Hi Bazza Thank you for your prompt response. I will look into the paperwork, and try to get the answers to your questions. Am I looking for the word "determination" in the correspondence from HMRC, given the importance you appear to be attaching to the word? BTW, I can't get the link in your post to work....

Last year, HMRC (quite rightly) sent demands to me stating that I needed to complete tax returns going back to 2008/9 and 2009/10. These were completed (by my accountant). One of these years showed a loss of c£20,000. The returns were submitted to HMRC, along with other more recent tax returns. HMRC then notified me that these specific returns for the years mentioned above, are 'time barred', and cannot be used to calculate tax owing. They consequently hit me with a £26,000 tax bill. All the advice I read at the time, and HMRC's own advice by telephone, suggested that I should make a payment arrangement first, argue the toss second - which is what I did. I subsequently set up a payment arrangement of £500 per month, which I could afford at the time. I subsequently sent to HMRC a SAR, to include transcripts of all telephone conversations, in order that I could determine what they'd told me - with a view to compelling them to take into account the loss on my accounts of £20,000. On 11 May, I received an email from them to confirm receipt of the SAR, pointing out that they had 40 days with which to comply with the SAR. Needless to say, 40 days expired on 20 June 2015, and nothing has been heard from HMRC. So I can't challenge the debt as I evidence upon which I might rely is being withheld. My financial circumstances have now changed to the extent that I can no longer afford £500 per month - on a debt that I can't challenge. SOOOOOO.....What options do I have? 1. How can I hold HMRC responsible for not complying with their legal requirement under the DP ACT to respond to the SAR within 40 days? 2. Can / should I stop the repayment based on 1. above? 3. Regardless of 1 and 2 above, I can no longer afford £500pm..... Any advice and guidance would be much appreciated.

Hi Surfer The legal advice I received was that my contract was with the finance company. I sued the finance company. They settled out of court. So I call that a win against the finance company. Much as I appreciated squaddie's advice, it was wrong, and I advise all would-be litigants to get their 30 minutes of free legal advice available from any solicitor. I'm glad I did.

Any chance of an update on this, carowner1980? The most salient advice is contained at post #12. The following link may help: http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/cgi-bin/brighton-hove/con1item.cgi?file=*ADV0003-1011.txt

Update on this case. I took legal advice under my house contents insurance legal expenses cover. After reviewing the paperwork the appointed solicitors decided not to support me in any court proceedings, as they believed I had less than 50% chance of winning the case, but they did confirm that any future claim issued should be against the finance company and not the motor traders. On that basis, I went to collect the car. Lo and behold, it failed to start. I obtained my own independent report at a cost of £102.00. I informed the finance company, and issued a claim immediately. I also stopped my direct debit on the finance agreement. First Response Finance responded, giving me three options: 1. I can collect the vehicle and restart my payments 2. I can voluntarily terminate my agreement, paying the outstanding liability (£2092.20) 3. I can refuse to collect the vehicle and refuse to make any repayments; this will result in First Response Finance making a counter-claim for the full balance outstanding on my account (£5522.07) plus any additional costs. They told me I had 14 days to respond (!). Meanwhile, they would arrange for a second independent engineer's report. I decided to await the engineer's report, having already obtained my own. The engineer's report came back, and was described by First Response Finance as "inconclusive" THEY SETTLED OUT OF COURT, IN FULL, INCLUDING COURT APPLICATION FEE. I am happy to provide documentary evidence of all of the above. LESSONS LEARNED: > Never give up > Never speak on the phone - always get them to put it in writing. If you HAVE to speak on the phone, always preface any conversation by checking that the conversation is being recorded, and emphasize that you may call upon the tape for evidential purposes. ALWAYS get the name of the person you've spoken with, and keep a written chronology of the date and time of the call, and who you spoke to. Before ending the call, ask the person at the other end to read back the notes he or she has just made. BUT, TOP advice is DO NOT HAVE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PEOPLE YOU MAY HAVE TO SUE. > Do not be intimidated by aggressive letters. Keep all correspondence and receipts. > If you have the evidence, be prepared to sue. > Have the courage to be a 'litigant in person' - it's not always feasible to get legal representation - as I found out. > Think like a lawyer, and if you get to Court, dress and act like a lawyer. Do NOT let them intimidate you. I've now sued at least 4 times, and never lost. > Research the law - and don't believe everything people say on here is the absolute truth. The advice that I was given by postggj (formerly known as squaddie), though well-intended, was neither accurate nor helpful, despite his/her 22,000+ posts. He (or she) may be a committed Cagger,but s/he suggested any legal claim should be against the car dealership and not the finance company. This was WRONG, and had I not sought legal advice I may have wasted hundreds, possibly thousands of ££ as a result of suing the wrong party. The CAG Site Team should ideally be checking what advice is given out on this brilliant forum , though I guess that practically, it's an impossible task. IF I can help in any way, please don't hesitate to get in touch.

