Debt collection agencies linked me to other people with the same name too in the past, this is how I corrected it all. Sign up to Experian Credit Expert, check credit rating, credit reports & file alerts - with Experian CreditExpert.co.uk they do a free trial, it will show you who created the incorrect address link. Check callcredit and equifax too. You then write to the company that created the link, Special Delivery, demanding they correct it within 14 days with all agencies and ask for compensation for the trouble they have caused. Also dispute the entry with the credit reference agency. If they do not reply send another letter Special Delivery with "LETTER BEFORE ACTION" on it with a copy of the first letter, advise them if it isn't corrected in 14 days you will commence proceedings. If they still haven't removed it you can file with the court for an order to have them correct it. It will cost £150 but you get that back if it goes in your favor plus costs. Usually they cave in before the hearing, remove the info and compensate you. I'd then send all the info to Lloyds and ask them to remove the CIFAS info. It's a bit of work I know but I don't see any easy way around it to achieve your objective efficiently.

I think there were 5 defendants altogether only one of them was seeking to enforce or at least claiming against them, Tesco I think it was. The judge didn't consider Tesco suing as "enforcement" madness in my opinion. If taking someone to court for breach of contract isn't enforcing it, what in god's name is? The High Court Judge's ruling can't just be dismissed, the creditors are going to quote it and County Court Judges are probably going to accept it. So does anybody have any idea what this Judge considered "enforcement" to be if not commencing proceedings/suing.

I have been reading the Rankine Judgment over and over and do not get it. The Judge did not consider the commencement of proceedings as "enforcement" so what the hell is "enforcement" ??? At what state in the proceedings, if any, is it "enforcement" ? Is the judge saying they can get a CCJ against someone but it cannot be enforced? Isn't acquiring a CCJ in itself "enforcement" ? I just don't get it, he goes on to say you can apply for an injunction to stop the "enforcement" so at what stage would you do this ? It all seems unreconcilable with the Wilson judgment. It also seems madness that proceedings could commence and continue but not be enforced in the end.... so why should they be allowed to continue... a waste of time...

Rather than getting involved in endless legal banter with them, how about sending a copy of their letter to the Office of Fair Trading, Consumer Credit Fitness Enforcement Section, asking them to comment. Let's see Robinson Way argue with the government agency that can FINE them. Hopefully the OFT will tell them to stop saying this ever again to anyone else, you might help someone else in your situ. Also tell them you disagree with their conclusions and ask for a final response too, say you'll take it to the FOS then. I think that costs them £300+ hehe Edited Extra:- From reading their original letter they state:- "Due to Robinson Way (Ex Abbey National PLC) Amount Due £*****" so that doesn't sound like the assignment is just to collect the debt, but a full assignment of the debt itself as they are claiming it is "Ex Abbey National PLC" i.e. the amount is no longer "due" to Abbey National PLC, furthermore they threaten legal action against you from "our solicitors". Surely they cannot sue simply because of the right to collect a debt has been assigned to them and not the debt itself??? Make sure you send both letters to the OFT and ask them for clarification. Threatening to sue for a debt that you do not legally own could be "demanding money with menaces" a criminal offence of blackmail as per the Theft Act 1968.

I am tired of this company and how it acts towards people. I am considering suing the Office of Fair Trading under the Human Rights Act for not taking enforcement action against them, either by them fining them or revoking their license issued under the Consumer Credit Act to collect debts. If anyone has closed business with them and is prepared to do a witness statement as to their behavior let me know. You will be helping their future victims. It's time to take them out.

