Hi Seminole - you are of course correct - what I was trying to put across was a reasonable response that the OP could use if challenged by the lender regarding his statement about not previously owning a property in the highly unlikley event details of his previous property coming to light - apologies if I was unclear.

As you never finished the mortgage on the previous property - you never owned the house outright - so you can say in good faith that you have never owned a house. Many lenders define anyone who is not currently a homeowner as a first-time buyer and you can feel good that you helping them with their first time buyer lending targets. The downside is that it will put you at the top of their list for cross marketing of buildings insurance, home emergency cover etc, etc, etc

Dave, with the Freedom Finance FSCS case, I would go back to the FSCS and request they review the decision - whilst I am not expert on the scheme I have had some dealings with it, my understanding is that it covers business conducted on or after 14 Jan 2005 - as the agreement is signed after that date I believe that it falls within jurisdiction. - i.e the business is conducted on 16 Jan2005. Lenders / FOS would use the policy start date as the date of sale because it is defined whereas advice dates are less certain e.g if you have a meeting on 4th Jan but ask a question and receive an answer on 10th Jan you could argue either date as the date of advice. - which is why the agreement date is commonly used. You may have spoken to Freedom Finance on 16 Jan 2005, just before signing, for further advice - if this was the case it would be interesting to see how your claim wouldnt be covered. Based on my limited dealings with FSCS there is every chance a different person looking at your claim would reach a different decision on jurisdiction

Hi, as the loan is with Endeavour they should be responsible for the sale unless they can prove that a third party was responsible. I would ask them for the evidence that they have used to demonstate that Central Trust were liable. I would also go back to FOS and ask that if Central are denying the sale then your FOS complaint should be against Endeavour (they may be quicker to provide evidence to FOS than to you although there is no guarantee of this) If your originl paperwork shows Endeavour were the lender and this is who you paid then the onus always lie with them to prove they are not responsible.

Bizzy, have you checked your original paperwork for evidence of PPI ? First Plus were very reticent to grant loans without PPI and if like the majority of their customers there was PPI on this account a significant chunk of any arrears would be PPI. If it is on there have a look at the PPI area on the site for guidance on making a claim.

I am aware of a number of cases where this view has been challenged at the FOS and they have ordered firms to make payment direct to the customer where there are no arrears. Often the lender will agree to direct payment if FOS is suggested. However, if the account is not in dispute and you dont need the money more urgently elsewhere my own view is that to save interest at credit card rates is generally a very good idea (This is a general view given without knowledge of your individual circumstances )

One thing which i've noticed on my mint card in the small print is that where interest is calculated as less than 50 pence, there will be a minimum interest charge of 50 pence. Based upon that the APR stated on the agreement would be incorrect and I believe render the agreement unenforceable. If anybody more experienced has a view i'd love to hear it. I'm still at early stages having sent the CCA request to see if the bank have a copy too.

A couple of people have mentioned that the decision of FOS is binding - it isn't. It is binding on the Bank/Company but not binding on the complainant i.e if you dont like the outcome you can still go down the legal route.. I have pursued a number of cases via the FOS (and as other people mention the result has generally been unsatisfactory as they dont see the absence of enforceable agreements as an issue) however in a couple of cases the result has gone in my favour and saved the cost and effort of proceeding to court. Where time is not an issue for you, it is often worth a crack at the FOS route, not least because some firms will hold off on collection activity whilst a case is with FOS. Bearing in mind that they are currently several months behind with their workload it is a useful option where things are within a few months of being statute barred

Going back to the question about Payment Protection Insurance, the usual tactic where insurance is added to the account will be a claim from the provider that initially you didnt request it but you requested it during a subsequent phone call to activate the card or on renewal. A subject access request or a copy of the call will often lead to a refund as a "goodwill gesture"

Where my accounts have been with the banks, I have taken the approach of taking two copies of the CCA request into the branch, handing one to the cashier and making them sign the other copy, date it and provide a staff number. This makes it difficult for them to argue non-receipt, it also allows you to pay cash and therefore avoid giving a signature or paying for a postal order. I also include the line that the member of staff has seen a copy of my photo ID (Driving Licence) to confirm identity but do not allow them to copy it. This gets around another of their stalling tactics re proof of ID.

