Completely agree. BT are still demanding money from me for call charges, despite the fact that my call charges are all paid as part of my ISP package to Virgin! The problem is that you never deal with anyone with an actual brain, capable of a little independent thought: as far as they can see, it's there on their computer, and so it MUST be right! I've told them to stick their bill where the sun doesn't shine, and I'll see them in court, where I'll happily wave my Virgin contract:) As for BG, I once had an issue with them over a final bill, from a property that had no gas central heating, and an electric immersion heater: the only gas was for the oven. As a single male at the time, I did very little cooking, and each quarter's bill was no more than £15.00. Yet, they somehow managed to demand a final bill, for two weeks worth of gas, of over £300... it took months to get that sorted (happily in the end, I might add), and that was only by writing to the Chairman himself...

Thanks for your responses. It's clear from the links that my "noise" isn't really a nuisance, despite my neighbour's complaints. I doubt very much if Environmental Health would consider me talking on the phone or my alarm clock going off an excessive or unreasonable noise. And yes, she is a bit of a busybody, she's the one in the block who seems to know everyone's name and what they do etc. I could understand this if I was a 19 year old student living with 3 mates, coming back late, drunk etc etc but this is just not the case. And I refuse to live in fear of upsetting her: it's not my fault the building is constructed this way, nor is it my fault she's such a light sleeper. I think I'll write a polite, but firm, note pointing this out, and will suggest she buys some ear plugs. Thanks for your comments.

I'm almost embarrassed to post this, as it's not as huge a problem as some people have with their neighbours... but I could use some advice as to how to delicately handle a situation that has developed with my downstairs neighbour. I guess this is about tackling a small problem before it becomes a bigger one. I've recently moved into a new flat. The building itself is a 1960's built, 3 storey, purpose built block of flats. The walls seem quite thick: no noise of any kind is heard from the people either side of me, and I assume vice versa. But the floors are a different matter, and it seems that sounds travel much further up and down than they do from side to side. I'm on the top floor. My downstairs neighbour, directly below me, is a lady in her late 60's who lives alone. She's begun complaining to me about my noise levels. The thing is, I'm not particularly a noisy person: I live alone; I'm in my early 50's; I don't have wild parties, or large groups of friends around; I don't even have a TV! I work from home, on my computer, which is mostly silent; I have no pets; I mostly read for entertainment. The floors in my flat are fully carpeted. It sounds boring, but I live a quiet life. However, my neighbour complains that she can hear me on the phone late at night (so I sometimes get a call after 10PM: why should this be a big deal?). She also complains that my alarm clock wakes her in the mornings, apparently "ringing for 20 minutes". Yet, if it's ringing for 20 minutes, then clearly it's not loud enough to wake me! She also complains that sometimes I play music too loud. Now, this last bit is sort of true: I am aware that sounds carry in the building, and I have a lady friend who visits once or twice a week: I do turn the music up slightly louder than I would normally, because it masks sounds that I think my neighbour would prefer not to hear, if you get my meaning:) However, it's music that's appropriate to the situation (i.e. "romantic"), not full-volume Death Metal LOL. Nevertheless, everything's usually quiet by 10-10:30pm at the latest. The really ironic thing is that we live only a couple of miles from Heathrow airport, directly under a flight path: low-flying planes are constantly screaming overhead every 10 minutes or so! Yet, this doesn't seem to bother her!!! (You do get used to it, I suppose). I should add that I can sometimes hear her TV, or hear her on the phone, or flushing her toilet too; it's just I don't find these sounds as intrusive as she seems to. My neighbour owns her flat, while I am only renting. I'd like to somehow handle this in such a way that it doesn't damage our relationship further, and she starts complaining to my landlord. Personally, I'd prefer to tell her to **** off, and to buy some ear plugs, but maybe there's a politer way of saying this... any suggestions? Less flippantly, I'm assuming I have a legal right to a reasonable quality of life, which includes making a reasonable amount of noise, and that I shouldn't have to tip-toe round my own home talking in whispers all the time. Some clarification on this would be most useful.... Many thanks...

Yes, I agree. I changed my name in 2005, and no payments were ever made under my new name. Although I can't be sure, and have no way of finding out, exactly when I made the last payment, I know it was before I changed my name. So if I wait until the end of 2011, then I know for certain it's SB. So I'll ignore them for now, and if they haven't given up by the end of Jan 2012, I'll write to them.

dpick, Yes, my thoughts exactly: while they remain unsure, I think I'm safe. If they send me a legal doc that requires a legal response, then I'll do something about it.... Thanks.

