Na its 6969 That letter will do perfectly

You should be able to get what is called a 'basic' bank account. This is just another name for the standard instant access bank you use with a passbook (at least with a building society). These accounts don't allow direct debits or standing orders.

First submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to Natwest so we know how much they actually owe you, This is the link for that: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/bank-templates-library/516-1-data-protection-act.html You will need to enclose £10 (cheque/postal order) and send recorded delivery. Once you have done this you will need to send them a letter telling them that you dispute the amount that you owe, this should stop them actually taking you to court for now. Have a look around the forum and you will find a lot of good examples of letters from people in the same position. Make sure any contact you have with them is by letter only, never talk to them. Once you have done the above and you have got the information from the SAR, post it on here and we'll go through it. Most importantly read the faq section and start to through the threads under the natwest forum. You will need this familiarity to succeed, If you need anything else let us know, Woodwa5:cool:

A default should drop off your file 6yrs after the date the default was entered. A Charge-off Many people mistakenly think when a debt has been charged-off that it's been cancelled by the creditor. This is not true. You are still responsible for paying off the debt. However, you will not be able to use your credit card to make purchases. Companies, including creditors and lenders, have profits and losses every year. They make money from profits and lose money from losses. When a creditor charges-off your account, it's declaring your debt as a loss for the company. Even though the creditor has acknowledged your debt as a loss in its financial records, you don't get away free. Your creditor will add a negative entry (a charge-off) to your credit report and continue to attempt to collect on the debt. An account is usually charged off after 180 days, or six months, of less-than-minimum payments. The charge-off will remain on your credit report for seven years from the date it was charged-off. If you pay the debt, it will be updated with a status of "Charged-Off Paid" or "Charged-Off Settled." Either is better than a simple "charge-off" status, but are still undesirable. The only way to remove a charge-off from your credit report is to wait the seven-year period or negotiate with the creditor to have it removed after you pay the account in full.

Hi happyfeat, Employment tribunals do have a discretion to accept late claims, but as the normal time limit is 3 months from EDT and you say you were dismissed in October 2006, then you're well out. Of course any contractual claims you may have would have a 6 year limit in county court, but this would not apply to claims such as unfair dismissal. My advice would be to forget all about it and move on as your chances getting a claim accepted by any ET are basically zero! Kind regards Che

Id write back stating I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY This debt has been in dispute4 since XXX date. No clear legible LEGAL copy of an agreement has been supplied. A copy of your letter is going to the relevant authorities as I have no liability for this unenforceable debt. Remember not to sign the letter, and send it second class, as you might have their fax no fax it to them and also see if there is an email addy and email it to them as well.

Further to my previous post & jansus's post, preparing a breakdown and timeline in such a way would also help you for the court proceedings. I find that if I have all the facts organized for a hearing, then I make a better impression on the judge and also don't muck up. I can't count the times I've forgotten to say something and either not got everything I was going for or got everything but by the skin of my teeth only because my case was actually very strong. So even if we can't give you advice, providing the information we need in a clear manner could help you at the hearing.

I found an N260 form on the Court website, you can fill it online and print it out./HMCSCourtFinder/tiles/Her Majesty's Courts Service -Forms and Guidance I asked for £9.25ph as Litigant in Person;under the fee earners column, Work done on document column, put the total number of hours @9.25, Attendance at hearing column; I put 0.50, Hours travelling & waiting 2.50, Other expenses; I included; loss of wages, fuel, parking & photocopying. Dibs.

