This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 11 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

Hi There, Don't Panic and dont respond atall. Any personal debt is statute barred after 6 years. That means it's unenforceable because the creditor has not acted "in time" to issue any Court Papers. eg A County Court Claim. A warrant of execusion can only be served after someone has LOST a County Court Claim. If you respond to the letter and the debt is yours the 6 years starts again and they can then issue a Claim against you. If you are 100% certain the debt is not yours just ignore the letter. I say this because Hillesdens are useless at what they do. Why help them. If the debt is yours still do nothing or else they can start recovery action again as contact has been made. Hope this helps pj

Hi Felix, Yes, as slick says you need to prepare your defence well. However, If you have spent on an acccount and a cca is not produced statements may be. HSBC threatened this before CL took over. So in my File I copied the name and address of the solicitors onto about 6 old statements from HSBC & changed the account number. My thought was if statements were produced I could produce my own and ask that because i have these does it mean mssrs Cohen owe this amount. Alas it was not needed on the day. The whole point to the CCA is it sets out in the terms and conditions what the debtor has to do to discharge himself from the debt. Ie pay the balance off, until a debtor has piad it all back the creditor charges interest. If no agreement is produced what have you agreed to do? In that case quite simply the creditor has lent you money without the legal redress of reclaiming back from you. If you have paid something (and this is just my opinion) you paid money as you were forced to with the threat of legal action. As a litigant in person you have researched the situation and have asked for the CCA to ascertain what has/has not, in fact, been agreed. In real terms you have not agreed to anything. So you stopped making further payments and the creditor has issued the claim. In the absence of an agreement is the claim amount correct? Is there any interest included? On what basis has it been charged? Has this been agreed? what are the prescribed terms? If your creditor produces an agreement signed by you then you have agreed. If not, you haven't. There will be no difinative answer to your question as it will depend on your specific circumstances. I just tried to think like CL finance and came up with arguments to try to stop them in their tracks. The other thing to consider is because we are defendants we have to try to cover everything. The District Judge should just cut to the chase "were is the agreement?" Hope the above helps a little. Paul

Hi All, I thought I would update as to events after the hearing last October. The DJ ordered that the £500 be paid in 14 days. That didn't happen I wrote to CL Finance and threatend them with the baliffs or drag the cheif executive in for questioning or serve a third party debt order on their bankers. Royal Bank of Scotland (but it looks like they are nearly bankrupt !!) I have done some research on this company as they have raised another claim for another unenforceable debt. Just incase you want to know -- Cl finance is part of the Lewis group which in turn is owned by a company called Cattles Cattles also own Welcome Finance who historically lend to the sub-prime market. About a month ago a load of people got made redundant at thier Hull Call centres. Cattles are wanting to become a bank and the FSA have requested that they raise a £300,000,000 before they will consider anything further. Cattles are scurring around trying to raise the cash. CL finance has no employees it is run by 8 directors and a company secratary they paid themselves £1.7million in dividends year ended dec 2007. Have a look at Cattles | Home So Welcome Finance lend it out and when people struggle, they have CL finanance to collect it. Quite a crafty loop there i thought. Anyway today the 24th January I have recieved a cheque from THEM. for the costs awarded. With regard to the other claim they have raised I got a letter from the court yesterday and the District Judge has ordered them to produce the original agreement the default notice and a breakdown of the money they are claiming. All by 4pm 2nd Feb. What fun lol Pj41

Hi All, I'm starting to get the ball rolling with Lloyds tsb bank re charges on behalf of my sister. Looking through the stickies and threads I want to make sure of the address for a DPA request can someone confirm where their data compliance manager lives, oh i mean works. Thanks in anticipation

Hi Humbleman, Well to be fair I pressed the DJ after he said he was striking out the claim. I said that the claimant had not issued a default notice but a default had been lodged with both experian and equifax on my credit file and I believed that that was unlawful. His response was well "i cannot deal with that today" I went further, and said that I had spoken at length with both experian and equifax and although they were the data holders a court order would need to be sent to CL Finance or the bank to have any default removed. DJ responded... I cannot deal with that now I think its a data protection issue. I took that on board that as this was supposed to be an allocation/directions hearing that not enough time was allocated. I was in at 3:45 and the DJ's finish at 4:00pm. Also I think he didn't want to be bothered with it, like oh that will do for another day. Just goes to show that the DJ's dont know it all. If there is a case about one thing they won't deviate into another issue. I spent hours putting my case together and it was not required on the day.Apart from my copy of my statement of truth and the wasted costs order. Just to give you an idea ..........length of hearing 10 mins. I'll deal with the default after I get the cheque from Cl finance as the DJ did say that they might resurrect the case. However, they will have to explain in detail why they didn't attend today and what documents they may have to support their case. Cheers Pj41

