Start saving your money under the mattress !! Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England says... https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/25/booming-stock-markets-distract-from-threat-of-excessive-lending

http://cag.tw/22e4 (link from original article contains banned word)

Christmas advertising Insight comes early The themes and images surrounding and associated with the festive season provide ample opportunity to create memorable and impactful ad campaigns. But some yuletide words of warning, the ad rules are for life, not just for Christmas. For instance, promoting a casual attitude to using a loan to fund Christmas spending is likely to be seen as irresponsible. Be good for goodness sake, read on to find out how. So if we see anything we think could be irresponsible we should report it to the ASA.

Simon Weston has called Jeremy Corbyn's Falklands plan "repugnant surrender" Jeremy Corbyn has been accused by veteran Simon Weston of "repugnant surrender" to Argentina for suggesting it should be given the right to jointly govern the Falklands Mr Corbyn, who opposed the invasion, said that there has to be a move towards "real peace" and that Britain must open a "dialogue" with Argentina over the future of the islands. He said that under the arrangement the Falklands could retain their British nationality while a joint administration is put in place. The comments were severely criticised by Mr Weston, who suffered 46 per cent burns after the RFA Sir Galahad was bombed during the 1982 conflict. Mr Weston said: "It is a repugnant idea. I don't see why it should happen given that the Argentines never had the islands. They have no right to them. "It could cause civil war again by emboldening the Argentinians. It frightens me enormously because he claims to be such a supporter of democratic freedoms while what he is suggesting throwing the Falkland islanders right to democracy out. The Telegraph This man really is showing himself up for the Labour scab that others are warning us about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33555764

Action Fraud has seen an increase in the number of small to medium sized businesses being contacted by fake bailiffs requesting payments for a phantom debt. The [problem] involves the business being cold called from someone purporting they are bailiffs working on behalf of a court, attempting to recover funds for a non-existent debt. The caller will then request payment by means of bank transfer and if this is refused, will threaten to visit the premises to recover the debt that is owed. A range of different businesses are being targeted; including Nurseries, Manufacturers, Hotels and Taxi Services. http://www.granthammatters.co.uk/action-fraud-warns-of-fake-bailiffs-phantom-debts/

Households are being alerted to a new [problem] that involves fraudsters purporting to be from the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). [problem]mers are reportedly calling households claiming to be from the FOS, which deals with complaints from consumers about the financial services industry, and telling the person on the phone that they need to pay £150 to “release” compensation for which they applied. The FOS said it would never "cold call" households and that the service was completely free, so it would never ask for money. It has said a customer had been in touch to warn of the [problem]. It advised anyone who had received a suspicious phone call to call it directly on 0300 123 9 123. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/11135365/Ombudsman-warns-of-new-150-compensation-fee-[problem].html

Form 4 complaint: Burnley County Court: May 2013. His Honour Judge Butler This particular Judgment is very serious indeed and it being posted as it is in the public interest to do so. Firstly, the contents of the Judgment are vitally important but, as can be seen from the top right hand corner, all 3 pages have been copied from a particular website. It is sadly the case that the website in question have continually claimed that it is a "myth" that Courts have ever ordered claimants to pay costs if a Form 4 Complaint is dismissed. This is all the more serious given that this judgment appeared on that particular website on around 29th May 2013 and the entire thread was removed from public view by the website owner on 3rd June 2013 after a post had been made about the judgment on Consumer Action Group. From reading the final paragraph on Page 2 and the closing statement on Page 3 it is very clear that His Honour Judge Butler is confirming that costs have indeed been ordered and, as an example, he confirms that in one "recent case" at Southampton County Court a cost order of £10,000 had been ordered against the person making the Form 4 complaint. In fact, I referred to this particular Form 4 outcome a few days ago and it is my understanding that “costs” are still being debated and look likely to reach over £20,000 !!! The Form 4 Complaint for Mr Kirk (the complainant) had been drafted by the website in question and this was confirmed on the thread started by Mr Kirk ( before it was removed from public view) and is evident by the PDF of the thread. This Judgment needs to be available to the public and there are many reason for this: Mr Kirk had initially posted a query on Consumer Action Group and he was advised in no uncertain terms by posters on here that he should not consider a Form 4 complaint in particular given......that the amount in dispute was just £20!! The brief background is that the bailiff levied upon a vehicle owned by Mr Kirk's sister and that he charged a fee of £24.50, £18.00 and a "levy fee" of £28.00 There was also a small additional amount of £26.00 which apparently related to a shortfall against a previous account. Mr Kirk complained to Rossendale’s about the levy. Sensibly, they removed the levy fee and visit fee and credited the account with the sum of £50. The debtor was not happy to be told on this forum that he had no grounds in which to file a Form 4. Subsequently, he sought advice from another forum and from reading a copy of the PDF of his thread, it would seem that he was encouraged to file a Form 4 Complaint. The website in question are known to charge a fee of £99 for “drafting” the Form 4 complaint. Before the website had removed the entire thread on 3rd June 2013 a copy of Mr Kirk's Form 4 had been displayed. Sadly, it referred to at lest 14 legal cases most of which were irrelevant "19th century law cases". As a warning to anyone else who may quote such case law in a Form 4 complaint, it is noteworthy that His Honour Judge Butler stated that if he had felt it necessary to list the Form 4 for a hearing that he would have required the complainant to bring to the court copies of the legal cases referred to in the Form 4 and most seriously; he would have requested that the complainant or "his legal adviser" would have been required to attend court explain to the Judge the relevance of such legal cases !! Finally, in paragraph 6 His Honour Judge Butler refers to Mr Kirk's comment that he had "taken legal advice" and he questions whether such "advice" had come from "face to face" advice from a solicitor or CAB or alternatively whether the "legal advice" had originated from "internet research". If so, he stated that "if from the latter he should not assume that this information is correct and nor should he assume that the court is aware of the matters he relies upon” ( in this he refers to the "19th century legal cases") As mentioned above, within hours of brief details of this highly critical Judgment being posted on the CAG forum the judgment and the claimants entire thread were removed from public view. The effect being that any new visitors to the website would be "kept in the dark" about the response to a Form 4 complaint that the website had drafted for him. To this day, that same website continue to advise debtors to file Form 4 complaints and most seriously....to "claim" that costs will not be awarded against the claimant.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/news-and-updates/press/2012/110-12