Jump to content

You can now change your notification sounds by going to this link https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/index.php?/&app=soundboard&module=soundboard&controller=managesounds


You can find a library of free notification sounds in several places on the Internet. Here's one which has a very large selection https://notificationsounds.com/notification-sounds



BankFodder BankFodder


BankFodder BankFodder

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • i point you to two threads whereby you'll see an explanation by andy (post 22 here) https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/410486-lowell-interim-charging-order-from-credit-card-debt-2009/?tab=comments#comment-4912902   and   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/406428-remortgage-issue/   if yours says:    written notice of the disposition was given to XX Council ( - disposition = sold vis: disposed of) ..... notice means letter telling them it's been sold -    doesn't say it must be paid or settled BEFORE disposition..   that's the way i read it.          
    • dx100uk   You are absolutely correct. That's exactly what the wording is! And if that's the case then - happy days for me! However, I thought that:   1. This wording meant the conveyancing solicitor had to tell the council that the house was about to be sold so they were aware!   But you are saying that the council only needs to be informed AFTER the house has been sold? Can I tell the council that? [I think I've seen something on the internet that says I can, rather than the CS] Or do I need the conveyancing solicitor to contact the council?   2. That this wording wasn't a restriction K [as I'd looked at Schedule 4 of the Standard Forms of Restriction] and tried to match my wording to those listed - and thought restriction K was the closest.     3. That this was a non-standard restriction [and that's what the Land Registry told me too and that the restriction was not a Restriction K!!! [see extract below]   Please remember that when applying for a restriction not in standard form:   it must always contain the words ‘is to be completed by  registration’ rather than ‘is to be registered’. This will serve to make the effect of the restriction clear. The term ‘registered’, where used in any of the standard form restrictions, means the completion of a registrable disposition by complying with the relevant registration requirements prescribed in Schedule 2 to the Land Registration Act 2002 (rule 91(3) of the Land Registration Rules 2003), but this statutory definition only applies to standard form restrictions. Please note that we will not accept restrictions not in standard form for registration that contain the words ‘is to be registered’   So I'm confused now. IF it is a restriction K - then the conveyancing solicitor doesn't have to do anything and I can let the council know.   It seems it is dependent on the wording 'completed by registration' and 'is to be registered'???   Below is copied from Martin's MSE.   This relies again on the 'is to be registered' whereas my wording is ' completed by registration' which you say is restriction K and LR says is not.   I need to go to sleep now!   Thanks dx.   Extract from MSE below.   If your property is jointly owned a creditor will not be able to obtain a CO against you, they can only get what is called a restriction. The laws on Restrictions are totally different to Orders, the most important being there is NO OBLIGATION for you to pay any of the proceeds of the sale to the creditor. However, during the whole court process you go through the reference from all parties (especially the creditor) will be to charging order and NOT to restriction. This is done in order to deceive you believing you are stuck with a CO. However, not all solicitors are aware of the law in this regard and it is important that you raise this point with them in the first instance before proceeding with them Quote: Restriction The restriction which can be entered on the register where a charging order is made against one of joint proprietors is in the following form :- No disposition of the registered estate is to be registered without a certificate signed by the applicant for registration or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to [name of person with the benefit of the charging order] at [address for service], being the person with the benefit of /I]an interim[I/I]a final[I charging order on the beneficial interest of (name of judgment debtor) made by the (name of court) on (date) (Court reference.…).        
    • Hi Tony,   Please ensure YF does NOT acknowledge any debt  when confirming their new address.   They should simply state, " Please note my new address, as shown above."   Do not say anything about "a debt owed", or "the money you are chasing."   Do nothing that resets the SB Clock - ie acknowledging the debt and causing probs for the next 6 years. 
    • you ring you bank    
    • i suspect the charge on the Land registry site against the house reads:   2. (XX.XX.2007) RESTRICTION: No disposition of the registered estate is to be completed by registration without a certificate signed by the applicant or his conveyancer that written notice of the disposition was given to XX Council at P.O. Box XX, STREET, TOWN, POSTCODE, being the person with the benefit of a Charge under Section 22 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983.   ..............   that is a restriction k and is useless to the council, as all 'legally' your have to do is inform them AFTER the house has been sold . then it's too late money has gone.   dx
  • Our picks

    • Currys Refuse Refund F/Freezer 5day old. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422656-currys-refuse-refund-ffreezer-5day-old/
      • 5 replies
    • Hi,  
      I was in Sainsbury’s today and did scan and shop.
      I arrived in after a busy day at work and immediately got distracted by the clothes.
      I put a few things in my trolley and then did a shop.
      I paid and was about to get into my car when the security guard stopped me and asked me to come back in.
      I did and they took me upstairs.
      I was mortified and said I forgot to scan the clothes and a conditioner, 5 items.
      I know its unacceptable but I was distracted and Initially hadn’t really planned to use scan and shop.
      No excuse.
      I offered to pay for the goods but the manager said it was too late.
      He looked at the CCTV and because I didn’t try to scan the items he was phoning the police.
      The cost of the items was about £40.
      I was crying at this point and told them I was a nurse, just coming from work and I could get struck off.
      They rang the police anyway and they came and issued me with a community resolution notice, which goes off my record in a year.
      I feel terrible. I have to declare this to my employer and NMC.
      They kept me in a room on my own with 4 staff and have banned me from all stores.
      The police said if I didn’t do the community order I would go to court and they would refer me to the PPS.
      I’m so stressed,
      can u appeal this or should I just accept it?
      Thanks for reading 
      • 7 replies
    • The courier industry – some basic points for customers. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/421913-the-courier-industry-%E2%80%93-some-basic-points-for-customers/
      • 1 reply
    • The controversial sub-prime lender says the City watchdog is investigating its practices.
      View the full article
      • 0 replies

Insurance premiums

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 890 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi All,


I was unlucky enough to get my first points for speeding, now luckily because I've been on the roads for a very long time and my no claims is bonus is very high.


