it is not for you to second guess them or their policies, my bet is that there is no such clause and it is an opportunistic attempt to make a few quid from you. As inferred by Brig, any such process must be laid down in company policies, normally in consumer debt any charges must be identified in the agreement or the Terms and Conditions directly associated with the agreement, because this is an employment matter, then such charges absolutely must be outlined in the contract itself or in company policies referred to within the contract. ie, "If we make a payroll error in your favour, we reserve the right to farm out this alleged debt to an external blood sucking parasite and add a non specific amount based on a random percentage" not very likely really is it, whilst it may be the case that you owe the initial amount to some degree or other, they have shot themselves in the foot by providing you with a cast iron dispute in the shape of this unwarranted and (in my opinion) probably unlawful admin charge.

I am really going to have to stop watching rubbish like this, between these arrogant :@#£$% with the bonny bibs on, The plod who stand by and idly break the law at their behest, the uneducated citizens who let them get away with it and the exploits of Rev Paul Nicolson, my wife must dread being in the same room as me, nearly waking up my kids last night shouting "No you aren't" and "No you can't" at the telly. Going to go back to watching Gold on a Thursday night, much better for my blood pressure

looks like they are also claiming that a payment of £1.00 was made in 2009, preventing the debt from becoming Statute Barred, they would need to prove that

I didn't once see a driver ask the police why they had been stopped, surely it cannot be legal for the police to intervene in order to collect outstanding debts

Use the following link http://www.oft.gov.uk/ or contact your local trading Standards, You obviously have details similar to someone who holds liability for this debt/account, they will have sent this letter to everyone in your area with a similar name etc in the hope of scaring someone (anyone) into making a payment. They really don't care if they get the right person as long as someone pays them. as previously advised complain and do not respond to anything similar from any other company.

Just because Cabot say something is lawful and/or enforceable doesn't make it so, if the numbers were handwritten after the document was signed, there would have to be supporting documentation from Hitachi to demonstrate that this was in line with their processes and policies and not just Cabot adding something to link documents which previously had no such link. very smelly indeed, a SAR to Hitachi should show up such a connection, if it doesn't, then despite all of their assurances and blustering, they have nothing to enforce.

anything that is written on the document after the agreement has been entered into (in my opinion) has no bearing whatsoever on the agreement. They would have to prove that the piece of paper is in fact the agreement that you entered into (signed) and not something they have cobbled together after that point. If the only thing that links this document to you are the handwritten numbers, then (again in my opinion) it is a very tenuous link as Dx says, this smells

They are probably trying to get you to give them a Direct Debit Mandate, which is controlled by them. stick to your guns

Just to add tuppence to this, when Cabot provided a copy of an Egg agreement to me, they had handwritten their own internal reference number onto it, however if the original agreement has no account number on it and is unsigned then they would have to prove a link exists

Assuming that you actually owe the debt, Pay the vet direct and let the DCA stew for their charges. If you dispute the debt, notify the DCA (in writing) of the dispute

You might also ask for a copy of the document that you signed allowing them to add "admin charges" to an alleged overpayment

You've had time to think it over and this would be the best move for you and your family

to cut a long story very short, My wife took Maternity in Oct 2011 received all her holiday pay up to and incl Dec 2011, before she was due to return to work she fell pregnant again and in between the end of her first maternity and the start of the second, (about May 2012) she went on the sick until she could start her second period of maternity. She did not return to work in 2012 at all. In the december of 2012, my wife requested her accrued holiday pay, her boss refused stating she couldn't pay it whilst my wife was on maternity, however she would continue to accure holidays - we have this in writing, our second daughter ws born in January 2013 and the subject of holiday pay got lost in the chaos of settling two small babies into the family. In June 2013, my wife had a return to work meeting with her ex boss which basically resulted in her ex boss making it plain that she would do nothing to accomodate my wifes childcare requirements and so my wife was forced to seek alternative work (very lucky I know) My wife ensured that she gave her employer in excess of a full 30 days notice of her planned return to work date. She then gave 30 days notice of her intention to leave. My wife left her employment within the frist two weeks of July 2013. We sent a letter prior to her leave date requesting her P45 and Holiday pay be sent via the post, then followed it up after he leave date with a letter requiring she provide P45 and Holiday pay within 28 days (as per advice from tribunal service). just really sounding out for options available.