I'm kind of reluctant to have any contact with them at all, under my new name, as this will definitely confirm to them that we are one and the same person. At present, they seem unsure, as their letters are all addressed to, and refer to their need to trace, the 'old' me. Once I can be 100% sure the debt is SB, then I don't mind contacting them. If I wait until 2012, then I know for certain that the debt is SB. So can I just ignore them for a few months?

Hello, I have an old debt from several years back: the debt originated in about 2001 (messy divorce), although I made efforts to repay it for a couple of years afterwards, until I was made redundant, and couldn't afford to keep up the repayments. I don't remember the exact last dates of acknowledgement/payment but I'm 95% certain it's Statute Barred by now, and if not, then it will be soon in a matter of mere months. I've heard absolutely nothing about it from either the original creditor or any DCA for a few years now, until suddenly I've started receiving a rush of letters and calls from Mackenzie Hall. A month ago I moved into a new rented property, and a Credit Reference check was done on me by my new landlord: I suspect this is what has flagged me up for attention again. The thing is, in 2005, having traced my real father, I changed my name by deed poll to match his. The letters from MH are addressed to my old name. I changed my name for personal/family reasons, not to escape creditors, but it does seem that, although it was an unintended consequence, my name change perhaps confused my creditors for a time. However, I've made no secret of my name change, and they must associate the 'new' me with the 'old' me, otherwise I wouldn't be hearing from them at all. The name change took place long after I'd ceased making payments to the creditors, and no payments have ever been made under my new name. I haven't responded to any of the letters or calls (if I don't recognise the number on caller display, I never answer). From reading all the threads here, I feel fairly confident I can just safely ignore them, and not respond at all. But I thought it wise to check, just in case. Given MH seem to be well known for chasing SB, or near SB, debts, and given that in any case, the debt "belongs" to someone who no longer exists as a legal entity, am I correct in assuming that this debt is no longer recoverable? Many thanks.

Just thought I'd update this with some extra info. I went ahead and paid the £500, for several reasons: firstly, I like the flat. It's in a nice area, it's a good size, it's in good condition, it's about 20 minutes walk from my workplace (saving me both time and travel money), and it's approximately £300 per month CHEAPER than similar properties in the area. For me, it's perfect. Secondly, I raised my concerns with the agent. I was told that "This sum is deductible from the first month's rent, but in the event that you withdraw your offer it will be retained to cover administration costs." I was also told that if my references failed to satisfy, then I wouldn't be granted the tenancy, and the £500 would be retained. I was told that all the referencing agency was interested in was whether or not I could afford the monthly rent. Thirdly, the area concerned is quite small, and there are no other estate agents in the area. I'd have to go through the same process, even if I chose another flat. So, much as I'd have preferred to find somewhere with less hassle, I'm stuck with them. So, confident that I'd pass with flying colours anyway, I went ahead. Hmmm, now I'm having problems with them accepting my references. Firstly, I should explain about my job. I work in security, for a Royal VIP. Obviously, for security reasons, I cannot reveal who I work for on this forum. And for those same security reasons, there is certain information about my job and my employer that I cannot reveal to the lettings agent or the company doing the reference checks. I was able however, to show them a letter of reference from my employer, confirming I work for them, and how much I am paid. I was also able to show them 6 months worth of bank statements showing how much was paid into my account every month. I was also able to show them rent receipts from my current landlord, plus a good reference from him. They have come back to me and said I have "insufficient funds" to be able to afford the rent every month. This is nonsense: the rent is £895 a month, and my statements show an average of £2900 per month going into my account. The rent is actually cheaper than my current rent, and I manage to pay that and still live quite comfortably. I have no car, no dependents, and so my outgoings are low. So then they asked me to provide a guarantor. A guarantor!! I'm 49 years old, for ****'s sake! Not some 19 year old student. Anyway, I bit my tongue, and put forward my mother (with her agreement). Despite her advanced years, mum is still actually working: not because she needs the money, but because she loves her job. Now, although she's not in security (LOL), she does have a similar job to me, in that she also has a Royal employer (a different one to me, obviously). Mum actually lives, for 11 months of the year, in a castle. The reference agency came back and said that mum too had "insufficient funds" to cover both mine and her outgoings! I asked them precisely what outgoings do they think my mum has? She lives rent-free for 11 months of the year, and the remainder she spends in the home she has owned for over 40 years. She gets all her meals provided. And as a lady in her 70's, she's not exactly out buying shoes and clothes every weekend. She is perfectly able to cover my rent if she had to, if for some unforeseen event I couldn't pay my rent one month. They didn't respond to that question... They came back demanding I give certain information, financial etc., about my employer: obviously, I can't give them this! I'll get fired. Besides, I really don't see how it is at all relevant anyway. So, I'm currently trying to sort this out. It seems that the referencing agency has a particular set of boxes to tick, and both my and my mum's rather unusual jobs don't fit their little boxes, and no-one I'm dealing with has an iota of independent common sense to be able to look at the info I've provided and put it all together. It doesn't take a genius to see that if I have a proven job, and a proven income, then the money going into my account every month must be coming from that job! I'm beginning to wonder if this is some sort of [problem]? They advertise a nice property at a cheaper than the market rate to attract people; then they take a £500 "deposit" off each of them, and fail them on the reference check for spurious reasons; they could have as many as 10 people a month applying for this flat, earning themselves anything up to £5000 a month; far more profitable than merely renting it out! Anyway, whether or not it is a [problem], I'm fully expecting to fail this ridiculous referencing process and for them to try and retain the £500. Thanks to the replies already received, it seems that it may be unfair for them to do so (besides, I'll need it back to put as a deposit on another place, if I don't get this one!). So, if anyone has any suggestions on how to move this forward, I'd be grateful...

