Good Luck tergwin! Thanks for the words of support & compliments! If I had a spare minute I'd offer to help, but unfortunately you're more likely to end up being disappointed with my being so busy! I refuse to help if I can't go into the detail I go into, because I believe it's the only way to really help and ensure silly mistakes aren't made. Just my perspective and the way I work. Other's will work differently, but that's the way I feel I have to work, in order to ensure good results. And as you can see a few nuclear bombs or kicks up the backside work wonders too!

Hi angel I wont update this thread any more as its dead and buried,wrote off,cancelled, won I have had many victories over the Halifax and I can advise on the way I have acheived these, love to, If you have ppi then your in luck as one of my many accounts paid me back £4000 and paid the £2000 back on the card in redress, to name but one, if you have the default then keep this safe and use at the end, after you claim back charges, then ppi you can apply to have the default removed and they will do it, this is what I sent Retail Bank Collections PO BOX 607 Trinity Road Halifax HX1 2UJ DATE 23RD JULY 2009 ACCOUNT REF: xxxx xxxxx xxxx 8xx Dear Sir/Madame Please find enclosed the default letter you sent me which arrived on the 24th April of which I still have the envelope, It has come to my attention after reviewing my credit status that you have registered this default notice with them, I would like this default removed from all credit reference agencies. The above account was put into dispute on the 5th February and you were issued via recorded delivery on 23rd February a statuary notice under section 10 of the data protection act to cease processing any data in relation to the account while it was in dispute, The Default notice supplied by the Halifax is dated Friday 17th April, to allow service in line with the statutory requirements, 2 working days were required to allow for 1st Class postage.(not including Saturday& Sunday) Thus the Rectify date should be 14 calendar days from Tuesday 21st April, namely Tuesday 5th May 2009, not the 1 calendar days from the date of the letter as stated in the Default notice which would have been 18th April. This notice arrived on 24th April. . The attached Default Notice served s87(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 failed to comply with the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561). For a Creditor to be entitled to terminate a regulated Credit Agreement where there is a breach, demand repayment in full or take any legal action to recover any monies due under the Agreement, a creditor must serve a Default Notice under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states: Section 87. Need for Default Notice (1) Service of a notice on the Debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "Default Notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by reason of any breach by the Debtor or hirer of a regulated Agreement - (a) to terminate the Agreement, or (b) to demand earlier payment of any sum, or © to recover possession of any goods or land, or (d) to treat any right conferred on the Debtor or hirer by the Agreement as terminated, restricted or deferred, or (e) to enforce any security. The Act also sets out via Section 88(1), that the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form, as below: Section 88. Contents and effect of Default Notice (1) The Default Notice must be in the prescribed form… The wording must make it clear that no variation is acceptable. Therefore it cannot be dispensed with as a De Minimus issue. . This is at all times an Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. There is no provision in the Act that allows a large financial institution to terminate an Agreement that is in alleged default or breach simply by giving notice to the Consumer. Section 98(6) makes that quite clear. The Creditor must follow the steps outlined in Section 87 and Section 88 if they are to lawfully Default and Terminate, and enjoy the benefits of Section 87. I therefore put Halifax to strict proof that any Default Notice sent to me was valid and allowed the statutory 14 clear days to rectify the breach. I also note that to be valid, a Default Notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237). Halifax have failed to issue a valid Default Notice to prevent a right of action and would make any termination of the Agreement unlawful, as statute provides the procedure that must be followed. Since the Halifax failed to adhere to statutory procedure it is averred that the Halifax does not have a right of action, and can never now have a right of action having terminated the Agreement unlawfully. I note that the regulations do not allow any variation in the form of these statements and therefore it is suggested that where the statements are not as laid down in the regulations the Default Notice is rendered invalid as a consequence. Furthermore, the Arrears Total outlined cannot be accurate, as the Balance on the Account was at least partly comprised of Unlawful Charges plus additional Charges and Interest added unlawfully whilst the Account was in Dispute. Therefore, the Arrears claimed cannot be accurate, as they are themselves calculated using a Total that was itself inaccurate. Terminating an Agreement on the back of a defective Default Notice, simply confirms the undeniable truth that Termination of the agreement by the Halifax was carried out in circumstances which then prohibited them from enjoying the benefits of Section 87, namely the opportunity to seek early Payment of a sum that was, prior to Termination, only payable in the future. What I require This account was in dispute and you have sent me an invalid default notice and registered this against my file, this has caused me considerable damage and I now require you to inform all the credit reference agencies to remove such data. If I do not hear back from you in the next 14 days then I will begin court action for the data removal in respect of the section10 notice served and will seek the charges back from the account which are £360. Plus compensation for defamation. I trust this clarifies my position Yours sincerely LIKE THE PART WHERE I CLAIM COMPENSATION FROM THEM

PART 43 - SCOPE OF COST RULES AND DEFINITIONS - Ministry of Justice

You must supply a copy for each defendant to the court, a copy for the court and a copy for yourself, so go in armed with 4 copies of your form. It does not count as 2 claims by doing this, but each defendant must receive a stamped claim form from the court which they expect you to suppy. (I made that mistake on one of my claims and it cost me about a fiver to let them do a couple of photocopy pages for me ) I can't answer your court costs question, so I'll leave that for someone else.

