Bob, I would advise you to start your own thread and then you will get more help than putting it here or ask one of the site team to move your post to the correct section so we can sort you out. Good luck.

Hi I dealt with allied international on a Lloyds credit card. They agreed a 30% F&F fairly easily on behalf of Lloyds. But they refused to provide a letter showing that they accepted the third party cheque as F&F and not to persue the debt in the future. So I refused to pay until they provided a letter showing the above. In the end I made a formal complaint to lloyds and magically a proper settlement letter appeared . It appeared to me that AI were just trying to get me to pay and then say this was a part payment and continue to chase me for the remaining balance. This is a real danger , be careful.

Hi HB You need to send them a letter not fit for purpose..amend to suit On the Date I bought/placed an order ref number *** , and received on the Date recieved I have discovered that the item has the following problems, ........ Having had a visit from your Inspector and numerous letters sent to your selves I am still not satisfied with the reasons of Said faults and solutions to remedy these problems… In my opinon is not a solution. The sale of goods Act 1979 makes it an implied term of The contract that goods be as described of Satisfactory quality and fit for purpose.As you are in breach of contract I am entitled to have the Item replaced or repaired and I would request that you confirm that you will do this in the next 7 Days. I also require you to confirm whether you will arrange for the item to be collected or will Reimburse me for the cost of returning it. hope this helps..it worked for me ;-) was sorted in a week good luck Tills

The new buyer can claim off you and it is up to you to claim off the person you bought it from. I don't think there is any way around this. The dealer that sold the car to you should have checked whether there was any finance registered on the car. Unfortunatley both you and the new buyer are caught in the trap, but it is your responsibuility to go after the original dealer. May the original delaer did a check and nothing flagged up but you will not know this until you contacted them.

I frimly believe that getting the PPI refunded is only half the story, a proper redress is just as, or even more, important. the crucial FOS statements are these: "Our normal approach is to try to put the consumer back into the position they would have been in but for the failure on the part of the financial business. " "The reconstruction of the credit-card account, to work out what the current balance would have been (where the account remains open) – or what the closing balance would have been (where the account has been cleared or closed) – if the consumer had made the same monthly payments but without PPI." To put you back where you would have been should you have made the same monthly payments but without the premiums leaving your account. This open all the issues mentioned above but also credit file entries! The balances that were reported were incorrect, default notices issued could be miles out in the amount of arrears. etc. It could well be that a default notice was isued and a Default registered on the credit file when the account was actually in credit! (CrapOne in my case).

It looks as though they have provided a reconstituted CCA in line with that allowed by Carey v HSBC. This does not require signatures or dates, but must include the correct address when originally provided, together with your name. They must also provide a current version of those T&Cs if different, again with the correct name and address. If they say it is a true copy, then the wording (as well as your name and address) must be absolutely accurate and identical in wording (not layout) to the original. Failure to be identical is fatal. (They can get the name/address information from any source – it does not have to be gleaned from the original CCA. However, it MUST be accurate. This begs the question, ‘why not just provide the original CCA?’ I think there are two answers: (a) they don’t have it, or (b) it’s cheaper to send a recon rather than dig out the original, as it satisfies a s78 request.) However, while this complies with a s78 request, it does NOT mean the debt is enforceable in court. The McGuffick ruling also means they can continue chasing, even if they do not have the original agreement. To enforce this debt in court, they should be forced to produce the ORIGINAL agreement (or a genuine facsimile copy), not a reconstruction. However (and sadly) some judges have fallen for the reconstructed version, as they have not fully understood the Carey ruling, so beware. In that respect, you are being fobbed off (they may even be, er, fibbing) when they claim this document makes the debt enforceable. It most certainly does not.

Depends on a few things. Normally to return goods without further payment, at least half of the amount financed has to be paid and the goods should be in good condition (fair wear and tear normally excepted). You need to check the T & C's regarding terminatiion of the agreement. What happened when you returned the goods to the supplier in the way of conversation? Please Note The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only. I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action. Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Start paying them again and stay on friendly terms. They're treating you well at the moment. This site as I believe is not for debt avoidance, but for debt advice.