That above quote from my earlier post was about a case where no debt actually existed. The reomval costs point is the same though; they can only charge reasonable expenses to cover the cost of actually removing goods. In this case as rent was owed, if they actually levied distress (but did not remove the goods) they can make a charge of 12.5% on the first £100, 4% on the next £400, and 2.5% on the next £1500. For rent, they cannot charge merely for attending to levy though.

See PB my problem is this - if a creditor issues an invalid DN and then terminates following it, you would say the termination is not effective because the creditor needed to issue a valid DN before he could enjoy the benefits of s87 i.e. terminate. You argue that therefore the agreement is still running and creditor can go on to issue a second (or third or fourth etc) DN in order to effect a valid termination (and demand all his money back). However, it is generally the case that a creditor will cease to perform (i.e. provide credit in return for regular repayment) the instant the DN is issued and continue after the 'ineffective' termination. So whatever the legality of the DN or the effectiveness of the termination, it is an inescapable fact the agreement is terminated and moreover it is the true intention of the creditor to terminate as demonstrated by their on going non performance. Now to my mind it is inescapable fact that the creditor has repudiated by terminating where there was no entitlement to do so.

Vanessa, one key to this is getting info from Welcome. I would suggets calling them and demanding to know to whom and exactly when they sold the account. I do not believe Welcome would wait two full years from the date of default to sell the account on. I believe there may be some jiggery-pokery with HFO/TR and the alleged dates of assignment. If it was sold to HFOC Ireland in Feb 08, then they have processed your data illegally. Did you actually send a SAR to Welcome with a £10 fee, or simply ask for info?

Keep at them........