Where to begin?

As far as the insurance was concerned-did the garage arrange that for you?

[Not that I understand what you mean when you say "I managed to get the

insurances off"]It is not unusual for companies to have an one off upfront

charge but this

does not make it a penalty. and cannot therefore be claimed as such-and

if you read the insurance booklet, it may explain what it is for.

Now with regard to your reciprocal charging. You are already aware that

penalty charges are unlawful, so what makes you think that the Court will

allow your penalty charge, when you are in front of them asking for them

to return what you think is an unlawful penalty charge. Even if the charge is

unlawful, sending a couple of letters hardly justifies charging £30 odd,

which is why the banks keep coughing up.

I may be wrong but I thought the reason your car was removed was because

the Council were repainting the yellow lines. Normally when that happens,

the locals get a letter from the Council asking that all cars are removed from the said area. In addition, they usually put extra notices on lampposts for

example.

Now that you have been there a bit longer, do wardens come round at 8am,

or was it a one off because of the relining. Ask the neighbours if they knew

to move their cars. You may have a plea for mitigation at least if, by reason

of being a newcomer you missed the delivered notices.

On the other hand you were well late in any event, still being parked at 8.20.

I believe there is supposed to be at least 15 minutes between the time of

ticketing and the time of removal so you may have a claim there.

Did you see the lorry take your car away? If you did, were you outside when it happened as up to a certain time in the removal, if the owner returns, the car must not then be towed.

PS Do not in this instance claim you were loading. Making a false

statement is way more serious than being illegally parked.

What would be the reaction of the Court, if a bank robber having been

convicted of the crime stated that he would serve his sentence, but when he

came out he was then free to rob banks without ever being arrested again.

Exactly.

It's not so much the 50-50 aspect, since one would expect it to show that

you knew you were in the right, while she has to be much more careful what she says.

It is more that she may well counterclaim. For instance, she could say that

she bought food, cooked it, and let you stay at her place overnight, and

then gave you breakfast, all as a method of part rerpayment. Without a

contract, it might be difficult to dispute that this was her way of repaying

you.

Sometimes it is better to remember the good times in a relationship and

move on without getting messed up with bitterness or whatever. Just be

grateful perhaps that it was only £500, and not how much Paul McArtney is

probably going to have to shell out.

I do not think that BT are the actual claimants as how could you ever run a phone bill up to £12,000!!!!

You have obviously never met my wife. LOL

It could be a sole trader whose income derives from overseas trade for

example so spends a lot of time on the phone. Now the company has gone bust. Or someone who likes to ring those premium rate chat numbers.

Ruby, from what I can make out, your initial complaint should be to your local

Trading Standards office, who will pass it on to the OFT.

I assume that MCKenxie Hall are chasing after someone with the same name

as you who owes BT. If that is the case, then they have breached the Data

Protection Act [failing to keep accurate records] and [passing on sensitive

information to a third party.]

They are also in breach of the Consumer Credit Act by failing to investigate

when a debt has been queried.

These are serious breaches which would indicate that they are not fit persons to hold a Consumer Credit licence. So tell TS that when you write.

.

IT WONT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED by the creditor the act DOES NOT allow for this.

I hesitate to jump in when the heavyweights are involved-but here goes

anyway. It looks as if the Act does allow for it here-

"

87.—(1) Service of a notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 (a "default notice ") is necessary before the creditor or owner can become entitled, by

reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of a regulated agreement,—

(a) to terminate the agreement,

Sorry, I have just found another thread where you are currently putting

your case so there is no need to respond to my query here..

Stiffnuts, your interpretation of the law in relation to the selling on of a

debt following a termination of a contract is at odds with the general conception on the forum of what happens.

The CCA 1974 states that-

"Termination of an agreement under subsection [1] does; not affect any

liabillity under the agreement which has accrued before the termination."

It has been taken to mean here that although the agreement has been

terminated, the debt still remains outstanding and will have to be paid to the

new owner of the debt. And all that passes on is the debt, so that the new

owner must contact the debtor advise them of the amount outstanding,

and, as there is no contract between these two parties, an arrangement

to pay off the debt wiill be required or a Court case will ensue

You are taking the definition of "any liability" to a further state by saying

that not only the debt is carried on, but the whole original contract still

applies eg interest rates, provision for default etc etc. Or have I

misinterpreted your meaning.

No they cannot do that. In the first place, when they call, they should

leave a card to say they called, partly as proof of call.

My own view is that if it was only a month between your last payment and

your call to pay the whole amount, the Court were too quick to pass it

on, and should have told you what they intended.

Talk to the Court and explain the position you are in and see if you can

get a hearing in Court that you should not have been handed to philips

so quickly and without notice. And that they could have had their money 4 months ago, and pholips are way way overcharging which you feel is unacceptable in view of you having offered to pay the Court and philips

4 months ago.

If they cannot help, go to Citizens Advice since they whole situation is

completely out of order.