Just checked with Equifax: nothing there under Court information.... YET! But it's only a matter of time before something appears there...

Hi, I've recently had some problems with my landlord, who took me to court under a Section 21 possession order on 8th July. The landlord was granted possession (of course) and I have 6 weeks from 8th July to move out. The reason for them taking me to court began over rent arrears, although all arrears were paid off in full 3 months before the hearing. Nevertheless, the landlord pressed on with the hearing. I have not yet received any official notification from the court of the decision. I am now seeking somewhere else to live, I think I've found another property, but the lettings agent wants to do a reference check against me: so, my question is, how soon after the date of the hearing will a CCJ appear on my file? I was kind of hoping that, if there is a gap between the hearing and the registering of the CCJ, I can put down on the reference form that I haven't had a CCJ issued against me (which would be almost/kind of true, if I haven't had any official documentation yet), and then when they check, they won't find a record of it yet, thus enabling me to obtain the new tenancy. But if it's already on file with credit agencies, I'm screwed. I need to know quickly, as there's a non-refundable fee attached with this, so I need to know whether it's worth me proceeding with this, or just walking away and looking for somewhere else (which is going to be difficult, as many, many places insist on these kind of checks now). Any advice welcome, many thanks.

I have just (today) viewed a flat I'd like to rent. The lettings agent has told me that, to secure it, I need to pay a £500 deposit that is non-refundable in the event of me not being accepted as a tenant, whatever the reason... Obviously, I'm a little concerned by this: what's stopping the agent/landlord taking £500 off everyone who comes to view the flat, and never letting it out? Instead of a monthly rent, they could be making £500 a week, or even a day, out of a such a [problem].... I can't afford to keep paying £500 just to view a flat! So, is this legal? If the Landlord rejects me for any reason, why can't I simply get my money back? it's not as if the amount of work they've done is worth £500....