I am involved with BMW, so know what REALLY happens with these things. 1.) The post 9/01 (51 onwards) 320d is a disaster area. A very decent engine with some poor quality junk ancilliaries fitted to it. BMW don't even make the bits that go wrong! But they did design and fit them......... What causes the turbo to fail? Extended service intervals, dirty oil and not allowing the turbo to spool down on shut-down. The turbo requires a supply of engine oil to lubricate it, and when you turn off the engine, the oil supply stops. The turbo is still spinning at many thousand RPM, only now with just whatever oil is around the bearings. Without a supply of oil, the oil in the bearings quickly turns to carbon, blocking the oil supply gradually. The answer? Allow the engine idle for 10 seconds before shut-off. The turbo then stops with a nice supply of oil to its bearings and it's good for 150-200'000 miles. What happens when you get the oil cloud? The turbo bearings have failed, the turbo has collapsed and the oil is going past the destroyed bearings and into the engine. If you're lucky, you're into 'just' a turbo and an intercooler. The inlet manifold CAN be removed cleaned out but it takes a pressure washer and immersion in chemical cleaner to do it. Forget doing it on the engine! The Catalyst must only be cleaned with a pressure washer. Detergent may ruin it but give it a go. DO NOT USE PETROL!!! The intercooler must NEVER be cleaned and reused. It's scrap. Not all engines are U/S after a turbo failure. You can remove the intercooler, block the oil feed pipe and run the engine which is now a normally aspirated unit. The turbo won't do much but you can ascertain if the engine is dead or not. Yes, it will smoke but that's the oil in the exhaust. If it runs on all cylinders and doesn't make any nasty noises, you've been lucky. Be aware that there is a breather that blocks up with oil sludge thanks to those extended oil changes and requires replacement every 30k to be safe. When this blocks, the crankcase cannot 'breathe' and it does the thing no good at all. What can you do to prevent this? Simple. 1.) Don't buy a 320d. 2.) Buy the car cheap and fit a new turbo straight away. Seriously though, that's not a bad idea. The oil feed pipe also chokes up with gunge (thanks to the stupid oil change intervals, again). When you buy a 320d (and I wouldn't personally), replace the feed pipe and the breather. Change the oil and filter every 8000 miles. Let the engine idle for 10 secs before switching off. Pray. That the end of the story? Not a chance. 320d's from 9/2001 (the 150 bhp facelift cars) also have a plastic inlet manifold with steel 'swirl plates'. These are there to improve emissions by cutting air supply into the engine under certain conditions. Great. Only it's not because these steel plates work loose and get sucked into the engine causing absolute carnage - there is no repairing the engine now, it's junk. The solution is to buy a new manifold of which there is now a new version although BMW won't admit to anything. BUT...........what you can do is take the manifold off and just remove the swirl plates. Throw them in the bin, but if you have a 2001-06 320d, DO IT NOW!! There is no warning, it's just happens. Pay a mechanic to do it if you cannot. The sad thing is, the original 320d from V-Y plate was quite a good car and they weren't a lot of trouble. The later ones are just a nightmare - the problems with the turbo, breather, oil pipe and swirl plates are also shared with the 525d, 530d and 330d. The current stuff (E60, E90) is better but the E46 did BMW's repuation a lot of damage.

Hi Janus, There are rules of law (although the borrowers are not notified of the law or the rules). The rules (which are law) can be found in the Civil Procedure Rules book (often referred to as the White Book), a copy of which can be found in the reference section of the local library, or on line at Civil Procedure Rules Homepage Also check out the corresponding Practice Directions which give commentary on, and augment, the CRP rules. The book itself (from the library) contains more detail than the web-site version plus the commentary in the book references many cases that may be useful. The CPR rules that goven repossession actions is at Part 55 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It's worth a read. It details all the information that MUST be stated in the claim form. For example, see CPR 55.4.4 which states that (amongst other things), the claim form must state "details of all other payments to be made and claimed" (see CPR 55.4.4). Therefore, if there's no monetary judgment, it begs the question on what basis are lenders charging people who've been repossessed and the lender has already exercised its power of sale? If there's no monetary judgment against a borrower that has been repossessed, then the lender is not charging a borrower pusuant to a court order. There must be some other legal basis on which they are demanding cash. Plus, if they have not stated in the claim form all the other payments that are to be "made and claimed", then one could argue that they have forfeited any right to make any more "claims" against the borrower. This is because, under a rule called the rule in Henderrson, (which comes from a case called Henderson v Henderson which is common-law): it is a rule that essentially holds that a Claimant must bring all its claims against the party sued (in this case the borrower) so that the whole claim is dealt with at in the one action. It is deemed to be an "abuse of process" to bring repeated claims against a person on an issue that arises out of the same facts and circumstances. Consequently, where lender tries to start another action against a borrower who has already been repossessed, the borrower could argue that the second litigation is an abuse of process and accordingly, the second action could be "struck out" on that ground. Just had an idea! this rule could be used in any bankruptcy proceedings that a lender might bring against a repossessed borrower and as such strictly speaking, the rule would defeat any bankruptcy proceedings that a lender might bring. Got to say that I'm not a solicitor, but have done alot of reading on the law around this subject. Good luck

I've read every thread on Credit Today, (there's on many of them lol) Nobody has said anything wrong. All people have done is ask perfectly reasonable questions and given their honest opinion. As long as it's kept that way, then there's no problem. Apart from Credit Today not liking hearing the truth about their grubby little collection of companies that read their sad magazine, so they lock threads and delete posts, because all they want is a one sided view of things. I can image Credit Today is running a bit scared as when the DCA's and banks stop becoming financially viable, then that's CT's income up the spout and another minority appeal magazine vanishes off the shelves. I'll be very suprised if CT exists a year from now.