The dealership is lying to me. The car failed one day after purchase. I have no faith in the car, or the dealership. The issues would appear to have been addressed, but the dealership is failing to say how they've been addressed - since their stance is that they can find nothing wrong with it. Given that the car was unfit for purpose one day after purchase, I have a valid claim under SOGA, notwithstanding how the car may be presented to me now, over three weeks later. And as the car is on finance, I have redress against the finance company, too.

Hi squaddie The dealership are saying that they have inspected the car and can find nothing wrong with it. So, they are calling me a liar and that there was never anything wrong with the car. If they can't find anything wrong, how could they have repaired it? But there was something wrong as described in my original post, and as confirmed by their salesman in a telecon with me on 25.3.13. I just need to be clear who it is I should be suing - the dealership, the finance company, or both? The following may assist readers following this post: http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/676408/oft1241.pdf

Hi squaddie - really appreciate your attention to my thread. To be clear, I don't dispute that the car is now roadworthy, 23 days after I bought it. My claim is that one day after purchase, it was not roadworthy - and therefore unfit for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act. In the intervening time (see my chronology) I have no doubt that they fixed whatever was wrong with the car, but will not admit to doing so - as to do so would be to admit liability. So by fixing it, and the finance company paying for the independent engineer's report, the report will, of course, state that they can find nothing wrong with the car. Had the independent report taken place at my home the day after the car failed, the outcome would have been supportive of my position. The burden of proof now lies with me to prove it - which won't be difficult if I can get the recovery agent to act as an independent witness to the state of the car on 21.3.13.

Thanks squaddie. As I continue my research, I become more confident that I have the basis of a successful claim: I'll await any further views, but I anticipate issuing Proceedings online this weekend. It'll cost me £100.00 I believe.

Hi Squaddie Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. The finance company ordered the independent engineer's report. My position is that one day after I purchased the car, it failed. So on that day, it was unroadworthy (as confirmed by the recovery guy) and not fit for purpose. 23 days later, the independent inspection has been carried out, and he finds nothing wrong with the car? How can this be? The garage must have either replaced the turbo or head gasket, but they claim to have inspected the car and found nothing wrong. The car cannot have repaired itself.....

