Pleasure if you need anymore help with this just send me a PM PF

Ok gotcha But i must say that sounds about right remember it is 29.9% compounded But i will check for you

Letter tweaked hope it meets with your approval aa

Mac Hall are the bottom feeder's of the debt collection industry, 99% of the time they buy up alleged debts well beyond the statute of limitation time far in excess of the 6 year period hoping to make a fast buck out of people who are unaware of their legal rights. I would suggest that anyone who has a marker of outstanding debt placed on their credit files, to, first take it up with the credit reference agency and dispute the entry, by doing this, it has a twofold effect... 1) The entry is marked as in dispute, which means that, if you apply for credit, with an otherwise good credit file, then you shouldn't be turned down instantly. Ie the credit application then has to be viewed manually. 2) You have a dispute with Mac Hall, logged with the CRA, ie, they can't deny receiving any dispute with regards to the entry, "which in my experience, if you write to them first they will deny receiving any such letter". As soon as you have logged a dispute with the CRA, write ( via recorded delivery), under S.A.R.N to Mac Hall requesting a copy of the original application including T&Cs where they can report data to the CRAs without your permission. What will happen next: Usually the CRA's will contact Mac hall and ask them to verifiey their data and they will respond " Yes its accurate". This is what they do In 99.9% of cases. The next stage: Write to the credit reference agencies that hold this data and serve them with a sec.10 notice requesting that they cease processing data that is unlawfull under the data protection act. Then serve a sec.10 notice on Mac Hall, stating, that unless they cease processing data,on you to the CRA's then you will take further action through the courts if nesscesary.

Sorry Thialand we could not find an email address from them. We will keep looking but it depends on which clients we need to look through. No easy way of doing that I'm afraid. DG:)

OFT 2 UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES 2.6 e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a different debt collector

Ok heres a very rough embarrassed defence (think it came from Pt2537 originally?), others can add to it. S.

OR You could use this: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=9902&d=1245343818

I started the idea & even i now think its gonna be a complete anti climax to be honest

Hi there, You've said it is going to court and I am presuming that you waiting for a date for a hearing. Restons, being creatures of habit, will probably apply for Summary Judgment. When ( or maybe if ) they send the court documents, that is when you can introduce into your Witness Statement in opposition to summary Judgment. For the moment, do NOT mention the defective Default Notice to Restons. Just sit tight and wait to see which path Restons decide upon.

Thanks Elsa I did calm down eventually and rang the customer complaints desk.. they agreed that the situation was a tad stupid and rang the SAR team for me. They told me that whenever requesting SAR or CA to make postal order out to HBOS Plc and that despite different contact addresses being given they end up in the same place i.e. the SAR team, so to send them both back in the same envelope. She has also credited my bank account with a fiver to cover the cost of postage and phone call so thats a fiver off my overdraft at least.. As I said in my silly question thread in the Halifax forum I'm now looking for things to complain about to see if I can write off the balance... The smile is back, and the paper bag lies dormant at the front door awaiting the next missive from the postman. Spam. ( Elsa- been trying to rep you for the last couple of days advice but they won't let me... so consider yourself 'repped in public'.... THANK YOU :grin:)

ECI state this on their website - "As a professional debt collection agency, our services are designed to give you confidence in your transactions, with the secure knowledge and assurance that you have the full back up and expertise of a Company licensed by the Office of Fair Trading"

Good morning all I have had some difficulties with Swift..... Briefly, I took out a loan with them in 2006, for £15,000 and it was secured on my home. I sent the SAR to them recently and received a copy of the application form, the agreement and the welcome letter. However, the amount to be paid equates to £16,500, according to their correspondence. Now for the interesting bit - for various reasons, I got divorced and ended up agreeing to repay the Swift loan from my share of the sale proceeds. Swift attended the FDR proceedings during the Divorce, but left after 5 minutes when the DJ announced that there would be an Order for sale of the property made during that hearing. (This is perfectly normal). No payments have been made to Swift for some time, due to the divorce. No annual statement of account has ever been received from Swift. The property has been on the market for almost 2 years, and various people have wanted to buy but couldn't due to their own financial problems (couldn't sell their own place, couldn't get mortgages and so on..), Swift then decided that they wanted to act as an Intervenor in my Divorce proceedings. They made application and this was heard last Monday by the Deputy DJ at my local CC. I showed the lady Counsel for Swift my copy agreement, welcome letter and application, and she said ' this is not right, Swift cannot deduct fees from a loan, give you the balance, and then add back the fees deducted. There must be a mistake.......' I did tell her that there were moves towards a class action against her clients, and some 250-300 people may be involved....she said 'I will tell my clients....I just cannot believe their (her clients') attitude.' This is from THEIR Counsel!! The DJ whilst looking at my witness statement last Monday said 'I note that there is a difference between the amount which you applied for and the amount which Swift say you agreed to repay. This may affect Swift's position in these matters as they may not have an equitable interest, in view of this discrepancy.' I told him that I am dealing with that situation, and that I anticipate having the agreement revisited in Court in due course. His response was 'I assume under the CCA 1978?' My response was 'Yes sir, that is my intention.' He refused the application by Swift (but allowed them to be joined into the Matrimonial proceedings (perfectly normal request where a loan is secured against the matrimonial home) and has stated on the Order that 'Swift might have an equitable interest in the property in this case, and the balance of their application to be adjourned to the first open date after 10th August 2009.' Swift's application for costs was refused. I note that it seems Swift may have used a broker called Central Capital...has anyone heard of them? I am determined that Swift will not have an equitable interest, and that I will succeed in getting the agreement declared void...watch this space...... Please, any help you want to give, wish to give, or would like to contribute will be more than welcome. OK that's it for now.....I just want to say 'Let's do to them what they've been doing to us, only we will do it with the Law on our side.' Best wishes to all Dougal

If this helps, I can only speak from experience so please get proper backup on this as I always simplify it; but so far the Judges seem to work backwards on these cases and work out if the debt has been assigned first. As without this the claimant can't own a debt. I have been told this so far by 3 different Judges who seem to be very clued up on consumer law. I understand this seems to be different around the country though :-/ You have a typical Asset sale of debt letter which does not constitute a properly executed Notice of Assignment. As we know must be sent from the original creditor (First National/GE Money) and a signature required. In the two claims against me this has gone against the claimant and have been struck out. The next step would be the default notice. The DN doesn't have to be sent recorded in anyway from what I can work out. Also from what I could tell the Judge in my case wasn't really interested in the exact layout of the DN. If it has the words as laid out then that seemed sufficient enough for him. The CCA would only be used as a last resort because as we know if the original creditor has sold on the debt and canceled the agreement then the reliance on a CCA is irrelevant. So that is my simplified view and I understand some Judges don't seem to be clued up on this but a helpful defence pointing out relevant case law will help them out.

Morning Lexis Dear me, what are these people DOING? It takes the average newbie on here about 3 weeks to grasp the basics. These muppets work full time at it and still haven't grasped it! Have you had one of these yet from the Bostitutes? http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/205444-debtograms-go-what-beauty.html Elsa xx

Hi I think this is the one that explains it best. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-2166205.html Spam.

InsideARM: Executive Change: Lowell Group Appoints Bob Collins Director of Compliance maybe a letter of complaint should be send to bobby;) make him aware that his staff are not complying . SAM:pLOWELL DETESTER