Make sure you send a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading about 1st Credit Ltd's actions. Their address is:- Consumer Credit Fitness Investigations Group Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square LONDON EC4Y 8JX

Make sure you send a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading about 1st Credit Ltd's actions. Their address is:- Consumer Credit Fitness Investigations Group Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square LONDON EC4Y 8JX

Make sure you send a complaint to the Office of Fair Trading about 1st Credit Ltd's actions. Their address is:- Consumer Credit Fitness Investigations Group Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6 Salisbury Square LONDON EC4Y 8JX

I have found 1st Credit to be the worst of all the companies to deal with. They have a habit of issuing Statutory Demands like there is no tomorrow. They ignore the debt collection guidelines most of the time and if you complain about them it could make them vindictive. The best advice is to send them a budget showing how much you can afford to pay them and tell them it is all you can offer. If they take legal action against you come back here and we will help you defend it. Make them prove everything, don't just let the claim go undefended whatever you do. You wont be able to say it is statute barred as you have been making payments but there are other legal ways of defending their claim. I.e. if they cannot produce an agreement. Most of the people here have had experience of 1st Credit and hate them too It is unlikely that they will be able to get an order of sale for the property even if they do get a charging order, after getting a CCJ. Usually the judge will allow a payment plan of what you can reasonably afford.

Usually the unsecured debt gets secured at the expense of the other unsecured creditors (who are happily accepting a payment plan) too which makes it very unfair. It also adds more charges to the debt, the court fees, solicitors fees etc in obtaining the charge. It's not a new thing either, Lloyds TSB did it to my elderly mother 7 years back even though she was paying them a substantial amount each month, not missing any payments. ****. If they are going to secure it this way then they should remove all interest/interest on interest/...etc at the higher rate and substitute it with an interest rate typically charged on secure debts. It amazes me the OFT doesn't do anything about this. If your house is ultimately at risk then there should be a warning. Remember the warning for the secure loans only means anything if you fall behind in payments in the same way. Fall behind on a secured loan.... your home is at risk. Fall behind on an unsecured loan.... your home is at risk.

Did you actually appeal or was it just the court clerk who told you this? Getting it set aside might open a can of worms. Did you actually owe the IR something out of the £87k or nothing whatsoever? If it was me I think I would try and get the Inland Revenue to sign a "Consent Order" to agree to have it set aside. If they refused you could go to your MP and ask them to write a letter to the IR, that might work, you never know unless you try. It sounds from your first post that you did get the court forms but chose to ignore them, maybe your accountant gave you the impression that they would make it go away or you just thought that. If you didn't get the forms you could request the judgment be set aside as you have a good chance for defending the claim, enclose a copy of the letter confirming you didn't owe the £87k with it and say you never got the claim form. Don't lie though if you did get the claim form! You could always try getting it set aside if your accountant told you not to worry about and they'd deal with it. It's worth a try telling the judge that you thought it would be dealt with by a professional and that the claim wouldn't continue. It would help if the accountant confirmed that, but I doubt that would ever happen! Like I said though, the set aside thing might open a can of worms! Especially if you owed them something.. and you did say you filed the return late, so they had some grounds to go after you. It still stinks though that filing a late return means you have to pay sky high APRs on everything, if you are lucky anyone will accept you for credit in the next 6 years!

You could also add how you are a very short tempered person and prone to violence. Tell them they should do a "risk assessment" before sending anyone to your address. You could also say you'll contact their insurance company should any future claims arise against them, advising them you warned them in advance, in which case the company itself will be liable for ALL costs.

Red is just a trading name of Lowell if you look at the small print at the bottom of the letters. They are one and the same.

Make sure you tell us if you have acknowledged any such debt in the last 6 years and if it can be proved by them that you did acknowledge it. Also, if you have requested a copy of any such agreement. Have a look at other posts in this forum as per requests for disclosure as per the civil procedure rules of the court before you enter a defence. Make sure you say you wish to defend it within 14 days, this gives you another 14 days from service. There is a good chance you can defend this and have this claim struck out, you just need to believe!

I would always recommend sending things Special Delivery. Recorded only seems to work half the time. You can complain about this till you go blue in the face and not get anywhere. Yes, Special Delivery costs £4.30, and will increase to £4.60 in April 08, but you MUST use it. I always apply for the free confirmation from Royal Mail even if they have "electronic proof". It's a freepost address too, search for "signature request form" if this link doesn't work. http://track.royalmail.com/portal/rm/content2?catId=13900163&mediaId=15100173 p.s. Remember they are "1st Credit Ltd", "First Credit Ltd" is a different company nothing to do with this.