Which debt collection agency's address is the one on the claim form?

No, it was a Labour government who sent us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Leigh Day, one of the worst law firms involved in this, have given a good deal of money to the Labour Party, and also have a very close relationship with Emily Thornberry, the most ridiculous shadow Defence Sec imagineable, who has gone on record as saying she doesn't have a problem with it. The other gang, Public Interest Lawyers, run by the odious Phil Shiner, also proclaim their socialist principles. They have such low morals, they make Lowell look like paragons of virtue.

I don't think they've changed tack. I suspect that this type of bad advice is down to some of the individuals who volunteer at CAB getting it wrong. Unhelpful and doesn't reflect well on CAB, but given the pressure on CAB, and the range of subjects they give advice on, I'm not surprised that they don't always get things right.

They've still not provided any evidence to back their assertion. I'd have asked them for documentary evidence of the CCJ, and evidence that the judgment shows that payment is to be made to them rather than the OC, absent which (if a ccj exists), they can swivel.

I wonder if RLP are doing what MIL Collections have started doing with private parking; assignments of debts that are based on speculative invoices (and so don't really exist), then bringing court claims. MIL never turn up to court and lose any defended claim, but I imagine the number of people intimidated into paying makes it worth while. It sounds like the sort of scheme that would appeal to La Lambert.

As I recall, the judgments that RLP crowed about on their website were almost all related to employee theft cases - but the claims were issued by the retailers.

I'd be inclined to accept the offer, though I understand completely that it doesn't really meet your expectation. However, I think that it would be unrealistic to expect a court to award more if FOS says that £500 is reasonable in the circumstances. I do know something about security clearances, not least because I have one, and have been involved in assisting staff who needed to be cleared but who had financial difficulties. In my experience DBS NSV are usually quite helpful if they have all the information; I'd be surprised if they saw this as a problem if they had all the facts (except for DV, when they'd probably want to investigate further), and the individual rather than the employer/sponsor was dealing with them direct. What is clear is that FOS obviously don't know how security vetting works, in that once granted (at least up to and including SC), it's not usual for it to be reviewed until renewal, so it's normal for someone to have a valid clearance whilst a DCA is busy trashing their credit file; it only becomes an issue at renewal. What makes me angry about cases like this is that for companies like Lowell, £500 is small change, and will do nothing to make them change their ways. Sloppy administration has long been one of the hallmarks of the debt industry, and FOS should be taking action to make them remedy their shortcomings.

Utter nonsense. There is a difference between a patient not being seen and no doctors working. Even in the most hard-pressed NHS hospital there will be appropriate staff on duty; often they have to prioritise their work, so that patients with the greatest clinical need may be seen whilst those with less need may have to wait. But enough of this; stick to the topic now, please.

I feel quite sure that everyone who was working on flood relief over the Christmas period, and nurses, doctors, paramedics, firefighters, police officers, soldiers, sailors, and airmen would have been glad of your intervention to stop their bosses making them work! And what of the volunteers, like the RNLI, Community Responders and Samaritans, who give up their own time to help others - should they not do so because it reminds you of the Victorian era? On the other hand, many I know volunteer to work over Christmas, either because they are paid more, or because it suits their personal circumstances. As for debt collectors, they will be getting paid for it.

This thread is about someone who died intestate. Why you are now seeking to mislead everyone by going on about executors is unclear and unhelpful. A life assurance/insurance policy is not legally required to be used to pay of debts, because the money belongs to the named beneficiary, not the estate. That is rather the point of it, after all. As to notifying creditors of the death, that is not unreasonable; but why should those left behind have to incur cost to satisfy some company's internal procedures? Deaths are a matter of public record, so if a company wishes to have a copy of the death certificate for their own purposes, they can easily obtain one. Quite why they should seek to harass the bereaved for something they can so easily do themselves is beyond me. If there is an estate, then once priority debts have been settled then creditors can make a claim in the usual way. You'll forgive me for saying this, but you do seem to have a somewhat naive view of the financial industry. They are in it for profit, and nothing else. When a creditor lends money, they do not do so for some philanthropic reason, but because it will make them more money. There is no moral component to the industry. They know that when lending money they take a risk that it won't be paid back for one reason or another, and they take precautions against it. If you look around CAG, you will see that almost all the debt litigation is not begun by lenders, but by parasitic debt purchasers who pay pence in the pound for delinquent accounts. The original creditor has already written the debt off, and claimed the full amount against tax. They may not have made as much as they would have done, but they have not lost. At a lower level, those who work in the industry who ask the bereaved to pay debts they do not owe are almost invariably doing so because they will make a commission from it. I feel no sympathy for the financial industry; it's a necessary evil, but not something to lose sleep over, and certainly not something the bereaved should feel any moral responsibility toward.