Hi Mrspinkpaws. It could be for any number of reasons that compliance wish to speak with you, all we can do here is hazard a guess. You might be interested in my post here (post number 2) which highlights the differences between compliance and fraud.

Perhaps make it less prosaic - put down the pertinent points in easy to read bullets. You did not consent to be clamped Consent cannot be implied, due to inadequate signage (Vine etc.) You were not trespassing, as you were authorised The clamper is acting as agent for the land occupier On the value section, write the actual values, and don't forget the 8% interest.

Compliance officers do benefit checks & low level fraud cases. As you were told on the phone it concerned an “allegation” then this is probably the latter. All allegations must be looked at no matter how daft some of them sound. The fact that Compliance are dealing with you say’s everything tbh. They are NOT fraud investigators. Amongst other things they tend to deal with obvious malicious allegations, probable misunderstandings & cases the fraud investigators have looked at & then downgraded as it’s not fraudulent, or impossible to prove etc. The worst that can come out of a compliance visit is a benefit correction & an overpayment. If there’s nothing wrong they should be able to confirm this & will probably get you to sign a statement. Try not to worry about it too much, from what you’ve put I don’t think you’ve done anything wrong & the compliance visit should be the end of it.

If Proceedings were served on the 17.6, then you'llfind it very diificult to set aside Judgment based on invalid service, based on the emails and letter disclosed above. Given that they have Judgment, and Proceedings validly served, I can only advise you, when and if a repayment plan is agreed (it looks as though £5 a month is acceptable?), then get this, signed by both parties, in a formal Consent Order.

This is epic! You go Frettful! I would also have responded positively to LP's rants, sometimes we all need a bloody great kick up the arse!!

Hey Locotus, actually I agree the forum staff have been very helpful, one of the tech staff, Emma, has switched my profile and my speeds have gone up to approximately what I was getting with Tiscali, so if it stays that way I shall be happy. I will attempt to solve all problems via their forum in future and avoid the customer service like the plague, thanks for all your advice and help mate, hopefully the problems are resolved now, as long as the service runs well and I don't suffer from slow speeds like I have the past couple weeks then I'm pretty content.

You use section 140B (9) of the New Consumer Credit Act 2006 which says (9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.” Section 21: Interpretation of ss.140A and 140B of the 1974 Act 50. Section 21 inserts a new section 140C after the new section 140B (inserted into the 1974 Act by section 20). The new section 140C defines the types of agreements that are covered by sections 140A and 140B. Any agreement that involves the provision of credit to an individual, whether or not regulated by the 1974 Act (except as specified (see paragraph 48 above)), is covered. The sections also cover, through the definition of “related agreement”, the practice where the creditor enters into successive credit agreements with a debtor for the purpose, for example, of increasing the total amount of the debt or obtaining multiple fees from the debtor for setting up each loan. ROUTER ACCOUNTS DEBS Sparkie

See THIS thread for lots of info

Hi mrspinkpaws. As Rae says, please try not to worry unduly. I would be surprised if the pension policy was taken into account. As I think you're saying, it can't just be cashed in and moved to a building society account, say, because there are rules about pensions. But if your ex were to give you cash, then that could count, I think? If you're too young to take the pension, I'd say that's that. But post more if you want to know anything else and I'll try to look it up. My best. HB

No problem fergal71 - didn't want to appear rude and ingore your post just in case your question was for me. Thanks, Lee Web Relations Team Vodafone UK

Hi mrspinkpaws. I'm sure you'll attract better advice soon. However, don't fret about this too much. They won't tell you until the time you see them, you'll only drive yourself mad trying to guess what it's about. Infuriating, I know. You do sound pretty well organised. If you just take whatever bits and bobs you think you'll need I'm sure the matter will be resolved in no time. Best wishes. Rae.

Thats a fair point and I have advised that if what you have said is correct then the bailiff company wouldnt have a leg to stand on. Despite others pointless ramblings above, I have not suggested who you pay just that you need to get some kind of agreed arrangement in place and when you have this, you're original question regarding the Stat Dec will be irrelevant. Good luck

No you dont give 2 sh**s, thats why your on here ranting about us you moron

june 2010 is just another carrot in my opinion and will not resolve anything and will not open the flood gates.... each case will still have to be taken to court and the govan case just holds up thousands of others waiting for outcome.... I bet my hat eating that it does not open floodgates and that all individual cases still need to be challenged.... like I have said many times we need to bring a bank to its knees and challenge the government especially at this time when they need our votes. what needs to happen to the British public before we do something about it? MP's stealing expenses Lords selling Laws to companies Banks stealing from poor to make sure in credit customers dont pay credit reference agencies having no legal right to hold our data? 0845-0870 numbers late payment fees overlimit fees contact centres moved to india etc ( poor customer service to save money) Banks bailed out and brought country to its knees yet still pay huge bonuses to keep best people( which people are these, those that made mistakes in first place) justice for victims and not criminals I am sure there are many more? what is it going to take before we collectively do something about it.... voting for the 2 major parties is not going to change things.... asking them to listen is not going to work either The only thing that will work is direct action that will make them listen???? In this day of facebook, twitter and internet we have more power than ever before yet we seem less willing to utilise that power and more willing to let somebody else try and then decide if we can try( govan case) frustrated ( australia for me , I think)

Crikey, don't you ever go to bed? 03.48

I sent off the forms, one for each address and my entries were fully removed within 2 weeks. I am nagging my partner to do the same.