Hi Claire L, I'm sure they will if I ask as they have said to contact them at the end of November if I need more time. It's just fantastic that people on here know what the procedures and rules are so I (and others) can approach these companies with some knowledge of what they can and can't do. Thanks again Pj 41

Hi All, Well Attended court today and guess what? Cl finance didn't show up. The DJ struck the case out after a few very basic questions. "You've asked for some further information? (CCA request).Yes Had a response? NO Have you paid money to CL finance. NO This has been draging on since February 08 YES You know what I'm going to strike this case out. Did it cost you anything to attend today? I replied, have you a copy of my statement of Truth sir? No. I don't appear to have that. I gave him a copy, complete with a wasted costs order for his consideration. £475 (Thanks Fuzzybobble) After a few second he said and did it cost you anything to attend today? Only petrol sir, You know I'm goimg to award you £500. Thank you sir. Good-by Good-by sir and Thank you Good-by A result I recon Thanks everyone. Pj41 ps: Donation on it's way

Hi Clare L, After some discussions with eon (to be fair they have been very good in dealing with this) My revised bill came out as almost £1200. However, as per the billing code, they have credited the account to the tune of £935 leaving a balance of approx £245 and I suggested 3 months to pay it off which has been agreed. Along with a further two months if the nest bill due in November is bigger than anticipated. Thanks again Pj41

Hi Clare L, Just googgled it and found it, so no need to reply. Thanks again Pj41

Hi Clare L, Thanks for your post. Do you know where I can find the billing code so I can read it before I make contact with e-on? Thanks again Pj41

Hi all, I have lived at the same property for about 10 years and for the last nine had powergen/e-on supply both gas and electric. I get e-bills for both accounts. A while ago I was contacted by phone as I had forgot to pay the gas bill. During the conversation I was asked for a meter reading to bring us up to date. This is where something didn't add up my reading was about 16440 units and I told the bloke this reading. He said no that cant be right I'll put 1644 units and my bill was £135 or so I paid it and thought no more of it. Over the last week e-on have left messages and e-mailed me asking for my meter number and a meter reading. A bit strange I thought so I've logged in and looked at my bills from July 07 to date all estimated apart from the number i gave and was changed by their man. I've looked at my meter again and its now 17294 units the latest estimated reading on my last bill was 2003 units. That's a huge difference! I've managed to find a bill (and this is where the problem is) dated 13th May 05 states previous reading 10232 E Present reading 232 E (10,000 units missed off) total charge £0. As I was paying monthly direct debit balance brought forward £12.78 Payments £115 New balance £127.78 cr. As I paid by monthly direct debit I treated thes bills as statements really and didn't pay much attention to them. Sorry for the long post but.... What the heck do I do now? As I've quickly calculated that I've used 79,178 kwh that I've never been billed for. Thanks in anticipation as I'm a bit worried. Pj41

Thanks for that guys, Thier POC states CCA 1974 so I would bring that to the attention of the DJ if they start spouting on about CCA 2006. Nevertheless I'll hunt the site for the details just to be safe. Thanks again Pj41

Hi Slick, Thanks for that. ' Suppose all I can do is give it my best shot on the day! thanks again Pj41