Dear Sir/Madam/Empty Desk, Please please please please please please tyake me to court where you can explain how this amount is a true representation of the loss incurred by your client, by the activities you allege and which allegedly resulted in nothing being taken from your client. I look forward to hear your explanation before a judge. Until you are in this position, please feel free to Foxtrot Oscar Yours etc

Rediculous advice from solicitor. If they have no documents then what is it they are hoping to enforce? It is really very simple. They say thast they own the account and have full rights to enforce and take you to court You say, I don't believe that this is true, prove what you are saying is true. That was your position when you restarted this thread and that is your position now. They have proven nothing and can prove nothing, so why would a solicitor advise you to capitulate in such a half a$$ed manner.....outrageous

The reason the account balance is showing as zero is because they have written off the account and sold or transferred it onto Marlin. On the face of it, it looks like BC have failed to provide you with anything which would prove the authenticity of the account. This is the same as many other accounts sold by BC to Marlins, without a complete papertrail from the inception of the account, to present day, they have nothing other than empty threats..... if they say it was originally an Egg account then they would need to prove evidence that the account was legally assigned and the amounts were correct etc and so forth..... However if as BC seem to do, they have unilaterally issued a BC account on the back of this assignment then they need to prove the legality of this account - which they won't be able to do. Once you sent the CCA to Marlins, they would be on their back foot until they fulfil their legal obligations, they will not give up until they know you are not backing down.....nothing has changed, NO agreement, No NOA, No Statements .... no paperwork

I appreciate your position, but the second charge was taken out against the debtor and not the mortgage company, you being able to prevent the mortgage company from recouping their losses would never be allowed to happen as the debtor has no active role nor benefit from the sale. The mortgage company is always the priority debt and it would be nothing more than a paper exercise for them to receive a court order enforcing such a sale

A charging order is literally a debt secured against property, when and if YOU were to sell said property, You would need agreement from both creditors as YOU are liable to both the Mortgage issuer and the holder of the second charge and are legally obliged to meet your liabilities. If, however, you abandon the property you are also effectively abandoning your liabilities and although said liability still exists (to both creditors) it is literally every man for himself - the mortgage issuer is obviously obliged to seek the best price to settle their own account, they can chase you for any shortfall after any sale is concluded. As the mortgage issuer carries no liability to the owner of the second charge at all, they are not obliged to pay them anything, unless there is a surplus after sale, in which case it would be used to settle YOUR secondary liability (at the request of the 2nd creditor) rather than being returned to you, as would happen if no such charge existed. As the property is no longer owned by you, any debt secured against such property would revert to unsecured status and would require separate enforcement, however the law states quite clearly that a creditor cannot bring a second case through the courts against the same debt. When they go for a CO, they are gambling that you will not lose the property and will eventually pay them - no guarantees

The mortgage lender is obliged to seek the best price, if this is sufficient to cover the first and second charge, ie the initial mortgage and the CO amount, then all good and fine. However, if the amount raised is only enough to cover the initial mortgage, the first charge would be covered, but not the second - it would then be down to the 2nd creditor to take any action they deemed necessary against the mortgage company, if unsuccessful, or if the sale went uncontested by the 2nd creditor, then the CO would revert back to an unsecured debt. Given that the debt had already been taken through the courts, the 2nd creditor would, I believe, be prevented from bringing any further action against the debtor

we really don't need more guidelines that can be misinterpretted, we need legislation with teeth ie. "do this and you will lose your mealticket"

what forum advised "Mr Smith" to bring the Form 4? obviously if it has been removed or deleted then there woud be no point searching for it

Whatever you do, DO NOT sign to accept liability for the shortfall, invariably you are signing an agreement to accept liability for any such shortfall prior to your vacating of the property and also at that time you will have no clear idea what costs they will add to the debt, they will have an assurance that you will accept liability so they will add whatever they can....... so effectively you are accepting full liability for an as yet unknown amount of money. Send the keys back and walk away, plenty of others have done so and as long as you allow a sufficient period to pass, the liability will eventually prove difficult to enforce, if not impossible. If you sign such an agreement, you are giving them a further weapon with which to hit you with.

I would hold any further action or correspondence. You have asked them to provide the CCA, let's see what they come up with

In fairness to the CAB, they are run by volunteers and due to cuts and the like they are not really in the best position these days to offer advice on all of the subjects they used to cover, they tend to do their best work with benefit related issues and basic consumer advice. You really need to get a clear understanding on what basis you are defending this case, if you go into court without a clear idea then you will lose and you will most certainly end up with a CCJ. Marlins may well have bought this alleged account, but if there is no supporting paperwork at all, then they are up the creek, this does not mean that they will not "tell a good story" and try to convince you that you have no chance, when the opposite may well be true. Marlins must be able to produce a clear paper trail covering all aspects of each transfer of this account, from inception - to date because without it, you and they are unable to verify anything about the debt. How do you know the agreement is valid in the first place or even if there is an agreement? How do you know they have a legal right to collect this alleged debt? Was an assignment produced? where is it? How do you know the amounts claimed and dates stated are correct? The CCA is paramount because it then protects you from any enforcement action whilst the CCA is outstanding, so basically without the agreement they cannot enforce. sorry for the rant but you are a long way from court just yet.

Feel free and with my pleasure It's a simple premise really - Until they produce something enforceable, then obviously they can't enforce anything