Council to make a penalty charge. This is the bit I like!!! ‘In the case of the travellers, they were on the car parks as illegal occupiers and, as such, there was no contract with them as the purpose for which they entered was not permitted. ‘In the circumstances the appropriate course of action was not for “breach of contract” but for “illegal occupation”.’ So here’s a plan. Since councils will ignore all attempts to stop them screwing the motorist, next time you get a ticket refuse, to pay it on the grounds that you’re not actually ‘parking’. Say that you’re ‘illegally occupying’ the bay for half an hour and therefore the usual rules don’t apply. Let the council’s lawyers pick the bones out of that. Better still, swap your car for a Toyota 4x4 and a caravan and park where the hell you like. Full Story ...
  22. Hi I contacted Equifax in July they had some incorrect information on their file relating to a BT account. I asked them to dispute it, 2 weeks passed yesterday so I called them and got through to India or Phillipines contact centre - I could barely understand the person on the other end of the phone! I asked them to give me the account number of the BT account to which they told me they could not do this as they only have an obscured view of it. I asked them if they could chase up BT for the information, they told me they couldn't and I need to wait for 28 days. The 28 days conflicts with what they have written on their account pages where it says 21. Please can you help me with the 21 and 28 day rule here - Which is it and what must they do / give me after 21 days / 28 days? The minimum I need is a contact for BT and the original account number as they say they cant find the account when i call them on their system!! Thanks
  23. Trying to keep this brief and have read a bit on it but still not sure. I started work at the local council as an agency worker beginning of July - the council requested Level 3 (agency pays £8 an hour for this) and as the work wasn't too high level thought it okayish - not great but a job - no one else did this role and it was to help out for 12 weeks. After 3 weeks I was offered a kind of promotion being in charge of Admin for the department and a chance that this will last more than 12 weeks - it's still Level 3 no hassles with that. What I am concerned about is that from my reading on the council jobsite is that Level 3 wages are 15875 up to I think 18500 - as my £8 an hour rate works out less than that, could I potentially ask for in 6 weeks the same rate from my agency that the council would pay a directly employed worker? The agency did witter on a bit that I would get the same holiday rights after 12 weeks but no mention was made of comparable pay. I'm lucky my boss at the council is quite cool - I mentioned something about this to her this week and she said she would show me what the agency were charging me out for and I know she wants me to stay - so maybe I can put something together that I would be better on their books than on the agencies cost wise for the length of the contract. If this doesn't happen - would just like to know if anyone knows where I stand after 12 weeks re what my wages should be. Thanks in advance:roll: Clare
  24. Citizens Advice claims in 76% of studied cases customers could complain to Financial Financial Ombudsman Service and win damages Three-quarters of payday loan customers who have turned to Citizens Advice for help may have had grounds to make an official complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the charity says.Citizens Advice analysed 665 payday loan cases reported by consumers between 1 January and 30 June this year and concluded that in 76% of them borrowers could have made an official complaint and possibly won compensation. One in five of the cases were possible cases of fraud, where a person was chased for a loan they had not taken out. More than a third involved problems with continuous payment authorities, including lenders, extracting money from banks accounts that they were not authorised to take. Harassment and unfair treatment by lenders accounted for the other problems faced by borrowers that Citizens Advice said should have been reported. Payday loans have attracted strong criticism from this charity and other debt charities, who have accused lenders of failing to do proper affordability checks on borrowers and for putting people under pressure to roll over loans. High-interest loans can quickly become very expensive for consumers, and charities have reported seeing people trapped in a cycle of debt. The use of continuous payment authorities to collect debts has been particularly problematic. Borrowers have reported having their accounts drained of money before they have paid for essentials. Citizens Advice is urging borrowers to take their complaints to the ombudsman – the body which adjudicates on cases that have failed to be sorted out to consumers' satisfaction – to seek compensation and put pressure on the industry to clean up its act. If a complaint is upheld by the Financial Ombudsman the lender can be ordered to put things right and, if the consumer has lost out financially, to pay compensation. In some cases borrowers could be eligible for a refund on loan repayments or other charges they have paid. Gillian Guy, chief executive of Citizens Advice, said: "The level of debt and hardship caused by some payday loans is absolutely scandalous and people often feel completely powerless to do anything about it. But consumers can fight back. "By making your voice heard you will expose the bad behaviour of lenders and put pressure on them to clean up their act, which could help stop similar problems happening to other people." Between April and June just 160 complaints about payday lenders were made to the ombudsman, but 72% of those were upheld in favour of the borrower. Only about one in eight people who contact the ombudsman about payday loans make a complaint, against one in four across other sectors. It is thought that the stigma connected with arranging to have this type of short-term borrowing could be deterring people from making an official complaint. Link: http://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/aug/05/watchdog-rule-payday-loan-disputes
  25. Customers have been warned that a proposed change in European Union rules may force banks to introduce annual charges of £11 on debit cards and £25 on credit cards. The European Commission last year produced a Green Paper suggesting that "interchange fees", those imposed on retailers by the transaction firms Mastercard and Visa, should be capped or banned in order to improve transparency. Those plans are expected to be published as a firm proposal later this month. But opponents have argued that it would force banks to pass the cost on to customers. Telegraph Money reported earlier this year that perks on credit cards, such as cashback, could be axed or eroded, and fees might be introduced. A new report released on Tuesday, commisioned by Mastercard, estimated that the loss to card issuers could be £2.4bn with £2.2bn of savings for large retailers but with "no evidence that these savings are passed on to the consumer in lower prices". It said that as a result cardholder fees would "rise by up to £11 for debit cards and £25 for credit cards". The report by consultancy Europe Economics was produced with academics at the University of Essex. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/creditcards/10153653/EU-rule-could-force-11-debit-card-charge-on-Britons.html
×
×
  • Create New...