Orange will only offer a limited range of payment dates but that range changes depending on when in the month you call them.

I don't recall seeing a default recorded for this account, although it's several months since I last got my credit files from the CRAs. Definitely not received any default notice from first direct - moved to a parachute account elsewhere and reached agreement to token payments after they suddenly removed my overdraft facility and demanded immediate repayment about 18 months ago. First direct had previously told me the unsecured debt would be written off provided I kept up agreed payments towards my mortgage arrears.

I recently received a letter from CL Finance Limited (CL) saying they have bought my First Direct current account, which I have been paying off via Metropolitan Collection Services (MCS) at £1.00 per month. In the same envelope was a letter purporting to be from HSBC telling me the same. Both letters got my name wrong - example Mr N Other instead of Mr A N Other. The "HSBC" letter states that payments made to the HSBC account after 10th October 2008 will be forwarded to CL and deducted from the balance shown. Accordingly, the balance they quote would have been correct for 10th October but is incorrect for the assignment date of 15th December. As the balance is incorrect, surely the assignment isn't kosher? As the letter isn't correctly addressed to me, I plan ignore it and continue paying MCS. HSBC can forward my payments to CL should they wish. I acknowledge no debt to CL. Any thoughts/observations?

True. But surely, the CRAs obtain info on CCJs from Registry Trust Ltd (RTL) and not from the creditors? You can search for yourself (and presumably anybody else) at RTL for a fee of £8 (more if you need to search more than one section).

6+6=11? Presumably you don't need O-level maths to work for Experian!

This is presumably covered elswehere but why do we have no choice? What gives them any right to hold any of our personal info without our permission unless that info is already in the public domain?

And what about their crazy installment systems? You can pay weekly, fortnightly or monthly with a payment card at a convenience store but can only pay by internet banking if you can afford the full annual fee in one lump. They seem to be incapable of working out that a payment with the tv licence number as reference is a payment towards that licence, yet they can write and tell you they don't know what the payment was for, using the licence number as reference on their letter.

That clarifies the point completely. I was interpreting the word "loan" as referring to the money that is lent rather than the agreement under which it is lent. OK, I'll use the word "debt" instead. The creditor is seeking to convert an unsecured debt into a secured debt. If any interest is payable, then clearly it should be less if the debt is secured because the risk of getting nothing back is lower.

It does. Thanks. I am still struggling to get my head around the distinction you drew previously "that a charging order isn't securing a loan, it is securing a money judgment"

Missed the previous one but have signed this one. I notice the first person to join the petition creator gave their name as "Stop manipulating the law". Imagine the bother that person would have identifying themself to a police officer (-;

You previously said:- So, is a "money judgment" a CCA regulated debt? There probably are but recalculating the debt by re-pricing the interest from the start of the loan period to be the same rates as a secured loan would mean that when the creditor railroaded the consumer from having an unsecured debt to a secured debt they also pushed themselves into the lower income derived from a secured loan. This would discourage charging orders being sought willy-nilly and would assist the parties in seeking an equitable solution. Thinking about it, another fair alternative is that the creditor should get no interest. Just their money at such time as the debtor sells their home - provided there is sufficient money left after paying off the mortgage etc. After all, the creditor went to court to enforce the charging order as their security for the debt. It should be their own look out if that security was insufficient.

If the "burden" of the contract cannot be passed to a third party along with the benefits unless the other party to the contract agrees, what is the position in respect of a credit card taken out with one lender but now provided by a different lender (for example MBNA taking over accounts previously held with Alliance & Leicester) where the customer was not required to sign any acceptance of the new lender?

I see two possibly equitable alternatives:- * s69 interest of 8% simple from the date of the judgment (if included in the judgment) * the interest rate adjusted to the rate of a secured loan, backdated to the start of the loan. After all, you paid the higher rate in return for the security (sic) of not having the debt secured against your home. You got the "peace of mind" until things went wrong but have ended up with the lower-priced, secured debt at the price of an unsecured debt.

A previously unsecured debt becomes a debt secured against the individual's home. From that individual's perspective, what are the consequences of that debt being a "money judgment" instead of a "loan"?

Could the ASA be legally liable for the consequences of their actions, in the event that such a loan was to subsequently become secured? And could this advert be used as evidence that Lombard had misled the customer?

My recollection (which may be incorrect) is that the merchant's were prohibited from charging more for a card transaction but many (15? 20?) years ago this prohitition was lifted - not sure if the prohibition was found to be unlawful or just the regulations changed to allow different prices for different payment methods.

You sometimes find offers posted up but not programmed into the tills - they over-ride the scanned price manually if you request the offer price. Another wheeze is to have a promo barcode to scan at the till instead of the one on the packaging...

I like your style but the above raises a question in my mind: does it help the creditor's case or the consumer's if the court accepts an unreadable document as a copy of the original agreement? Presumably this depends on the degree of unreadability?

A pint of semi-skimmed has been 42p for several months in my local M&S, Coop, Tesco and Sainsbury. Last Wednesday in M&S it was suddenly 45p, an increase of over seven percent! Not yet seen if the rest of them have increased too. Still cheaper than Boots, Superdrug and Spar, who are all 54p.

Which is a consignment of geriatric shoe manufacturers, as we all know. Two or three years ago, half a dozen eggs cost 28p in our local Tesco. The price had roughly tripled before there was any word of increasing grain prices. (-;

This may no longer be true but a few years ago the higher price quoted for comparison with the "sale" price had to have been the selling price of the item for at least 28 consecutive days in the last six months. Unfortunately, in chain stores it did not have to be in the same branch.

I consulted both cccs and payplan last year. cccs would only help me if I could eat for a month on the price of a mars bar and save transport costs by walking to work without buying any shoes. Payplan were more friendly and flexible in their approach but referred me to an associated company to try re-mortgaging (to reduce mortgage costs rather than consolidate unsecured debt). They both supplied template letters and useful advice but could not help further. My creditors seemed to like cccs and dislike payplan. Some of the "government guidelines" for allowable expenditure varied massively between the two. Has anybody found an authorative source for these figures?

My choice would be a postal order because it would not give them my bank account details and a copy of my signature.

The alleged default notices contend that I have breached clauses 1b and 8 of the alleged agreements. Wonder where clause 8 comes from, as the alleged agreements Link sent me (post 43) only go up to clause 3b? Thanks, Supasnooper. Just read the thread you linked to. Interesting reading but I don't like the sound of the possibility a Judge would allow them to "cure" a faulty Default Notice.

Today received two letters from link like this, which do not in any way answer my last letter to them. Anybody got any suggestions how I should respond?