Yeh. That's fine.

Just goes to show how automated and unpersonal companies are towards their customers are these days. I would also send Grattan a CCA request. Espcially if you have had the account before 2007 as before then most catalogues didn't send out credit agreements. Once it's established if they have the correct legal paperwork or not, it puts you in a much stronger position. Where you can tell them what will be happening, instead of the other way around. Keep all their letters, etc. They may come in useful at a later date when it comes to getting your own back on them regarding harassment, etc.

Forget the whole thing. Ignore, move on, call it what you will - don't waste your time on it. Console yourself with the thought that your letter probably encouraged them to send more letters to you than they might have. Thus, you've helped them waste more of their own time and money. And the same goes for their "solicitors" (probably sent by the same person, but with different paper loaded into the printer).

Oh yes, I forgot. SAR them. That will really confuse them as they will have to send shedloads of paperwork and you can then put a claim in for a refund of any charges you have paid.

Sorry one minute it work next it doesnt Im sure someone will put the template link up for you if I cant get mine to work. DG

Follow the link below and check if CCJ exists:- Check the registers for your CCJ, judgment and fine records - Trust Online Cost you £8 but worth it.

Hi Jasmine, Use the link in post #8 above to see the letter the the FOS at post #5 of Tony3x's thread. Adapt the letter to reflect your case as necessary.

From what you are saying the insurance company seems to be taking the matter seriously and as such is obtaining as much evidence as they can to repudiate the claim. If they simply say "it wasn't our insured" then this probably wont make the Claimant go away. However, If they provide detailed inspection documents of the car showing no damage, signed statements of truth from your partner and any other witnesses who can say with certainty where the car was at the alleged incident time and place i.e. not in an accident and miles away, then they have a sterling chance of either making the claim go away or succesully defending it in Court. If they left it for a few years and waited for the Claimant to issue proceedings then evidence obtained at that point would not be of much help to defend it becuase you are not going to be able to remember where the car was on so and so date etc, whereas contemporanoeus evidence should blow the claim out of the water. Another point may be that the Claimant is telling the truth (albeit unlikely) and that your number plate has been cloned, hence the wrong car and driver description. My advice would be to help the insurers as much as you can to defend the matter as it's probably in your best interests in the long run. Try and help them by remembering what you did on the day in question - did you go anywhere - do you have receipts for the day in question which may prove your location etc - did you see any friends or family who could give a statement as to your whereabouts and that of the car. The insurers are trying to help you, however, if you don't help them then they are probably quite within their rights to not indemnify you and then you are on your own to deal with the claim.

This might help you. I have noticed that when they talk about assignment they refer to "on or shortly thereafter". Notice of assignment should be by strict proof. Strict proof being by either recorded or registered post or by courier or personal service. Suggest you read this and add to your defence.............. The Defendant denies that he is liable to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim, /at all. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to serve a Notice of Assignment in accordance with section 136(1), of the Law of Property Act 1925, in respect of the alleged debt. The amount detailed in the Claimant’s claim, which is likely to include penalty charges, which are unlawful at Common Law, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v New Garage and Motor Company Ltd [1915], under The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Accordingly, the inclusion of penalty charges in the purported Notice of Assignment renders it entirely legally unenforceable. The Claimant has failed to comply with section 136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925, by furnishing a Notice of Assignment in respect of that which is denied, that is inaccurate, W.F.Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke [1956]. The defendant requires sight of the notice of assignment of the debt. In addition the defendant requires proof of service of the Notice of Assignment in accordance with s196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which is required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action in their own name since it appears this is an assigned debt. the reason the defendant requests this information is inter alia to clarify the dates are correctly stated on all documents , the defendant notes that if there are errors in the assignment it may be rendered in effectual in law per W F Harrison and Co Ltd v Burke and another - [1956] 2 All ER 169 2 -Perfection of the assignment. 2.1. I have never received a notice of assignment according in all respects with s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 2.2 I respectfully submit to the court that steps to ensure service of a notice of assignment are only adequate if the requirements of s196 of the law of property act 1925 are complied with regard to either (a) personal service or (b) postal service. 2.3 Since the claimant explicitly states the notice was “sent” it is assumed that this was done via the postal service. The requirements for service via the post are Law Of Property Act (1925) s196 . Regulations respecting notices. (4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned by the postal operator (within the meaning of the Postal Services Act 2000) concerned undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered. 3.2 - It is noted that the claimant has, at no time, provided evidence that the notice of assignment was sent via registered post, and if “sent” via any other method, the notice was not sufficiently served 3.3 -. I did not receive any notice of assignment in the format prescribed by law and served in the prescribed manner from the respondent, and I have asked the other members of my family if they signed for such a document; they have assured me that they did not. 3.4 - To the best of my knowledge, any notice of assignment sent by registered post must, therefore have been returned to the respondent. 3.5 - Consequently, I do not believe that any notice of assignment was properly served upon me at the date of the claim, and therefore any assignment has not been perfected in law.