I had to contact my insurance to advise that I had been done for speeding and that my license was now endorsed.


I could hear the hands of the insurance person rubbing his hands, but effectively my premium has gone up by £50. so not a huge amount.


the question or view is why on earth do insurance have this power of penalising you like this? surely its unfair to do that.


I have a few friends and colleagues who are from the continent and all of them said that points have no bearing on your insurance premiums. what is the catalyst is obviously if you have an accident or cause an accident.


what give the right to insurance companies in England to rob us blind just because you have been given points, why is it a fairer way of attributing risk?


if you are 17/18 and you get your first points, then I agree that its shows risk, but if you loyal customer who's been giving you business for the past 11 straight years.. feels wrong to me that they still blatantly, apply such a draconian approach.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

you haven't been penalised for the points,

you have been penalised for the laws of physics that says the kinetic energy of a moving object increases as a square of the increase in velocity.

In short people who speed do a lot more damage when they crash.


You say this was because you were unlucky.

That suggests that statistics on the number of speeding events you have committed have led to a very small number of prosecutions hence the idea that somehow being caught was an unlikely event.


Well, insurance companies use statistics and very big computers to crunch the numbers so they know that for a certain number of idiots speeding without being caught a percentage of them will crash into something or someone causing them a loss.


They then weight the premium to reflect the odds of them having to pay out.


Most people who get done for speeding learn a lesson and that is what the punishments are designed to do,


adjust behaviour rather than punish just for the sake of it.


Some recidivists never learn though so take a step back and consider what you need to do in the light of all of this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

laws of physics and kinetics, I'm impressed.


surely, as you say, if insurance crunch the numbers they should be aware that if I was careless character then I wouldn't have waited this long to collect my very first penalty,


what I find that lacks cohesion is that seems in the continent they don't follow the same standards

- surely with insurance companies being global as they are..

I wonder why the UK has a less than orthodox approach to insurance premiums.


in light of all of this, to paraphrase

- I don't think its fit for purpose.


I'm lucky enough that I my premium is low

- but for some others they could be put in some hardship.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden they are fairly relaxed about using phones whilst driving maybe we should follow this as well


The hardship issue is what is used to try and combat peoples behavior behind the wheel, there is no doubt that speeding is dangerous.


I am sure that when people have been caught speeding that wasn't the only time they exceeded the speed limit, that may be the only time they got caught.


So crunching the numbers wont work on this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont speed then. That's the answer.


Of course insurance premiums go up if your licence is endorsed.

Your a greater risk

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

what a ridiculous reply

- hardly worth it

- it seems that only in the UK this is a factor.


my point was the 2 weights and two measures.


soon we will groan on how insurance companies will raise the premiums because we are no longer part of the EU..

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden you get fined a proportion of your income for every kph over the limit your go.

One chap got a fine of a quarter of a million quid for going about 10 kph too fast.


Fines are supposed to be deterrents

so Spain used to use different methods of deterring speeding motorists,

they used to take you go and look at the mangled bodies in accidents to try and make the errant driver actually see the consequences.


The requirement of insurance differs from country to country as well,

in Germany you insure the car and anyone can drive it,


here we insure the car and the driver and people get charges twice if they have 2 cars despite the fact they can only drive one at a time.


The insurance companies have some odd algorithms for calculating insurance, that is why they ask about what you do for a living.


they also whack up the premiums of anyone who gets shunted from behind as it is statistically more likey they will be involved in an accident that is their fault within the next year than someone who hasnt been hit by someone else. Reason is driving style.


You might think it unfair but the figures support it.

same with drunk driver, speeders etc.


you might only get caught once but look at the stats for those done for DUI more than once, people who have more than 6 points etc.


We have a damned sight more claims in this country per head of population as well, and the value of a second hand car is lower here than anywhere else so more write offs and bigger bills.


We also have more cars on our roads than anyone else per head of population and per mile of road


In Sweden they are fairly relaxed about using phones whilst driving maybe we should follow this as well


The hardship issue is what is used to try and combat peoples behavior behind the wheel, there is no doubt that speeding is dangerous.


I am sure that when people have been caught speeding that wasn't the only time they exceeded the speed limit, that may be the only time they got caught.


So crunching the numbers wont work on this.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where people are looking to find information or how they are forming their views

- but I looked for some official material on these premiums issue, since I had some free time.


Unfortunately for the insurance industry,

the Office of Fair Trading has looked into reasons of high insurance premiums,

discovering that there may be more than a few discrepancies between how much insurers claim it costs to actually insure a driver and all the potential variables including the reasoning offered while a driver has points or not.


In fact,

thanks to many complaints made to the OFT about possible price gouging occurring in the insurance industry,

it recently decided to refer the entire industry to the Competition Commission.


The Commission is now running its own,

independent investigation into how much it really does cost to insure a driver and how much insurers are charging customers.


If there is indeed evidence of price gouging,

and I hope they find it for ONCE it could spell very bad news for car insurance companies,

as they could face consequences;


it could lead to some relief for all the nation’s drivers,

considering how the system unfairly penalises


Also calculations or not,

the system is not set up in a fair manner.


all its designed for is to use variables that disproportionately in favour of the insurance company and brings no benefit to us drivers.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...