Hello Callum, So someone issued a claim against you, did you file a defence? If so, can you post up the claim and your defence to it? Or Did you not respond to the claim, if so, the claimant would of asked the court to enter a judgment by default. Until we have the precise details of the matter, we cannot help. Please up-date, when you can. Kind Regards The Mould

Needhelp - One thing is for certain - Northampton County Court has not issued any warrant regardless of what the less than honest bailiffs have said. The Traffic Enforcement Centre situated in that court will have authorised its issue. Stoke on Trent Council should have issued it. Bet they they didn't and if not then there is no warrant. And its not a fine, its a charge. Even the dimwits at the council know the little bag given out on the day said Penalty CHARGE Notice. Saying that they have a 'warrant' and never producing it is the oldest trick these 2 dimensional bailiff creatures perform.

As long as your own letters do not compromise you or harm your case in any way, then I would send everything. Whoever deals with the complaint needs to see the whole picture. Els

DEAD BEAT DADS get on this website

It never will. Unless you really need the portability, I'd always advocate a desktop over a laptop, especially for gaming. They send to be cheaper, are often more stable (especially where heat-related issues are concerned) and are near-infinitely customisable. They tend to be easier to deal with issues when they crop up as well.

They are obliged to provide you with 14 clear days from service to remedy the breach. Service allows a few extra days for the letter to arrive. Unless they can prove the DN was posted first class, I believe they have terminated the account a day early (more opinions please!). This technically means they have unlawfully rescinded the contract, ie. they have terminated it without giving you the full opportunity to remedy the breach. You are, therefore, allowed to accept their termination and you will only be liable for the actual arrears at that point. However, unlawful rescission would give you the opportunity for remedy through a counterclaim for damage to your credit status, and simply for the act itself, the amount of which might wipe out any arrears. That said, I'd rather hear a few more views on whether the account was terminated early. I don't think they should have terminated till the 4th. Judges and creditors like to regard faults with the issue of DNs and termination as 'de minimis', ie. not really important or relevant. They tend to rely on 'well, you've had the money, pay it back'. But it is not a small issue. It is the law - to enjoy the benefits of S87, the creditor MUST abide by it, and that includes not terminating the account unlawfully.

If their solicitors are refusing to deal with the matter either then a letter to their regulator would be worth considering. You should definately consider reporting the whole lot of thm to th OFT. You should also consider writing to them as suggested above and asking for their complaints procedure. failure to deal with a complaint within eight weeks means you can complain to the Financial Ombudsman. All complaints against debt collecting firms are valuable because if a trickle becomes a flood then even the authorities may consider taking firmer action against this dodgy sector of our free economy and stamp out unfair practices once and for all.

So the rep whore gets nowt this time then?

Subscribing FPS is a 'new' trading division of Fredrickson International. Pdaddy has capone sent you a DN? If so can you scan it up Also have you received a termination letter from capone? I've 'seen off' capquest/HL Legal over my capone card, it can be hard work but you can beat them, the important thing is to keep on top of correspondence with them - they write to you, you write back (recorded) pointing out WHY they are wrong & never EVER speak to them on the phone (unless you can record the calls). I bought True Call because of Capone/Debitarse (and Barclaycard) & their phone calls stopped dead in there tracks as they CANNOT get through to you once their number is programmed in. I'll have a look through my letters & see if I've got something you can throw at capquest/HL. I think Sunflower is correct in saying its a breach of OFT guidelines for two DCA's to be chasing the same account at the same time. Beachy

Hi, Welcome, firstly as you have already learnt, telephoning is never a good idea and we do suggest everything in writing only. Making a CCA Request: This is a formal request for the legal paperwork that a Creditor MUST have in order for them to be paid for the alleged You are perfectly within your rights to request copies of this documentation, and they must respond with this documentation within 12 + 2 working days from receipt of your request. http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/581-cca-request-letter Download the above template letter and amend to suit your particular request. You need to enclose a Postal Order for £1 and it is a good idea to put on the reverse : “This is payment as required for my request, and is NOT a payment on the alleged debt” Send this letter to the most recent DCA and use Recorded Delivery to prove date of delivery. Do not sign the Request, but print your name. If they send any documentation, then cover any identifying marks, names, etc. And scan and post onto this thread where it can be commented upon by the ‘experts’ as to whether it is the correct paperwork to enforce payment of the alleged debt. Once the 12 + 2 working days have passed, then the alleged debt passes into ‘dispute’ and no action whatsoever can be taken to try and collect on this account until such documents are produced. This means that further payments need not be made until and if an enforceable Agreement can be produced. This would be the first step, and should be done asap. Once they have received this request, there should be no further contact until and if they supply the correct documents. You can completely ignore all of their ifs, buts, and maybe, threats, as that is all they are at present.

Ok first of all relax. Next. Threats of court, CCJ's, etc are all standard Debt Collectors template letters designed to frighten you. Now you've found CAG you're well on the way to dealing with them properly. Ok 2004, then it's likely the CCA will be unenforceable, so get the CCA request sent off as soon as you can and see what they come back with. Next, don't call them. They'll always bluff, lie, and intimidate, to try and scare you. They appear to be unprofessional, as that is what they are. They employ life's failures on minimum wage and promise bonuses if they hit targets. If they call you, refuse to answer their so called security questions. If they ask why, say, "Have you not heard of identy theft?" and hang up. Once you have a reply to your CCA request, scan it, remove personal details, and post it on here and the experts will take a look at it and tell you if it's enforceable or not. Also, as it's now with AIC I take it you would have got a "Default Notice" from Natwest? If you have it, scan that, remove personal details, but leave dates intact. As not only can a CCA be unenforceable, but a Default Notice can also be invalid. Both of which you can use as ammo against them.

Hello again Sparkie 1. I am not addressing any issues regarding whether Swift securitise or not. I have seen the arguments on both sides and don't understand their business well enough to take a position on the issue. The loans are clearly being moved off Swift's balance sheet to the Kestrel companies but as to why? As I said it could be to protect assets if the operating company(s) went bust but it could also be to do with funding. 2. The terms sale and assignment are not mutually exclusive they are the same. Sale = assignment. In the debt purchase market the assignment documents are even called 'sale and purchase agreements'. I don't know how else I can explain it other than the examples in my previous post. The assignment is just the means by which the sale is put into effect. 3. Regardless of what the contract says if an assignment of a debt is only equitable i.e. notice is not given to the debtor, the right to sue remains with the assignor. It would be down to a court to determine whether Swift had exceeded it's contractual rights in conducting an assignment in this way. In my view (for what it's worth!) the wording is wide enough for a judge to go either way. KC