right then you have them then. fire off a cca request. as its EGG it will fail. [there is always something wrong with them] put the A/C into dispute, stop paying & then wait for them to squeal . and offer 15% of what is left to pay off as an F&F. then when that is done reclaim the PPI from EGG. tat should go into your pocket as the A/C will be closed & EGG cannot pay the PPI as off set on a sold debt anyhow as they no longer have any interest in it. job done dx

I'm bored with this All the President's Men ****. This isn't some underground car park whispering to bernstein and woodward. It's right here, on open as you've said yourself. Show us your yarbles, that's if you have any yarbles to show... And forgive me but I am not signing up to go public to the SPV or any other fecker who then targets me as some kind of agitator, deserving of full sting. My friend. YMBFJ. No Chance. Give us something proper, something that stands, something that won't get washed aside and something that delivers real justice. Or at least stop analysing us like ants under your superior microscope. Blow the ucking whistle for good and all time, that is if of course you actually have a whistle to blow you gutless wonder.

Then there is no basis for them to retain the monies, make a formal request in writing for the refund of monies paid on the basis of their refusal to complete the transaction (purchase of the trip)

Recieved a cheque from Ford XXXXXXXXX 's solicitors today for full and final settlement. They have insisted that I cannot make any further claims, complaints or critisisms agaisnt them...is this normal? It has taken 4 months to resolve and their costs must be in the region of £3000. I notice that when I started my action they were not registerd as a licenced Data Controller, but recently they have registered. Their solicitor said I was a very unusual fellow and that I had generated a huge paper trail for his client. Hmmm sounds like a back handed compliment to me. I still feel short changed because if it had gone to court I feel we could have won much more. Santander have been reasnonable and only want £5200 to settle the debt so we have paid only £216 more than if we had paid in cash in August 2009. Santander have been sending DCAs to phone us in the evenings and to me that is wrong, it smacks of harrassment as they know we have been in negotiations with them for several months. For that reason alone I feel we should complain to the information Comissioner and the Ombudsman for this harrassment, they also refused to deal with me which is in breach of the OFT guidance on debt collection. We saved £1600 on cancelling the HP agreement and claimed back £650 and it probably cost me £10 in paper, ink and stamps and some mental anguish, thinking is such a painful activity for me. So good result. We can now concentrate our activities on NatWest...the big one. I noticed yesterday that the OFT have issued a new guidance on sections 77/78/79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It has it's bad points for us as consumers and some good. It at least clears up some anomolies but in my opinon contradicts itself from earlier OFT decisions but I suppose the courts have the last word. But it strikes me that the OFt is ina precarious position in all its pronouncements because anything it issues can be overuled by a county court...or it seems that way. Page 30 of the new guidlines says: if the bank does not provide the documents/agreement within 12 working day then the agreement cannot be enforced. This means the bank cannot demand an earlier payment that the contract says cannot threaten court action take possession of anything that you bought on credit The bad points are the lender can: request payment issue a default notice pass details to a CRA pass on informatin to a debt collector One important point, in discussing their claim with you, the consumer, they must state that the debt is unenforcable in the courts, if they don't do that then they are in breach of the OFT code of conduct and you have a complaint against them. Look up OFT via google to get onto the site and see OFT1175con It is well worth a visit.

Admittedly it was 5 years ago, but I spent a week touring Tunisia, always in an organized party, loved every minute and the only time I felt a bit unsafe was in the market but only because it was my first experience of the 'high pressure sales techniques'. I had several different sorts of prescription medication with me, and it wasn't any problem at all.

Dare I say I understand the basics, but have come across different views as to whether it is a goer in the Uk. Views on CAG seem to be that the law allows the Original issuer of the cc to somehow keep an interest in the ownership so enabling them to sell a delinquent account (ours!). The thing with this is that all I have read is that for it be legal it must be "Bankruptcy remote"(BR) ie cannot be touched by a creditor of the Original issuer who sold the cc to the investment vehicle. If an Original issuer keeps an interest how can they then be BR? Is there anyone out there who has inside knowledge of securitization that can help?

We need to check this unlawfully issued default is correct. If it's not sit tight on it and use it as a defence in case things get sticky. Can you scan it and add it up here? Best to photocopy the original and then draw on the copy to cover personal details, thus preserving the original. Be interested to know if they've even got the default notice right

Agreed, do not make any contact. If it is you they are looking for they will contact you again with something more concrete. Ignor for now.

The Consumer credit act , is just an Act given the force of law by consent. it still sits UNDERNEATH contract law. Everything does everything is Contract, and if you know how to sort out the contracts then you can sort your affairs out. Finally, My friends & I use this and variations of this all the time. It stops them their tracks! it works for us, thats all i can say