I was thinking about RLP the other day; it's a few years now since their name started to appear on this forum. Our advice has never wavered, and we've seen that the only time a retailer tried court (perhaps on RLP's recommendation, given that they were in court) in a properly defended case, the retailer lost and RLP's claims were shown to be baseless. Then there was the Law Commission's report, that said that companies in the 'civil recovery' industry, of which RLP is the largest, used 'misleading and aggressive' practices. We've seen ACPO instruct RLP not to pretend that a relationship exists between them when it does not. It struck me that after all this time, RLP is still essentially a one-woman backstreet speculative invoicing operation. After all the risible suggestions of police investigations and the spurious attempts to blacken CAG's name, I remain of the view that a narcissistic personality is involved. Could this be the reason why RLP as a business doesn't appear to have grown much. A look at its accounts shows that its turnover is very small - less than £500k - but with 'debtors' at almost £250k. I wonder if all the speculative invoices are added into the 'debtors' column - perhaps a forensic accountant may have a view on whether debts that don't really exist can be included. Maybe that's why it hasn't been snapped up by a company like Capita, who bought Parking Eye, and run TV Licencing, so aren't averse to speculative invoicing and a spot of intimidation (just my opinion, of course). So whilst La Lambert's need to control and sense of invincibility may play a part (as evidenced by her obvious involvement in cases - doesn't she have people to do it?), it may just be that it's simply not much of a business. It probably keeps her and the other director, the luridly-named Rhianna-Jade Lambert, in Mercedes, but a big player it's not. In summary, then - nothing to be afraid of - just a rather unpleasant woman who chooses to make her money in a rather unsavoury - but entirely legal - way.

That article is from 2010, and not helpful to the OP. The OFT is no more, and its Debt Collection Guidance no longer applies. The FCA is now in charge of licencing the debt industry, and publishes its rules in its CONC Handbook, which you can find in full in the CAG library.

It's just one of the ways this grubby industry tries to intimidate people by making them think they're local, playing on the common fear that someone will come knocking. A few years ago Robinson Way used to pretend they had an office in Lisburn, whilst the reality was that it was an accommodation address at a cheque-cashing shop. Several others have similar arrangements.

In addition to the questions stu007 has asked, can you also let us know: - have you engaged with the Veterans Welfare Service - the Royal British Legion - SSAFA on this issue?

On Tuesday 5 January, Mike Kane MP will propose a debate to bring in a bill to amend the Mesothelioma Act 2014. The idea is to improve access to pensions and/or compensation for veterans who suffer mesothelioma as a result of service. This discussion will be a Ten Minute Rule Motion. Watch the debate on ParliamentTV from approximately 3:30pm.

I think Lowell are chancers; they may be big players in the debt world, but it's still a grubby industry. Remember, the drones who chase debts are usually driven by commission; if there is a better way to encourage poor practice I don't know it. In my last dealings with them, they lied and tried to mislead me; not once, but several times. When I complained, they just cut all contact. So I think that this is their standard operating procedure; they only do the right thing when they've been caught out.

I'd go for something like this:

Lots of companies will reply to a letter notifying them of a death, and ask for a certified copy, which is quite expensive. There's no legal requirement for this; it's just their own process. I suggest sending a photocopy of the death certificate in the first place, accompanied with a note along these lines, addressed to 'Deceased Accounts Department': I was involved in dealing with a relative's affairs after he died intestate. I was surprised at how many companies tried to extract money from his widow, usually by phoning to say that 'a payment is due on the account', saying that a utility account couldn't be changed into her name unless she first paid an outstanding bill that she wasn't responsible for, or suggesting that a payments needed to be made until they'd confirmed the death. One suggested that the widow had a 'moral responsibility' to pay - they got a formal complaint. In the end it took a few calls and letters to straighten out - but no money.

Ten thousand, then?

It isn't just the cost of taking cases to court that discourages retailers doing so. It is also the potential for bad publicity, especially in cases where someone has made an honest mistake, or security guards have overstepped their duties. RLP and the like con't care about the circumstances - they just want money - but a large retailer would be concerned if stories about how people with poor mental health were being pursued in court, for example. The classic case, of course, is the one where RLP advised a major retailer to bring an action against two girls who had already been dealt with by the criminal justice system; it resulted in a humiliating defeat for the retailer. We can't name the retailer, because they asked the judge for anonymity.

Has it occurred to you that some of the people on this forum, to whom you are preaching, have actually qualified and practiced as lawyers?

Without sight of the insurance policy it's impossible to say for sure, but I suspect that £1000 for transportation probably relates to ambulance transport. Look under the Repatriation section for the amount covered to bring you home. The cost of bringing you back, either with medical escorts if required, or perhaps staying in a hotel until fit to fly, is sure to be covered. Let the assistance company sort it out for you; this is all new for you, but routine for them. Your wife should get in touch with the assistance company about the hotel etc., if she hasn't already.

You will find that nowadays US hospitals are adept at pursuing people for their money wherever they are. OP will probably have a medical assistance service attached to his insurance; it's usually a condition of the cover that they are contacted if the insured is admitted to hospital. The hospital may already have done this. In any case, they will usually manage the hospital, including payments and any necessary travel arrangements.

I suspect that her conscience came at a high price; her offshore puppet masters must be impressed. Still, puff pieces like this in Credit Today is just part of the mutual masturbation this bottom-feeding industry likes to participate in. After all, who else would be interested in their grubby activities?

Please abide by the forum rules, especially: Otherwise, you are likely to attract moderation, which is likely to start with the removal of PM ability.