Hi All, Ok after a bit of cutting and pasting and removing personal information I defended like this. In The Northampton County Court Claim Number : xxxxxxxxx Between C L Finance Ltd- Claimant and PJ41 - Defendant Defence 1. I PJ41 am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my defence to the claim made by CL Finance Ltd 2. The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present, inter alia: - 3. The claimants' particulars of claims disclose no legal cause of action and they are embarrassing to the defendant as the claimant's statement of case is insufficiently particularised and does not comply or even attempt to comply with CPR part 16. In this regard I wish to draw the courts attention to the following matters; a) The Particulars of Claim are vague and insufficient and do not disclose an adequate statement of facts relating to or proceeding the alleged cause of action. No particulars are offered in relation to the nature of the written agreement referred to, the method the claimant calculated any outstanding sums due, or any default notices issued or any other matters necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim. b) A copy of the purported written agreement that the claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form. c) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form. 4. Consequently, I deny all allegations on the particulars of claim and put the claimant to strict proof thereof 5. In respect of that which is denied, on 22/06/2007 I requested that HSBC provide a true copy of the executed credit agreement, which they claimed exists between those parties pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569) sets out that the claimant must comply with such request in 12 working days of receipt of such request. Copies of the letter attached marked Exhibit PJ41 01. HSBC replied by letter on 31st August 07 confirming it was not possible to locate the agreement. Under the Act that the information was requested HSBC remain in default and I believe have committed a criminal offence as, to date, no documents requested have been delivered to me. 6. Section 78 (6) consumer Credit Act 1974 sets out the consequences of failure to comply with such request and states s78 (6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)- (a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and (b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence. 7. It is drawn to the courts attention that the claimant has failed to comply with my request and is in clear default of its obligations under s78 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and it is averred that the claimant has no right of action until such time as the default is remedied and the true copy of the executed agreement is produced before the defendant containing the prescribed terms under Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and signed in the prescribed manner by the debtor and creditor 8. Therefore since the documents have not been supplied as requested pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 I draw to the courts attention that this case should not be brought before the court as facts stand an Act of Parliament, in this case the Consumer Credit Act 1974, plainly enacted to protect the Consumer precludes a creditor bringing an action before the court where they have themselves failed to discharge their obligations under the Act. Therefore I suggest that the only just action that can be taken is the claimants case be struck out forthwith The Request for Disclosure 9. Further to the case, on 15/02/2008 I requested the disclosure of information pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules, which is vital to this case from the claimant. The information requested amounted to copies of the Credit Agreement referred to in the particulars of claim and any default or termination notices, a transcript of all transactions, including charges, fees, interest, alleged repayments by myself and payments made by the original creditor. Also any other documents the Claimant seeks to rely on, including any default notices or termination notice, and a copy of the Notice of Assignment required to give the claimant a legitimate right of action. 10. The Claimant responded to my request under the CPR suggesting that they are not obliged to provide this information. As a result it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested, especially given that I am Litigant in Person (a copy of the request and reply is attached to this Defence marked Exibit PJ41 02 & 03) 11. In respect of that which is denied, on 3/03/2008 I requested that CL Finance provide a true copy of the executed credit agreement, which they claimed exists between those parties pursuant to section 78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1569) sets out that the claimant must comply with such request in 12 working days of receipt of such request. Copies of the letter and proof of delivery attached marked Exhibit PJ41 04 & 05. It is envisaged that the Claimant will not be able to supply any such documentation as HSBC have previously confirmed that it does not exist. The importance of a copy of the credit agreement and its production before the court 12. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts 13. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) 14. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, A term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and A term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following-- 1. Number of repayments; 2. Amount of repayments; 3. Frequency and timing of repayments; 4. Dates of repayments; 5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable 15. It is submitted that if the credit agreement supplied falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) in so far that the prescribed terms are not contained within the agreement then the court is precluded from enforcing the agreement. The prescribed terms must be with the agreement for it to be compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974. In addition there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the prescribed terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document 16. I refer to the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299 "[11] Schedule 1 to the 1983 Regulations sets out the "information to be contained in documents embodying regulated consumer credit agreements". Some of this information mirrors the terms prescribed by Sch 6, but some does not. Contrasting the provisions of the two schedules the Judge said: "33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1." 17. If the agreement does not contain these terms in the prescribed manner it does not comply with section 60(1) CCA 1974, the consequences of which means it is improperly executed and only enforceable by court order 18. Notwithstanding point 17, The agreement must be signed in the prescribed manner to comply with s61 (1) CCA 1974, if the agreement is not signed by debtor or creditor it is also improperly executed and again only enforceable by court order 19. Therefore the claimant must provide a copy of the agreement compliant with the regulations as laid out in points 12 to 18 of this defence to have any right of enforcement. I note that the claimant should also have provided this documentation prior to bringing this action and it is requested that the claimants case be dismissed until such time as they comply with the S78(1) request made on 03/03/2008 as laid out in point 5,6 7& 8 The courts power of enforcement 20. The courts powers of enforcement where agreements are improperly executed by way of section 65 CCA 1974 are themselves subject to certain qualifying factors. Under section 127 (3) Consumer Credit Act 1974 the requirements are laid out clearly what is required for the court to be able to enforce the agreement where section 65(1) has not been complied with 127(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a)(signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner). 