Tipperary? I always wanted to go to Reykjavik

Well spotted. Clearly not, as it surely amounts to a Penalty?

As there's no dispute on the amount owed, I'd just pay it and keep your records - the rest of the issues raised here only come to fruition should further action be taken against you, as that would be unfair given you complied with the Notice

I'll have a large big mac meal, with chocolate shake, please...

The good news for me was I had an email address from an old friend from 10 years ago, so the hackers united us! It's good to talk!

Moving you somewhere more appropriate so others 'in the know' can assist

Is it Hotmail? Happened to me. Change passwords, security questions, etc. If they are spoofing your account, there's not much can do. (Except apologise when friends reply)

I think you should contact VOSA, as they will do a mobile inspection on the vehicle. They may be an issue finding the original errors, now you've had repairs done. Just be pleased that no damage has done, other than to the wallet. Realistically, there isn't a claim here as there aren't any 'damages' to recover. This could have been very different. Questions have to be raised over the original testing stations ability to provide MOT testing facilities if they are passing vehicles that are unsafe - at this point, this isn't about you and your daughter's car, (thank the lord!) but about the safety of everyone else having MOT's completed by that testing station.

A Default Notice is literally that - a notice that you've defaulted. When these are issued depends on what their policies are, which is somewhat outside of your control. The notice should give a timescale to pay the outstanding balance, of which 21st September is well within that period. If you pay it tomorrow, there should be no Default appear on your credit file, as you've complied with the Default Notice. Keep the Notice, the envelope it came in and proof of payment once made, and you might want to keep an eye on your Credit File to make sure there is no 'mistakes' made.

A defective DN is irrelevant, as another DN can be issued with the correct information on it. The key in your case is to proving that termination took effect following that notice being issued. Unfortunately, it looks like a TN wasn't sent, so providing termination is going to be very difficult.Here's a thought - send a DPA SAR to them and see what the Account notes throw up. If you can demonstrate that they acted as though the Account was terminated, by showing data on the account that amounts to termination taking place, you will have a better case.What are you trying to achieve, here, though?

Did you receive a termination notice?Intending on sending, and actually sending, a TN is very different.Unforunately, debt collecting is unlikely to be seen as evidence as termination. Demanding the full outstanding balance, however, may amount to termination, but it would turn on the facts.

Money laundering regulations

See. They have nothing left to do. "Could".

Here, here. It's not the wording on the letters that is important, it's the fact that a 'may'/'can' letter looks exactly the same as a 'will' letter.Can't wait to see what the caselaw for these regs say... (But I'm sad, so...)

Indeed. The argument is the focus, here, not the person - we're all different, with experiences that assist each other. They'd be clapping their hands if they knew we were fighting against each other, (which we're not) as we're stronger working with each other. I'm bitter because I see the damage such an approach takes on people. If people were as important as profit, there would be no povety. Keep them coming, Brig, as it's only when we get conflicting opinions that we get constructive discussion and results for everyone as result.

In my claims, the charges outweighed the debt, therefore I had nothing to "repay", and they, in their ignorance, encouraged me to take them on and recover money from them by defending myself. If they hadn't bothered, it wouldn't have cost them money in dealing with me, and then the many more £1,000's I've helped others to reclaim against them as a result of taking me on. Their system doesn't know when to let sleeping dogs lie. Sorry, but the "you've used the money so you should repay it" argument doesn't fit well with the spirit of CAG, IMHO. This is about empowering folk to not accept what the instituations they have came to know and trust are saying, as it's a profit racket. These CPUTR seem to be a win for the consumer, but then we didn't really know the impact of previous regs/legislation designed to protect consumers until the caselaw came - bring it on, I say...

We have to take the game to them, though, and they don't see it this way - if you accept this, then I owe my Banks £1,000's that they settled in reclaimed charges. Alas, I played the game, and won. As did many others. My point being, it's not that we get to choose how to play, some people simply can't repay the debts they have, and as long as creditors rely on technicalities, such as "may" or "might" take me to Court, they can expect me to play that particular game back at them - and at times much better than they do. They really shouldn't build business models on stupidity, as CAG will educate those that need/want it to take the game back at them in the same way. Long live knowledge...

If only they complied with their legal requirements, the OFT's guidance, the ICO's guidance, and they couldn't give misleading statements - remember that the guidance is guidance, and isn't exhaustive. If only we had a legal system that didn't rely on pedantic arguments over meanings of words, or how those words should be implied. If only we employed the European style of law, where the meaning of the words isn't important, and the application of it is open to interpretation - an interpretation that DOESN'T prejudice debtors... I could go on with the 'if's'...

Because they are pretty new regs, there needs to follow some caselaw on how they apply and the impact - I think, because of this, they won't really know what to do with your correspondance

This is the whole crux of this thread, though, guys... In the past "may"/"might"/"could", etc, would have gotten away with it, but those terms are unfair under these regulations, as debtors will take action on receiving them which they aren't bound to take - this is where the unfair trading comes in.

Conflicting? Yes. Confusing? No. I can't recall ever seeing any unenforceable debt being collected - now, debts that are unenforceable probably are still chased before being declared unenforceable, or in fact, as happened with a lot of mine, they were written off before being declared. Especially these catalogue debts, as, generally, nothing is signed unless longer terms are agreed to. (and even then...) I think Brig is referring to the moral argument of repaying, whereas my point is the moral and legal arguments go hand in hand - legally unenforceable = no moral obligation to repay. Hence the 'gifted' response earlier. It's all about opinions and experience - all of which assist new folk coming here with queries and needs highlighting when relevant, me thinks.

When was this debt taken out? Most catalogue debts are unenforceable prior to April 2007, due to a lack of signed credit agreement, thereby falling foul of s.60/s.61/s.127(1) and (3) of the CCA. Well, if it's unenforceable, why, morally, does the debt have to be repaid? The caselaw points out to it being 'gifted' to the debtor, and a gift doesn't need to be repaid - morally, or legally, in this case. Most times, most CAGgers come to CAG for advice on debts - my advice is that you don't have to repay unenforceable debts, so the money that you would be paying them could be used to repay other debts (enforceable ones) and thereby avoid further action from creditors, potential bankruptcy/seizure of goods, etc, etc. It's all about priorities. I'm yet to see any debt being unenforceable be chased without being written off - we surely aren't suggesting we repay debts that are written off? CAG is about challenging debts legally, not avoiding legitimately owed debts. You could start a new thread in the relevant subforum, ckitchen - I can see an interesting, but off topic, discussion ahead...

Why apply for summary judgment if they are so convinced they can win? Me thinks that's a 'toe in the water' approach to see how the Court will approach the claim - if they side with the Claimant, they'll go for it. If not, expect a discontinuance. Based on that witness statement, I can't see how they can continue? Oh, please don't use CAPITALS in your WS - it appears you are shouting.

This is why I think you need to take your time. TBH, a Judge won't look at the file on Monday, anyway, but yes you have to comply with deadlines. Don't Northampton allow additions by fax? Yes!

It's common courtesy to send them a copy (something which they won't show to you, BTW) so I'd say yes.Also, it's £45 without a hearing, £75 with - I've never paid £75 for one, even when a hearing has been the result