I would do nothing. They are still yet to meet your CCA request as I am sure they are well aware. Their information re FOS is also misleading. FOS ask that you initially deal with a company via their own complaints system and will not normally deal with it until the Company has responded. However once 56 days have elapsed you automatically gain entitlement to go to FOS (and the Company is obliged to write and tell you this but HBOS never do). Knowing HBOS as I do - they have probably not registered your CCA request as a complaint. On that basis I would be tempted to send them another "bemused" letter emphasising that this remains a formal complaint.

Hi, I am sure that somebody more knowledgeable will be along in a while. However, they have still not provided you with a CCA which means that all their threats regarding charging orders etc cannot be backed up. As somebody has previously said, if they provide a correctly enforced CCA, if they get a CCJ and if you fail to pay the amount requested (which will take into account your circumstances) they can try and apply for a charging order. From my own experience of DCA's they will escalate through various "pre-litigation divisions" (usually this is Dave who sits at the next desk) in the hope of a panic reaction. They dont want to go to court, a court will generally be much more reasonable than they are. They just dont want you to know this. andy

Thanks to all above for their help - I won !!! (but as always there is a twist -please see my new thread "a new low, even for Hlaifax)

I have obtained judgement and a default against Halifax. As expected they applied to set the judgement aside and failed to turn up in court. The judge advised me that the general guidance was that a stay should be applied but he would listen to the arguments I had. I went through all the various points that I could think of (and had thankfully been guided towards by the people on the list) and the judge dismissed Halifax' application, meaning I had won and was entitled to the refund I had claimed and also the £1500 I had claimed for my time in dealing with this matter Rather than pay up, just to try and drag the matter out further, Halifax have re-applied for the judgement to be dismissed on exactly the same grounds. as before I understand that they can technically do this but am amazed that this is legal and appalled I have to have yet another day off work to deal with this. Any advice as to how to deal with this, particularly on impressing upon the judge that they are abusing the legal process and should compensate me for my lost earnings would be greatly appreciated.

Halifax received my DSAR in May 2006, I am still yet to receive all the information requested, I even have letters from them confirming this. If they are true to form they will send you hge piles of screen prints, normally about 4 copies of each. One thing that is worth looking out for is they send screen dumps of informaion which show the first few lines of an entry but miss of the rest - make sure you ask them to transcribe the entries to show the full information

In August I obtained judgement against Halifax for £3,000 in outstanding charges, they acknowledged service of the claim, advised the court that they would file a defence but in true Halifax style, failed to do so. I obtained a warrant of execution as soon as I was able to do so. They have now submitted an application to set aside the judgement and we go to court on the fifteenth of October - needless to say Halifax wont be turning up and have filed a 10 page statement instead. Key points of the stetement are that I didnt list the charges and dates (although my original claim listed the types of charges and the period involved and I have a letter from Halifax dated 3 days before my claim listing them in full), that I signed up to their terms and conditions (although I have a letter from them dated August 2007 in which they admit they no longer have a copy) and that the case should be put on hold until after the test case. I will be going to court on the 15th to fight my case and would welcome any assistance you may have. Another point that may help is that my DSAR of May 2006 remains outstanding, I have received some but not all information and have letters from Halifax dated in august 2007 which confirm this. Halifax are now refusing to deal with any correspondence from me on this and other complaints and are directing me to FOS, despite having failed to answer my blast complaint within the FOS 8 week timescale, a matter which I have referred back to FOS. Please dont let them get away with it again, any thoughts or assistance however big or small would be appreciated