Whatever the outcome of the Court decision, wtite to the bailiffs asking for

a complete breakdown of their costs including dates and times when they called at your house. That way it will give you time to contact Citizens

advice if you have no luck with the Court.

I take it that your husband ran the business as a sole trader? Not in a

partnership nor was he running a limited company?

Your situation is a bit of a grey area. They made the mistake and compounded it by not only failing to recheck properly after you queried it,

but also by saying to you "use it or lose it". However you had

misgivings, and you could have checked your payments to confirm their

figures were wrong.

I am not sure that it was that mistake that caused the company to close

but it obviously didn't help.

Have you spoken to Citizens Advice, since I feel that if you had someone

pwerful enough to negotiate with the company, at the very least they

should reduce the debt by a fair amount as the company misled you so it

seems inequitable that all the loss should be yours. And there are cases

similar to yours in the past where the whole amount has been written off-

although it is usually when banks are involved who have much deeper

pockets than the company you are dealing with.

I suggest that you write to the dca and say the amount is in dispute while

you contact Citizens Advice. That way you get the dca off your back and

perhaps for good with a bit of luck.

To send her a letter via the bank- write a letter to her, put it in an envelope,

seal it, put a stamp on it and her name in the place on the envelope where you would normally place the name.

Put that envelope into another one addressed to her bank manager with a covering letter insde the second envelope asking the manager if he would kindly forward the letter to her-[include her bank account number to help

identify her.]

That way, if it does go to Court, you can show that you took all the steps

you could to avoid Court action, and if you show how hard you tried, it

may help with the judge, as personal loans between friends [i assume you have no signature from her?] are not easily resolved in Court.

Also, by getting the letter from you, she may think you now have her address.

Might not be as easy as you imagine. Had they refused your allowance

you would not have been able to claim at all. On top of that, if you have to take them to Court as a last resort, could they take away your allowance

for some reason, and if so, would it be worth going that far?

The latest report from the Competition Commission has some interesting points. It is focused on the competitiveness of banks in NI and not the legality of the charges but there is alot of information that is of use in our cases.

The lack of competitiveness is one of the elements that will be looked at.

But in addition the super complaint cites-

"Northern Irish banks charge significant sums for activities that other

banks do not charge for at all

• Northern Irish bank charges often lack transparency;"

And this is what the OFT observed about the big four-

"they impose a number of charges when customers are in credit and

overdrawn which are not found in the rest of the UK (and there are no

offsetting advantages such as higher interest payments on positive

balances)

• they have stated that their prices are not directly cost derived"

The whole point about charges for breach of contract are that they should reflect the losses suffered by the breach and these are not, since they

are not directly cost involved. Game set and match to the super complainants.

It says on your credit report that the debt is satisfied which should mean that

your ex has paid it. Send an sar to the hp company to confirm payment has been made, and it will stop further proceedings until the position is

clarified.

You could try to confirm with your ex when and who she paid the money to.

Yes you are entitled to have a breakdown of their charges. Also they cannot

charge you for the removal van, since first they have to take an inventory

of your possessions they are going to take, and to do that they normally

need to have obtained walking possession.

The bailiff is not telling you the truth. You should write to both the bailiffs

company and send a copy to the Council complaining about the bailiffs

behaviour which is according to the OFT using deceitful business practices.

He does not need access to your house to arrange a payment

plan-do not let him in.

I don't think it is just confined to DCA's, I notice that when I have been

ringing other companies, they are much more careful these days about

establishing my identity before giving me the information I wanted.

Oooohh- you do like to wriggle.lol

In schedule 3 [4]]d] of the Act it says the processing-

"does not involve disclosure of the personal data to a third party without the consent of the data subject."

So if Westcot were not sure that Andy was the data subject, they were right

to be careful

You could try writing to her at work or via the bank, asking if there is a reason

not to pay the debt. Also, while you would prefer not to, she may leave you

with no alternative than to go to Court.

If she owns a car, you may be able to get her address from them.

You could try writing to her at work or via the bank, asking if there is a reason

not to pay the debt. Also, while you would prefer not to, she may leave you

with no alternative than to go to Court.

If she owns a car, you may be able to get her address from DVLA.

I made the point after MAAB had been told that the note was a forgery

and therefore while 16 [2] of the forgery act didn't apply before the visit to

MC Donalds, it surely did after.

You are probably better asking them what the charges were for before

firing off letters. It has been a while since I cancelled a policy midway

through its term, but when I did, [and too much time has passed for me to remember the reason] I seem to remember the charge was not a penalty

and so not reclaimable.

Blf it may be your remit to seize goods rather than collect money, but I am

sure that the majority of bailiffs would far prefer to be paid cash or

by credit card. It is far quicker for you and much less of a trauma for debtors

than to see their possessions being taken away, knowing thet the replacement cost will be far in excess of what the levied goods can hope to achieve at auction.