You say the Landlord cannot make deductions for wear and tear, but as I stated, in my past experience, Landlords have done this, or attempted to do it, on several occasions. All depends on the landlord, really. As I also stated, I don't know if the landlord will be able to do this under the deposit protection scheme, as this is the first time I have used such a scheme. As for the deposit, usually consisting of one month's rent, being used as the last month's rent, once again, in my experience, past landlords have been happy to keep the deposit in lieu of me having to pay a final month's rent, and then them returning the exact same amount of money to me: it does seem a bit silly to go through that rigmarole. Also, considering the deposit as the final month's rent, and thus already paid, often allows the tenant to have enough money to pay the deposit on the next place without having to wait for the original deposit to be returned. Again though, the deposit protection scheme may have changed all that. I don't see why you should be confused: things change. Yes, I originally wanted to remain a tenant at this property, as moving is going to cause me some unnecessary hassle at this particular point in time. One always prefers to move home at one's OWN convenience, rather than someone else's, hmmm? However, once it became apparent that the landlord wasn't going to change their mind, and given the greedy nature of the "costs" they were claiming, it became clear that the relationship had soured to the point where it would not be pleasant to remain. The judge at the hearing queried, in passing, why the landlord wished to take possession and evict a tenant fully paid up in rent and not in arrears, and the landlord's representative (clearly a low-level flunky) was unable to answer. As to the costs, the agreement that I should pay the landlord's legal costs was actually part of the tenancy agreement, so there was no way round it. The judge however, got them down to a sensible figure. So, no, I disagree that they are "partially vindicated" by the judge's ruling. At the end of the day, the judge is constrained by the law: he cannot simply arbitrarily refuse to grant possession to the legal owner of the property, and it was pointless for me to contest it, as I would have simply lost anyway with the added burden of my own legal fees to pay. He made it quite clear his sympathies lay with me, and gave me the maximum benefit he was able, under the law, to provide. I think under the circumstances, it was a very fair ruling, even though I am being forced to move. The bottom line is that my landlord is a company with an already unsavoury reputation for the way they conduct business and treat their tenants: I have learned, to my cost, that their reputation seems to be deserved. Still, lesson learned.... One has to look for the silver lining in every cloud, especially when it becomes clear that nothing you can do is going to make the cloud go away! I'm moving on to a new chapter in a new home somewhere, I'm debt-free for the first time in over 2 years, I'm working again: what's not to look forward to? What's done is done, and the uncertainty and worry are now over: I can now move on with a clear conscience, and make a fresh start somewhere else, where, hopefully, things will only improve for me.

Yes, there's a deposit, held with a Deposit Protection scheme. Frankly, past experience has taught me that landlords do everything possible to avoid giving all the deposit back, usually citing the need to deduct the alleged cost of "wear and tear" to the carpets, etc. In the past, I've simply regarded the deposit as the equivalent of my last month's rent, and not paid them for that month. I don't know how this works with the Tenancy Deposit scheme: I've never used this before.

Just an update to this thread, and my situation: a kind of half-victory. The hearing recently took place, the landlord was seeking eviction within 14 days and costs of over £4,700. The judge was entirely sympathetic to my situation, and found that the Landlord had acted wholly unreasonably and unfairly. However, his judgement was constrained within the limits the law allowed him to, so yes, i am being evicted, but the judge gave me the absolute maximum amount of time to move out which the law allows him to, which is 6 weeks: quite an improvement over 14 days! As for the costs, again the judge said I was bound to pay some costs, but he found the Landlords costs unreasonable and excessive. He went through them meticulously, pointing out where they were overcharging, and what was a more reasonable figure for the work done. Basically he ripped them apart. He eventually reduced the costs to just £700. Again, a massive improvement on the figure the landlord was claiming. So, while the whole affair was disappointing, in that I do have to move, and I do have to pay the landlord for the privilege of being evicted, at the same time, I'm happy to not have such an evil, grasping, vindictive and greedy company as my landlord anymore, and doubly happy that i don't have to pay them as much as nearly 5 grand, which would have ruined me. And triply happy that they were practically labelled as mean and vindictive by the court. They left the court most certainly NOT wearing the smug faces they walked in with, which was a joy to behold, and more than made up for the hassle they have put me through. All in all, whilst I can't say I'm over the moon, I'm content with the verdict, which I feel was as fair and sympathetic as the law allowed the judge to be.

Yes I was, that's the whole point: my call charges were collected by Virgin as part of my broadband package. Landline to landline calls were free, but calls to mobiles and certain numbers were charged. So BT have charged me for calls that I was already paying Virgin for. That's why I want them deducted from the final bill. I can't have 2 providers charging me for the same calls: it's insane, illegal, and wrong!

