Not sure if anyone can offer any advice but here goes anyway. My brother was pulled for Drink driving last night he was over the limit at 84mg. He's never done anything wrong in his life and at the moment is quite upset. He's got to appear in court on Wednesday and he's got lots of things running through his head. Does anyone know what he is looking at? I've said that at worst theu will take his licence of him for 12 months and he'll probably get a fine......? Read more

I am looking at the above car and have a round £5000.00 to spend. I was looking at the HDI models, but there appears to more choice and better spec on the petrol. Is the petrol worth considering, or will the car be too consuming on the petrol. I do around 650 miles a month.

Any advice. Read more

Very tempted to get one of these for me and 'er indoors but why have the Telegraph and Honest Johns reviews both refered to them as being a bit female orientated? They used to say this about mx5s. I thought it must be only jealous blokes who can't afford one who say this or have I missed something? Seems a cracking deal to me!
Read more

Guys I really need some advice, as i am pretty stuck.
On 27 August 2006 I bought a 21000 mile 53 plate Mondeo ST220 from a car supermarket - {edit by DD} (the car was almost 3 years old and should have had 2 services but only had one at 18 months and 13500 miles, at time of purchase. For this reason I got an independent mechanical warranty on the car on purchase, and promptly had a manufacturers major service done on the car).
On acquiring the car in September, I noticed that on both rear doors and the front offside door, rust had started to appear at the seam where inner door joins the outer skin. In October, I duly contacted my local ford approved bodyshop who assessed the doors and stated that the nearside rear door needed replacement, the offside front and rear could be repaired.
A warranty claim was sent to ford, and I awaited the result. To my amazement Ford said that they would repair the offside front and rear door, but would not touch the nearside door as the car did not have a full paintwork inspection stamps in the service book, and thus the perforation warranty was void. I reapproached ford via the dealer explaining that the car service book did not have a paintwork inspection section in it, and after a month of wranglings in early January ford agreed to repair all the doors but replace none. The dealer are not happy to do this as they feel that one of the doors was beyond repair, and thus if it was repaired rust would reappear and the onus would be down to them to replace the door. They also asked to reassess the vehicle and in early February 2007 they have declared that both rear doors now need replacement. I have recontacted Ford by letter, and dispite many promises of ringbacks, I have received nothing.

I am really frustrated, since firstly my service book ( a photocopy of which ford has) does not have a paintwork stamp section in it yet ford are claiming that this has to filled for a bodywork warranty to be accepted, and secondly the fact that ford advertise a 12 year anti-corrosion warranty which they are not willing to honour on a well known fault in manufacture . I have tried to contact Ford directly by letter and by phone and am getting nowhere.

I don't know where to go from here as the car is becoming increasingly worthless.

cheers
Sid Read more

"Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.

I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair" Read more