Wow, now that's what I call big Sorry I didn't realise, from your first post, that they had sent what they call a credit agreement. It doesn't look enforceable to me but I'm no expert, however here's some info by Curlyben on enforceability which should help. I can't see a signature on the "Agreement" either. Prescribed terms:- Now there's some things you will need to check. The most important being the prescribed terms that make any credit agreement enforceable: Quote: Originally Posted by 8.1 What are ‘prescribed terms’? S61(1)(a) CCA provides that, for a regulated agreement to be properly executed, it must contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement and conform to regulations under s60(1) – see Q1.14. Reg 6(1) provides that the terms specified in Sch 6 to the Agreements Regulations are ‘prescribed terms’ for the purposes of s61(1)(a) and s127(3) – see Q8.2. 8.2 What if prescribed terms are missing or incorrect? s127(3) provides that the court may not make an enforcement order unless a document containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor – see Q1.21. If therefore any of the prescribed terms is missing, or incorrect, the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor, and the court is precluded from making an enforcement order. 8.3 What are the prescribed terms? The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 are as follows: * amount of credit – see Q8. * credit limit – see Q8.5 * repayments – see Q8.9. * rate of interest – see Q8.6 Sch 6 was not amended by the 2004 Regulations. For a card the limit maybe a simple statement of how they work it out, but the other terms have to be stated. Also, have a look at 42 Man's Agreement Enforceability thread below:- Is My Agreement Enforceable - Useful In your account in dispute letter, I notice you have typed 2007 in the fifth paragraph - should that be 2008?

Oh, dear. Please check out the MoT Testers Manual: MOT UK car and vehicle MOT information equipment car servicing parts and spares - brake components Inspection f, g and h

In a Scottish court it may be that the case would be dismissed (certainly you could argue that it should be). In the case above it was dismissed on the grounds that the pursuers had failed to meet the criteria of the test. Although whether there has been an effective intimation of an assignation will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, if there has been no assertion of the pursuers' entitlement to payment through a notice of assignment it is difficult to see how intimation could have taken place. You can't just ask for x amount of money you need to actually assert your entitlement to it. I would imagine that the legal position in England is similar although there will be some differences in law between assignment and its Scottish counterpart assignation (cession).

Hi Woodwa5 Re your 18K ERC. I think your instinct is correct. I don't think they can charge you an ERC when they repossessed you. The FSA have guidelines on ERC charges and 18K is excessive even if they could get away with charging an ERC. Way forward: first starting point may be to check the ERC rules under the FSA. On the FSA website you will find the MCOB rules (Mortgage Conduct of Business). Check out what the rules are regarding ERCs. If, as I believe, you have been illegally overcharged an ERC, then you can claim credit on your account for the overcharged ERC and don't forget to charge them 3 years compound interest on the overcharge. second is to check your actual contractual terms to establish exactly what the ERC should have been (but see also below for comment on the UCTA). third is to check what the actual court order states. Exactly what monetary judgment did they get against you? e.g., Are they charging you more than the monetary judgment? Strictly speaking, you should only have to satisfy the monetary judgment. If you've paid enough to satisfy the monetary judgement then on what basis are they charging you? What interest rate are they charging you etc. Is it a higher rate than they charge other borrowers. If so, that is against the FSA rules. Also, contractually and legally, they can only charge you reasonable fees when they exercise their power of sale. Thus, get a copy of the statement of fees from when the property was sold and see how much and what exactly all the fees are. Perhaps you need to challenge some of the fees if they were unreasonable. Also, check out some of the other threads on this site where people have recovered ERCs. That will give you an idea of how to go about claiming back your ERC overcharges (and any other overcharges that they may be dumpiing on your account). Finally, consider the UCTA (Unfair Contractual Terms Acts). There are laws that state that many contractual provisions are unenforceable against consumers because they are oppressive and unfair. Such terms are legally unenforceable. Many of the mortgage contract terms fall under these laws (e.g. that's why the FSA have rules prohibiting excessive ERCs). You can find these laws on a web-site called British and Irish Legal Information Institute , also check out opsi website (office public sector information) which has access to legislation and also google the "uk statute law database" which is another source of uk legislation. General advice is: find out exactly what you are legally obliged to do and do only what you are legally obliged to do and no more. My instinct is that you are being well and truly shafted - which is normal for Kensington - so arm yourself with the information first and make them justify exactly what they demand from you. That is, justify where in the contract they can charge you what they demand and justify legally why they can charge you. Finally, if it turns out that you've paid enough to satisfy the monetary judgement, you could consider going to court for a declaration that the judgment is satisfied - in which case, they will have to take a hike for any further money they demand from you or, they'll have to sue for another judgment - which will be very very tough for them to get because they've already repossessed you and its unlikely that they'll be able to give a full account and justify why they're still charging. Hope this gives you some pointers for where to start. Good luck and remember, all the time you just pay without questioning the charges, they will continue to abuse your account.

