Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • let the ombudsman do their job. you'll win handsdown you dont obv owe OVO p'haps anything at all.  dont worry about Past Due credit or any other DCA ( THEY ARE NOT BAILIFFS!) as for you being added to the debt, thats quite OK, you were a resident adult and equally liable under law. once you start getting things moving via the  ombudsman dont forget to get your credit files cleansed of any negative data & seek compensation for distress etc, again the  ombudsman should sort both out for you. as you are now NOT a customer of OVO, there is very very little they can do to you now.  
    • A question - did you use the supermarket or the restaurant? I see the restrictions are different. Sign.pdf
    • DN is ok DCA NOA is ok, though not one from Newday saying they've sold it. agreement states esigned on a sunday at 11am?? really??  but no typed names or tick box nor any IP address used. if the date is correct then poss ok, it that your correct address for that time of take out? but if not, then that could simply be a copy of someone elses they've used with you details copy'n'pasted over theirs. the agreement details separate T&C's in at least 8.4. a full set of T&C containing your correct address for the time MUST be included. failure renders the agreement unenforceable... have you the T&C's too? dx
    • Npower and Scottish Power and others have always had regulations that require them to treat customers fairly - the threads here and my experiences demonstrate that those regs are little more than useless.   Even Octopus recently spent month after month saying they needed to increase my monthly payments despite my credit balance slowly going up TWICE I had to reset it online back to prior payment as they unilaterally increased it unilaterally. Raised formal complaint and they than said i was paying too much and reduced the payment, again without my agreement, although that time at least they told me they were doing it.   .. and Octopus has been one of the better ones.    
    • Thank you. You left all your personal details showing on the invoice, but I've removed them. From Googling it seems the free parking is limited to one hour.  You stayed two.  There is no point appealing, you did overstay.  That's apart from the fact the private parking companies are just interested in £££££ and never accept appeals. We have other Iceland cases, Iceland as a company refuse to have these invoices cancelled. So it's up to you. Pay £51 and the matter goes away. Or refuse to pay.  Horizon very rarely do court.  We would support you all the way. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3100 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

After the recent court case would the 'fines' given to parents for taking their children on holiday in term time be now classed as a speculative invoice? And could those who have paid them claim the money back?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it was only Magistrates. Somebody would need to take it to the High Court. The law says about regular attendance, so taking them outside of school for a few days only per year, should not end up with a fine. But i reckon schools in need of funds will continue as they have.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently there has been a case where a parent took it all the way to court - and won.

 

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2015-10-19/man-wins-court-fight-over-120-fine-for-taking-daughter-on-holiday-in-term-time/

 

So provided your kids have good general attendance and are high achievers, it would seem the initial precedent has been set.

Cost more than the fine though.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Record low: living standards and investment

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

“This is specifically not allowed. Mr. Mansour used to be a Cabinet Minister in Egypt, he has given the Tories a huge amount of money, and immediately gets a knighthood.

That seems straightforwardly corrupt.  Shouldn’t they both be in jail?”

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is what I am referring to and this......

The issue of the fine, which was originally £60 and then doubled because of his refusal to pay, went before the Isle of Wight Magistrates' Court and Mr Platt won his case.

 

He successfully argued that Section 444 of the Education Act required parents to ensure their children attended school "regularly", and did not put restrictions on taking them on holidays in term time.

 

So on what law can schools 'fine' a parent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wish people would stop referring to these as "Fines"

 

Only a court can issue a fine

 

These are Civil Penalty Orders

 

I would imagine the school can issue these orders as a contractual issue on attending that particular school between the parent and the school

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Record low: living standards and investment

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

“This is specifically not allowed. Mr. Mansour used to be a Cabinet Minister in Egypt, he has given the Tories a huge amount of money, and immediately gets a knighthood.

That seems straightforwardly corrupt.  Shouldn’t they both be in jail?”

Link to post
Share on other sites

as things stand atm. no precedent has been set regarding whether these "fines", "penalty charges", call them what you will, are illegal as this victory was in a magistrates court and not a high court.

 

on the face of things, schools will continue to issue them and each individual one will have to be challenged in its own right until its brought before a high court judge

 

Pay them or fight them, choice is down to each individual

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The "fines" can be given out for a number of reasons but boils down to attendance, unless you provide doctors notes for every illness your child has, they can be classed as unauthorised absence, its when this absence drops a child below the target attendance figure, between 94 and 97% depending on school, that's what triggers the issuing of the fines. truancy is also factor, in fact anything thats classed as unauthorised and headteachers have been instructed not to allow term time holidays.

 

I have a 15 yr old who tonite, leaves for a school trip to disneyland in paris, they were let out of school at 1pm today and as the coaches leave at 10.30pm tonite they have been given tomorrow off aswell, all approved as school is taking them!

 

thats double standards, coz if u or i were to do the same, a fine would surely follow

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Recent news articles suggest that this law maybe revoked or at least head teachers given more say whether the student can have time off.

 

Its my understanding that the head teacher always did have discretion, but there are some indications that in using it the schools 'stats' suffered.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Record low: living standards and investment

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

“This is specifically not allowed. Mr. Mansour used to be a Cabinet Minister in Egypt, he has given the Tories a huge amount of money, and immediately gets a knighthood.

That seems straightforwardly corrupt.  Shouldn’t they both be in jail?”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that information:-

 

So the head teacher can allow time off at her/his discretion.

The head teacher can also allow in term time trips to places like Disneyland Paris.

If a family wish to take their children away for 2 weeks the head teacher can impose

a fine. If she/he has not given permission.

 

I assume this is because it is considered that by taking the child away for 2 weeks, would interrupt that child’s education and therefore be detrimental, to their ability to pass an exam?

 

This is the way I see it:- if a week in Disneyland is not detrimental to the child, a week away with their parents is not a problem nether.

There is one of two reasons in my opinion it is either money generating or it is a power thing do as I say not as I do.

 

Question what happens to these same children when the teachers go on strike, does this not interrupt their education, as well as the whole family, should they be fined?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that offiicial industrial action has the protection of statute so cannot be a criminal or civil offence being subject to a financial penalty.

 

Taking you child out of school without prior consent is

 

Except the right to strike is protected as you say by statute and human rights, but so is the right of children to education and not to suffer harm. Why should the teachers rights to strike trump the children's rights to education also protected by statute and human rights? The DFE stated that even keeping children out of school for a short term is harmful. Therefore striking and school trips and tutor days where kids don't go in to school are all harmful to children, violate their rights and must be banned? See how ridiculous it gets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that offiicial industrial action has the protection of statute so cannot be a criminal or civil offence being subject to a financial penalty.

 

Taking you child out of school without prior consent is

 

I think a judge has just confirmed that it's not unlawful, not sending them regularly is.

 

It matters not about protected status bunk, if the teachers were really sincere and these fines issued because of educational fears, they wouldn't go out on strike with their 'give me the money' days off, they would find another way like 'negotiation'.

 

The whole guidance and the issuing of fines are saying "you are not entitled to have a family holiday". Not everyone can get holidays during school holiday times, companies have to roster their employees time off to avoid disruption to production.

I know some companies are lucky enough that they can close so all staff are off for the same period, but they are few.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...