21. Further more the courts attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- FCT [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the consumer credit act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced 22. With regards to the Authority cited in point 16, I refer to LORD NICHOLLS OF BIRKENHEAD in the House of Lords Wilson v First County Trust Ltd - [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) 28.........I should outline the salient provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Subject to exemptions, a regulated agreement is an agreement between an individual debtor and another person by which the latter provides the former with a cash loan or other financial accommodation not exceeding a specified amount. Currently the amount is £25,000. Section 61(1) sets out conditions which must be satisfied if a regulated agreement is to be treated as properly executed. One of these conditions, in paragraph (a), is that the agreement must be in a prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms. The prescribed terms are the amount of the credit or the credit limit, rate of interest (in some cases), how the borrower is to discharge his obligations, and any power the creditor may have to vary what is payable: Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, Schedule 6. The consequence of improper execution is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor save by an order of the court: section 65(1). Section 127(1) provides what is to happen on an application for an enforcement order under section 65. The court 'shall dismiss' the application if, but only if, the court considers it just to do so having regard to the prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question and the degree of culpability for it. The court may reduce the amount payable by the debtor so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention, or impose conditions, or suspend the operation of any term of the order or make consequential changes in the agreement or security. 29. The court's powers under section 127(1) are subject to significant qualification in two types of cases. The first type is where section 61(1)(a), regarding signing of agreements, is not complied with. In such cases the court 'shall not make' an enforcement order unless a document, whether or not in the prescribed form, containing all the prescribed terms, was signed by the debtor: section 127(3). Thus, signature of a document containing all the prescribed terms is an essential prerequisite to the court's power to make an enforcement order. The second type of case concerns failure to comply with the duty to supply a copy of an executed or unexecuted agreement pursuant to sections 62 and 63, or failure to comply with the duty to give notice of cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(1). Here again, subject to one exception regarding sections 62 and 63, section 127(4) precludes the court from making an enforcement order. 30. These restrictions on enforcement of a regulated agreement cannot be sidestepped..... And further more 36. In the present case the essence of the complaint is that section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act has the effect that a Regulated agreement is not enforceable unless a document containing all the prescribed terms is signed by the debtor 49. ".............The message to be gleaned from sections 65, 106, 113 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act is that where a court dismisses an application for an enforcement order under section 65 the lender is intended by Parliament to be left without recourse against the borrower in respect of the loan. That being the consequence intended by Parliament, the lender cannot assert at common law that the borrower has been unjustly enriched. 50. This interpretation of the Consumer Credit Act accords with the approach adopted by the House in Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd [1978] AC 95, regarding section 6 of the Moneylenders Act 1927 and, more recently, in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, another case where section 127(3) precluded the making of an enforcement order. In Dimond's case the restitutionary remedy sought was payment of the hire charge for a replacement car used by Mrs Dimond. The House rejected a claim advanced on the basis of unjust enrichment. Lord Hoffmann observed that Parliament contemplated that a debtor might be enriched consequential upon non-enforcement of an agreement pursuant to the statutory provisions. It was not open to the court to say this consequence is unjust and should be reversed by a remedy at common law: [2002] 1 AC 384, 397-398. 23. Since the judgment of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead clearly sets out that without a credit agreement the claimant's case cannot succeed 24. Therefore I respectfully request that if the court does not dismiss the claimants case as laid out in point 19, that the court order the claimant to produce the original signed agreement before the court to show the form and content of it and that it complies with the regulations referred to in this defence, otherwise the courts powers of enforcement are surely limited in these circumstances 25. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement as unenforceable. Conclusion 26. The claimant's case cannot succeed as matters stand. It is averred that the claimant and its representatives have acted unreasonably when dealing with this dispute. HSBC transferred the alleged debt to CL Finance while the account was subject to a dispute, which is a clear contravention of the Office of Fair Trading Guidelines on Debt collection. 29. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the claimants case pursuant to part 3.4 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court - (a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending (b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or © That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order. 27. Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines I believe the Claimant's conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. Furthermore, the Claimant's behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable. 28. Should the court disagree with the suggestion to strike out the claimants case for the grounds set out. I respectfully request that the court allow me to amend my defence if the claimant produces the requested documentation and I am given sufficient time to inspect the documentation. 29. However, considering the ongoing defaults by HSBC and CL Finance in respect of my requests for a true copy of the alleged agreement all as detailed above I respectfully deduce that non compliance is a complete defence. Statement of Truth I PJ41 believe the above statement to be true and factual Signed : Date :