I've been on this site long enough to know this is a no-brainer, but I'd appreciate some advice as to how best to tackle this. I've been a BT customer for many years, but about 3 years ago I took advantage of a good deal from my ISP (Virgin) to switch my (landline) call charges over to them (basically, unlimited landline calls as part of my broadband package: they don't do it now, but are still honouring those customers who signed up for it), while still paying BT for line rental. Everything was fine for a while, then about a year ago I got a phone call from BT trying to entice me back. It was a very sneaky phone call, asking me if I was interested in a particular service, and when I said I might be: tell me more, they only then revealed that it would involve transferring my call charges back to BT. At this, I said I wasn't interested, and the conversation ended. A week or so later, I got letters, one from Virgin saying basically "Sorry you're leaving us", and one from BT saying "Welcome back!" Naturally, I got straight on the phone to both BT and Virgin and demanded to know what was going on: it seems that despite my refusal to return to BT, they had gone and signed me up anyway! I was adamant that I didn't want to leave Virgin and return to BT, so I kicked up a fuss, and BT agreed to drop the whole thing. I got letters from both Virgin and BT confirming there had been an "error", and that I was staying with Virgin. The next statement I got from Virgin, I checked, and my call charges remained part of the package, so I assumed that the matter was resolved. Fast forward to last week, and I got a quarterly statement from BT that I thought seemed a little high (over £80), so I checked my online statement, and discovered that they'd charged me for calls! Disturbed by this, I checked the previous 2 bills, and discovered that they'd been charging me for calls since the incident related above, DESPITE me insisting they'd done it against my wishes and I wanted to stay with Virgin, and DESPITE their assurances that the matter was resolved a year ago. So, naturally, I rang BT and disputed the bill. It took a while, as I started with a call centre worker in India who could barely speak English. After some shouting, I got her to connect me with another worker who spoke better English (who, laughably, pretended his name was "Paul", presumably to make me think i was speaking to someone in the UK, but his Indian accent was unmistakable). After some more irate shouting from me, I was finally transferred to someone in the UK. I explained the whole story to them, and said I refused to pay the amount they were requesting. I pointed out that they had been taking the call charges without my agreement or consent for the past year, despite my contract with Virgin, and that that was unlawful. I said I'd pay the line rental, and nothing else, as per my contract with them, and demanded they deduct both the present and the previous call charges from the bill before I paid it. Here's the really silly thing: I don't use the phone much anyway, so the entire amount of call charges, from 3 quarters' worth of bills, is less than £50. This would leave me paying BT around £30. Guess what: BT REFUSED!!!!!!!!! I was flabbergasted: they have clearly taken these charges by unlawful means, and not even ANYONE at BT can be dumb enough to know that they can't bill me for charges I haven't signed up for (can they???) I argued and argued, but they insisted I had to pay. My response? I told them to stick their bill where the sun don't shine, and that in view of their unlawful activity and unreasonable attitude, they'd just lost a customer. I promptly hung up and phoned Virgin: within a few minutes, I'd transferred my line rental over to Virgin, and am now not a BT customer anymore. Didn't hear a peep from BT until yesterday, when I got a Final Bill, which includes the full amount of the £80 bill, plus a termination charge or two, and the total is now £97.91. I've been trawling through my files looking for the old letter from BT that admitted they had made a mistake and wouldn't be transferring me back, but I haven't found it yet... still looking though, as this would be a big help. But in the meantime, any advice as to how I begin tackling this? I obviously don't want to give BT another penny after their despicable behaviour, but I accept I probably have to pay for the line rental for the last quarter. But how do I get them to deduct the call charges that they should never have taken in the first place?

OK, first the bad news: have now had confirmation that they ARE seeking possession after all. Now the good news: had a meeting with a solicitor this evening, and he told me its his gut feeling that they're employing a common tactic, which is based on the fact that proceedings can be cancelled at any time up to the day before the hearing. As the hearing is over 2 months away, this would mean that, by the time of the hearing, I should have paid 3 months rent. My solicitor says that it's his gut feeling that they want to see if I stick to timely payments, and keeping the threat of the hearing hanging over me is their way of applying a bit of pressure. He is quite confident that if I make all the rent payments on time, that these proceedings would be dropped the day before the hearing. After all, their other actions would seem to indicate, based on what they've said to me personally, that they're happy for me to stay there now the matter seems to have been resolved, and it would also be to their own detriment to evict a rent-paying tenant in favour of the possibility of having the flat remain unlet for some time, or even getting a worse tenant than me. So... we'll see....

I have just this minute spoken to LL on the phone: they told me that as far as they're concerned the matter is resolved and there is no longer any problem. I told them they need to speak to their solicitor, as their solicitor seems to be careering on with the case. It's beginning to look as if the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The LL promised to speak to someone and get back to me... I await developments with interest... anyway, there seems to be a glimmer of hope in sight...

Thanks. I tried Shelter, can't get through, just get the "All our advisors are busy, please call back later" recording. I hope to see a solicitor this evening, at a drop-in surgery. I just don't get it: both the landlord and their solicitor are acting as if, once set in motion, this is now a runaway train and can't be stopped, when the reasons for it starting are now gone. I'm in employment, there are no arrears, and the rent is fully up to date. What are the chances that a judge will order me to leave? I'm really worried: rents in my area have gone up massively over the last couple of years, and if I'm forced to move I can't afford to stay round here. This will impact on my job, as I work locally, and don't have a car.

