Driver fined £18,500 for ignoring daily parking tickets outside her home for a YEAR Carly Mackie, 26, ignored fines for parking in front of her family garage in Dundee almost every day, claiming it's her right to park in front of her own property A driver from Dundee has been fined a whopping £18,500 after throwing away parking tickets on her car for over a year. Carly Mackie, 26, ignored fines for parking in front of her family garage almost every day, claiming it's her right to park in front of her own property. She was handed a formal letter by the Vehicle Control Services Limited demanding she cough up the £18,500 to cover the cost of all of the tickets she has not paid. Carly, who lives with her parents, has been parking her Mini on cobbles in front of her garage in Dundee for more than a year. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/driver-fined-£18-500-for-ignoring-daily-parking-tickets-for-over-a-year-112110470.html#01m5y48 comments are good too below it dx

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

I am a landlord and was hoping that the forum members could help me with a problem. The situation I had a tenant rent a room in a shared house from me. The tenancy started in June 2012. The tenant has been difficult throughout the tenancy. Initially she stated that she moved out of a flat and needs to sort through her possessions. The room was filled up to 2m high with boxes and she even changed the bed to a folding bed, as there was no space left for a permanent bed. She also stored boxes in the communal areas. Although I received at least 1-2 email per week about all aspects of the flat that apparently need repair I always responded promptly and resolved/paid for repairs & new items for the flat. Around Christmas 2012 I asked the tenant to remove her items from the communal areas as it was affecting the other tenants. There are 4 tenants in the flat in total. Although the situation temporarily improved, the communal areas were used again for storage shortly after. I sent the tenant another email asking her to please keep the communal areas clear and bring her room back to a reasonable standard. This was a polite request and I did not ask her to move out. The tenant decided that the 'situation is not workable' and decided to move out on the following weekend, which seemed like a overreaction neither me nor the other housemates could understand. I was glad to see her leave and wanted resolve the situation as soon as possible so, I agreed that she would only have to pay rent up the day she moves out, and I did not insist on the notice period. The tenant was not able to organise her move in time and moved out one day late. We agreed she would pay rent for one additional day only. Shortly after she had left I refunded her deposit in full and she confirmed receipt. I do admit that I failed to protect the deposit. This was a genuine mistake, which I regret. I have other tenants and can prove that their deposits are protected. The tenant is now suing me for three times the monthly rent for not protecting her deposit. Additional factors The tenant has been very difficult throughout the tenancy and managed to fall out with the other housemates before moving out. One of the housemate's friends who works in mental health suggested that she suffers from psychological problems and she has clearly a tendency to hoard things. The housemates even told me that she brought items into the flat she found on the street. I am mentioning this as I believe there is no realistic chance to settle this out of court. I believe I have always acted very reasonably and made multiple exceptions to meet the tenant’s requests. The tenant has suffered no loss. I found that the tenant has posted an advert on Gumtree.com stating my full name, calling me '**** bag' and that I allegedly have cheated her out of hundreds of pounds and kept her deposit, which is not true. My Questions: Can the tenant sue me for not protecting the deposit, given I have acted reasonably and refunded her deposit in full? Are there any recent cases where the landlord has been sued for not protecting the deposit despite retuning it in full? I understand that even if the court orders me to pay compensation, I can avoid having a CCJ against my name if I pay within 28 days. Is that correct? Avoiding any CCJ against my name is the most important thing in this case for me. Would counter-suing for slander be advisable? I have contacted Gumtree.com and they said they would provide the details of the person who posted the advert to a lawyer or the police. Thanks in advance for your responses!