Hi Slick132, The POC reads as follows:- The claimants claim is for the sum of xxxxx being monies due from the defendant to the claimant under a regulated credit agreement between the defendant and \hsbc bank plc under reference xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and assigned to the claimant on 28th september 2007 notice of which has been given to the defendant The defendant has failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the agreement and a default notice has been served upon the defendant pursuant to section 87(1) of the consumer credit act 1974. The claimant claims the sum of xxxxxxxx Cheers Pj I'll post my defence later on

Hi Fuzzybobble, Thats what I dont understand the District Judge has called an allocation / directions hearing. Despite knowing that there is no CCA Cheers Pj41 ps I Like the idea of costs.

Thanks fuzzybobble. I have everthing, HSBC's letter stating they have no Agreement. Sent to the court with my 11 page defence. I now have also a letter from CL finance stating that they dont have the CCA agreement either but they will prove the debt "using the rules of evidence". Also interestingly, there is no default on my credit file from HSBC but there is one dated 2006 from CL Finance some 2 years before their first letter to me. That I would say is a bit unfair. Cheers Pj41

Hi all, Thanks Bankfodder, I knew it was two "thread types" in the one question. I was hoping you'd sort it out lol. Cheers pj41

Hi All, I have been sat here reading various threads for most of the day and now could do with some help. The situation is this ; I have had a run in with HSBC to the extent that after a CCA request for a copy of the agreement they defulted, wrote back and said it didn't matter that they had no agreement and they would default me and take legal action etc. About a week later I received a letter from Cl Finance saying they had been assigned the (alleged) debt. They didn't write alleged lol. They have issued court proceedings and I have filed a defence based on information gleaned from various threads on this site. (I've done this all before and the other creditor discontinued). I've recieved a letter from the court informing me of a directions/allocation hearing 1st Oct 08 (whats that all about?) No document no case I thought? Anyhow, also on reveiving my credit file CL finance have filed a default dated 2006. They, Cl finance, will be relying (according to one of their letters on the rules of evidence as used in these circumstances) to prove their case. Is the default placed on my file lawful? Can I have it removed as the account is going to court? And what the heck do I need to do for an directions/allocation hearing? Any help greatly appreciated and a donation is on it's way. pj41 (

Hi All, I have had a car insurace policy with Kwik fit for the last 4 years or so on the same car and now have about 9 years no claims discount. Recently I purchased another car and rang them for a quote on the new car. I'm Keeping the original car and policy. I went through all the questions and was quoted a figure and paid for the years insurance in one go. One of the questions being "how many years no claims do you have?" (answer above). Two weeks later I receive a letter from kwik fit asking me to forward them documentation demonstrating my mime years no claims. I wrote back and said My other policy is with you etc and the advisor on phone went through this. Got another letter asking for same information so wrote back generally complaining that they didn't seem to now what they were doing and sort it out amongst yourselves etc. Had a phone call from complaints dept advising that no claims discount applies to ONE car/ONE policy at a time and they want to zero my discount down and charge me the difference. I advised it was their error, to which they admitted it was their mistake and would pay for any additional costs incurred from the insurance company. during the conversation I did say that I may be selling the original car during the summer at my pace, if i feel like it. Had a phone call tonight informing me that the insurace company will hold the original policy as valid for 60 days max by which time I must either sell the original car or pay the increased premium on the new car with zero no claims discount. question : is this right? do no claims discounts apply to a policy and a vehicle. I would have thought that a driver/owner would make a claim not the car. Thoughts and comments most appreciated. Cheers pj41

No chance of finding my CCA either then only been waiting six months. It's a crying shame .

Hi Jeffo, Just poppped in to see whats been happening. Quite a lot by the looks of things so far. I hope you dont mind the suggestion, but as letters start to go out from you and proof of posting slips and CAB meetings and Council replies etc it will be of benefit to you to start a file or diary (make and file hard copies of everything you've sent out and file what's received back) so eveything is in a date order from each "company" for easy reference and if you computer dies you still have all the info you may need. I have dealt with 13 creditors over the last two years or so, which got a bit hectic and I couldn't remember who I had written what to now everyone of them (regardless of what tactics they use) accept that I know what i'm talking about and we have reached a state of calm lol. Quite simply if you follow the advice from all the posts and read up on what your dealing with (i've been to court twice) it's VERY empowering when they back down and accept reason. Hope this helps Best regard Paul

Hi there, It seems to me that this company has a link with a financial lending house (loan company). Just reading between the lines. I would write to their client as they suggest (copy to DCA) and demand that they and the previous supplier sort out who owes what to who and leave you out of that equation. Threaten to report both suppliers to the relevant ombudman. Just my input hope it helps Cheers Paul Ps if you've had a refund then yes speak to your new supplier and agree a monthly figure plus a figure towards what you already owe them.