Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'weak'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • 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


  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me

Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day

Cost Per Day


Found 4 results

  1. After the news in today's budget and the back tracking on certain UC policies it seems that if it CAN be done then WHY WASN'T IT IN THE FIRST PLACE? Originally, if you transfer from another benefit or a new claimant - NOT A PENNY FOR 6 WEEKS apart from an advance of 50% when claim approved Now: - No 7 day waiting period on new claims - Advance now full amount (not 50%) paid back over 12 months instead of 6 - Previous HB claimants now get 2 weeks grace on HB from their LA when claiming UC So all in all no waiting period and a 2 week HB grace and a cut in time for your first UC payment. Although still not great it is certainly better than before. So the question needs to be asked, and someone in power needs to ask it, WHY WAS THE INITIAL POLICY IN PLACE ALLOWED TO BE PASSED? I am certainly (as a new UC claimant from 2 weeks ago) going to contact my LA and ask the question whether I am entitled to this 2 weeks HB as what is classed as a 'new' claimant given todays budget news? Does it mean from today? last week? a month ago? define 'NEW' I am still £95.41pm worse off under UC than ESA and HB but I would not have been so ill or stressed knowing I had less of a wait and some HB to tide me over plus a full advance. Yes, UC has made claimants ill - I am one of them!
  2. An “economically damaging” shortage of lending to small and medium-sized companies cannot be blamed on weak demand or the poor quality of applicants, ministers will be told on Friday. Independent research commissioned by the Government will reject banks’ claims that their consistently weak lending to small businesses is simply down to a lack of desire for credit. In findings that will pile more pressure on lenders, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said that there is clear evidence of on-going tight credit supply conditions, well after the height of the economic crisis. The researchers blamed a combination of banks’ attitude to risk, pressure to improve their capital positions and the negative impact of the stranglehold that four giant high street banks have on SME lending. The report, which is due to be presented to ministers at the Business Department this morning, warns that the lack of credit supply will have “adverse effects on economic performance in the long term as well as the short term”. NIESR said output, investment and employment will all be “lower than would otherwise be the case” if the problem is not resolved. The report does accept that demand for credit from small businesses is also “probably” subdued. However, it says this is partly down to a “high level of discouragement from application” for loans as well as the continued high cost of borrowing for small businesses as cuts in interest rates by the Bank of England have not been not passed on. More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/yourbusiness/9988160/Banks-excuses-for-weak-lending-rejected.html
  3. Hi folks, I have read with great interest all the other DVLA related threads on the forum. I think it's outrageous what the DVLA are doing, anyway, on to my predicament. Salient points are as follows Sell vehicle in September 2011 Post V5c to the DVLA the same day. The postbox is directly opposite my house! Receive a letter earlier in the year with a fine for failure to notify Then recieve a questionaire to return, which i did they now say they haven't recieved this either! Then post a letter explaining that I sent the V5c and it isn't my fault if they or Royal mail have lost it. They reply stating that this isn't a defence and are demanding payment. I do not respond to this letter (What the hell is the point?) Letter recieved today with court date set. Attached to letter is a Guilty/Not guilty form. So , my problem is this. 1. I don't have a copy of any of the paperwork I sent to them, even the one letter they do admit to recieving 2. I am unemployed and without funds for legal representation So I am left with two options as I see it. 1. Plead guilty and ask whether I could pay the fine in installments (The thought of this makes my blood boil) 2. Attach a covering letter to the 'not guilty' form outlining the fact that waiting for a letter from them to confirm the vehicles disposal and therefore them recieving the v5c is not a legal requirement and that sending the V5c to the DVLA constitutes informing the Secretary of State. And that this would be my defence when attending court. If I go with option 2 I would need some assistance with the wording or I'll end up making a real hash out of it! Any and all suggestions are welcome Many thanks Simon
  4. They've lost the plot. http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2012/05/our-employment-laws---the-weak.html
  • Create New...