How about this? Dear Sirs, Account Number: XXX Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies current Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act. To clarify, just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement. This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows; As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.” This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557. Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are: Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements; And more importantly Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations. You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations. Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557. The regulations state: (2) There may be omitted from any such copy- (a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy; (b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies); It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations. The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso. Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions. It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented. I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues Yours faithfully (With thanks to Rory32, who provided the original on one of my threads:))

This is just me doing overtime on what if's, but.... Once this Part 36 Offer was accepted, this above statement "the act of acceptance can create a legally binding contract", should hold fast one would hope. Now, just suppose pt is right and I have a difficult Judge at this case management hearing, given the solicitors have now proposed a strike out on the basis that my original defence was ' misconceived' according to their newly appointed barrister and he were to be hypertheticlly correct, what happens to the legally binding contract? Suppose I am totally wrong and they have just caught on 10 months after we started negotiating, I've already accepted their Offer and now they want to save the day by going back on their Offer which I have accepted - what could happen?

I just wanted to say I have read this thread over the last few nights as I am just about to start my own charges case against Halifax and I have been totally engrossed. I cant believe the battle you've had and how strong you've stayed throughout it! I hope I have as much strength. My heart sunk for you when I read about your day in court, I was gutted for you. I cant wait for you to finally get your money off them, your an inspiration to all of us just starting our cases. I had a claim settled way back in April 2007 but now I feel like a newbie starting over again, but I have had 8 charges in a month and I want them back!!

It's the Consumer Credit Counselling Service. CCCS - Free Debt Advice from the UK's Leading Debt Charity

i would also send a letter every 2 months stating due to the credit crunch i will have to reduce my payments and that i would welcome court action and let a judge decide as then my payments would be a lot lower when you state you would love it to go to court they know a judge would make you pay less and they dont bother you i told one on the phone one day please take me to court? you wont get credit sir??you having a laff with debts of 80k who would give me credit im on benefit and if it goes to court il only have to pay £2.50 a month so please do not call again I also told lowells when they kept calling all calls are recorded and that my offer was £1 a month if you call again then that means you except my offer following day i get a call i just told them thanks for the call and excepting guy lost his rag NO I INT EXCEPTING YOUR OFFER i sent a letter and a transcript of the call to there head office and to OFT and FOS stating if they require i will give them a cd with the recorded calls on they got paying a £1 a month they keep writing asking for more so i offered 50p a month if they write again it means they except my offer of 50p never heard nothing from them again and stopped paying Regards DK

Hi Geministar2007:) I put down emergency - £10.00 per month Holiday - £20.00 per month Dentist - £08.00 per month and was allowed them, I also put down haircut £10.00 per month, pre pay prescriptions, and also dogfood for my dog went on and I was allowed them all. Like some people told me we have struggled and struggled for so long we don't make the proper allowances that we are entitled to. So if you have any pets put their food down too!! Haircuts for all family members should be ok and so should holiday fund for all of you, I would put £20.00 down for a family, you may be allowed, you have nothing to lose. Take care Sugar x x x:D

We said we were going to auction ours and they said they would not agree we did and got more than er had to pay them just the court agreed with us you need to put a reserve on the auction if they go for repossession you can ask the court to let you sell under the law and proerty act this can be done even if you have negative equity there is case law so you need to write and tell them if they dont agree you will go to court asking for this order for you to sell and quote the case law