Hi Ed, I have now spoken to both the landlord, and their solicitor, and got 2 different stories. The landlord said (quote) "We're all good", meaning matter resolved. The solicitor on the other hand said that they are proceeding with the Possession Order. HOWEVER, from what the solicitor told me, this seems to more of a case of the difficulty/slowness of stopping a claim once it's in the court system, rather than a serious intent by the landlord to evict me. The request to the court to lift the stay was made BEFORE I paid off the arrears, not after, so this does seem like they assumed I was not able to pay and decided to pursue possession, only for me to pay off the arrears a few days later. The landlord does not appear to be deceiving me, and seems content to let me stay now that the arrears are paid off. But this runaway train that has been set in motion seems difficult to stop. From other advice I've read, it seems that courts grant possession in 99% of cases... so am I heading for eviction no matter what I do, or is there any way I can stop this thing before it gets to a hearing?

Yes, of course, I'll send the letter. But I don't understand what you're saying "No" too: are you suggesting it would be a mistake to seek some clarification from my Landlord as to what my situation is, or their intent? If so, why? If they do intend to pursue possession, then it's in my interests to get as much advance warning of this as possible, as I'll need the time to find somewhere else to live, arrange the move etc. At the end of the day, I can't prevent them from terminating my tenancy, as they have the right to do so.

Thanks for that Ed. I do suspect the landlord's solicitor of being painfully slow to act. I have drafted a letter to the Court, explaining there are no longer any arrears. First thing Monday, I am going to telephone the landlord and ask them direct what the situation is. If they say they're dropping the matter, I'll ask for it in writing, and then I'll change the letter to the Court informing them of that. If they say they haven't come to a decision, or anything else, I'll send the letter as it currently stands to the Court.

I was never told I could seek a judicial review. I was simply told there was no right of appeal, even though the council had a right to appeal. Why do they get to appeal and I don't? Doesn't seem a very fair process to me. We had a tribunal and I won. Then without me being informed, the council sought, and got, an appeal. I wasn't sent any copies of any new evidence, couldn't attend on the day, and was simply told they'd (partly) won afterwards. Then they do nothing for nearly 2 years then send debt collectors to my door???? I disputed there even was an overpayment in the first place, and the first tribunal agreed with me. I just don't understand how this all got completely reversed, especially without my involvement or agreement. Surely a tribunal is meant to be a form of arbitration: in other words, both parties agree to abide by the decision of the tribunal? But I didn't agree to a second tribunal, so how can it be considered arbitration? So what legal powers does a tribunal have? It's not a court, so does it have the powers of a court? If the council want money off me, then surely they can only get it if they win a proper court case? They can't take any from benefits as I'm no longer on benefits. Is this just yet more of the usual DCA scare tactics seen elsewhere on this site, or is this a real threat?

OK fine, but I dispute that I have to pay £600 in the first place, but wasn't allowed to appeal the tribunal decision. As I said, I won the first tribunal: the only reason the council appealed was on the grounds that they didn't send a representative to the first tribunal. So, given the fact exactly the same evidence was presented by both sides, why did I win one, and lose another? I want the opportunity to argue my case... am I better off letting them take me to court?

Hi again, I'm resurrecting this old thread because there has been another development. To save people from rereading all the old posts, here's the situation in brief: in Sept 2007 I left my old rented property and moved to a new borough. Some time later my old council contacted me and asserted they had overpaid me housing benefit and they wanted it back. I disputed, and it eventually went to tribunal in Jan 2009, where I won, due to the council's persistent incompetence in dealing with my claim for housing benefit. In Oct 2009 I received a letter from the Tribunals service saying that the council had appealed, and a new tribunal was to be held in Nov 2009. I objected to this, as I had received no notice that there was even going to be an appeal, and had no time to prepare. It did no good, I did not attend the second tribunal (too far away etc), and I lost part of the appeal, and was told I'd have to repay the council £600 (they had been originally claiming £1500). I was told I was not allowed to appeal. However, since then, I heard absolutely nothing from the council. They made no steps to recover payment at all. Since Nov 2009, no phone calls, no letters, nothing. So I just forgot about it. Until today, when i got home to find a letter saying someone from Phoenix Commercial Collections had called to collect the apparent debt. So, where do I stand? What legal powers does the Tribunal have? Can this still be enforced after all this time? Is this DCA actually working on behalf of the council, or have they simply purchased the debt from them? Once again, your advice would be most welcome.