Here we go then: 20.3.13: sign a finance agreement, pay a deposit and take delivery of 05 Citroen C5 auto diesel, 77k on the clock 21.3.13: having driven c140 miles, the STOP warning light appears on the dashboard. I stop the car immediately. I wait a few minutes, and start the car again. Plumes of white smoke emit from the exhaust. I switch off and wait a few more minutes. Repeat the exercise with the same result. I'm no mechanic, but have enough lay knowledge to suspect this is a blown head gasket. I call my recovery company. Upon arrival, he repeats the exercise. He tells me that he too suspects either a failed turbo or a failed head gasket. He confirms that the cannot be driven. On the job sheet, however, he only mentions the turbo, rather than or in addition to the head gasket, but does mark the job as 'urgent'. I ask him to recover the car to the dealership from whence it came yesterday. The car is delivered as requested. I leave a note on the dashboard, with my mobile phone number, asking someone to call me. I also leave a copy of the recovery agent's report. 25.3.13: I have heard nothing from the dealership. I call them. The sales guy tries to fob me off, suggesting I should be speaking to servicing. I insist on speaking with him, and that he finds out what's going on with the car. He speaks to servicing and returns to tell me that they're looking at the car, and suspect that a head gasket has blown. I advise him that with that news I'm now considering my options, as my view is that the care is not fit for purpose under SOGA. 1.4.13: Hand delivered a letter to the dealership giving them 14 days to refund all monies. See attachment. 2.4.13: Called finance company to inform them of my action. They advised ongoing dialogue with dealership. 2.4.13: Called dealership, spoke to another sales guy (whom I'd met) to ask if they've read letter. He said the letter had been passed to the director 2.4.13: Later, surprise surprise, I receive a call from the original sales guy to say that they've checked the car, and can find nothing wrong with it. This is clearly in contradiction of his previous information given to me on 25.3.13 that their servicing department suspects a failed head gasket. I advised him that I'd be taking legal advice. 3.4.13: Called the finance company. Explained the dealership's response. They suggest they're going to get an independent engineer's report. 3.4.13: Faxed a second letter to dealership and copied to finance company. See attachment. 12.4.13: Call from finance company to say that the independent engineer has completed his inspection, and found nothing wrong with the car. The finance company suggest that accordingly, the car is ready for collection. I suggest to the finance company that the engineer's report is in respect of the car on the day that he saw it, not on the day it broke down, when unambiguously, the car was not fit for purpose, as confirmed by the recovery agent's report. He suggests that from the finance company's standpoint, my complaint has been finalised. I said that I will await a copy of the engineer's report. So.....facts and opinions: 1. the car was unfit for purpose from day 2. opinion 2. the symptoms clearly suggest a blown head gasket or turbo - neither of which could simply rectify themselves without mechanical intervention opinion 3. the dealership told me on 25.3.13 that their servicing department suspected a blown head gasket fact 4. an independent mechanical report can only report on what they find on the day of inspection, not on the day the car failed opinion 5. under SOGA I have a right to return goods that are not fit for purpose fact What next? I fully intend to sue. But I need to be clear. I've now come to realise (I think) that my contract is with the finance company for the entire purchase price, including the deposit I paid direct to the dealership, including fuel left in the car by me. It is the finance company against whom I should be issuing Proceedings. Am I right? Any further observations? Thanks, Caggers, in advance for your advice and guidance.

Hi everyone Received a doorstep visit from an 'agent' of Credit Security today, in respect of a disputed M&S Money agreement. M&S were CCA'd in September 2008 and failed to comply. (They sent only a copy of T's&C's). This is the culmination of long ignored correspondence from Credit Security, which has now reached the point of them threatening Court and the doorstep visit. I've now compiled the attached letter, partially using a CAG template. Any comments and observations would be much appreciated before I send on Monday 17 Jan. Letter.140111.Anon1.pdf

Like hundreds of others scanning this fantastic site, I have several CCA's that are unenforceable; in each case the bank/card/loan co has failed to provide a true copy of the CCA. Timescales have long since elapsed. Can someone PLEASE provide a 'Next Steps' guide, along with a pointer as to where the relevant templates might / can be found? Thanking you in advance, and here's my thoughts.... No CCA within prescribed time limits / CCA unenforceable for other reasons = issue SAR and s10 request SAR / s10 request further confirms unenforceability of 'agreement' = polite letter to FinCo/DCA suggesting 'debt' is wiped out and Credit Ref Agencies notified accordingly Request contained within polite letter declined = 1. Formal complaint to Info Commissioner / OFT / Trading Standards = 2. Letter Before Action (LBA) suggesting Proceedings will be issued in County Court under s142 CCA to seek judgement on unenforceability of CCA = 3. A letter of some sort mentioning the FinCo's responsibilities under the Civil Procedures Rules (CPR), prior to getting into Court No response to 2 & 3 above = 1. Issue formal proceedings in County Court = 2. Insist on 3. (above) ie disclosure of evidence upon which they intend to rely, under CPR Does the above come anywhere close to being accurate in terms of Next Steps? Thanks for your help.

Hi SA x20 I've attached a copy of the Default Notice to this message. Hope the technology works.... Thanks for your assistance

Hi Sequenci Thanks for your quick reply and really helpful pointers. Without wishing to appear pedantic, are the 5 bullet points I mention enshrined in statute or just this OFT Collection Guidance?