To identify which securitisation in which your mortgage was most likely to have been securitised, first look at the listings against the various SPML securitisation. It is most likely that the securitisation that occurred immediately after the date on which you took out your mortgage, will be the securitisation in which your mortgage was securitised. As a general rule of thumb, your mortgage will have been securitised within 3 months of the date on which you signed up your mortgage. Once you have identified which listings you are interested in, then you have to actually go to the FSA in Canary Wharf, London. (They don't make it easy, but it's worth it). When you arrive at the building, the FSA have public access computers (which are located just behind the reception desk). You check in at reception and then they let you onto the public access computer system. Then you search for the listing that you are interested in. All documents that have been filed against that listing will be available to you including the Prospectus. Note that I use the generic term 'Prospectus' which is what it is, but you will often find it called things like 'Note Programme Memorandum' or 'Note Issue Supplement' or 'Offering Circular' these are all Prospectuses. It is a document (i.e. Prospectus) that tells the investors what the deal is. You can print out the lot. It takes time to uncover the rot, but the point is, that the information is available to you. It may not be feasible for you to go to London, so in the meantime as an alternative, find out the company names that you are interested in and just google them. You'll probably turn up quite a bit of information that way. Also, google Lehman brother's. There'll be loads of press announcements which say things like "Lehman announces £1.5 Billion asset backed securities issues" or "Lehmans launches £600 million Residential Mortgage Backed Securities" or SPML sells Mortgage Book to so-and so". Look out for the 'Deal' announcements in the financial press around the 3-month period after you took out your mortgage. The press release will give you clues, or let you know who is involved in the securitisation. Good luck supersleuthing...

Hi Midge61, You're right...and did you notice that the 'Type' of business is listed at Companies House as 'Other financial intermediation'. Which means it's a middle man. It's not in the mortgage business. It is an intermediator. The accounts that were filed to year end 2006, will still give you the flavour of how they are abusing the borrowers. They'll most likely have boasted and bigged themselves up about how much money their striping off the borrowers. My mortgage is not with SPML, but I have done a lot of research into this issue and the basic abuses perpetrated against mortgage borrowers is generally the same whoever is behind the securitisation. I was definitely being overcharged. That is, being charged interest over and above my legal contractual obligations and the upshot is: they dictate - you pay, or else you get repossessed. It matter not to them, that they are not entitled to the payments they are asking for. The point to them is - you signed, and as such, you are their financial slave. I'm fighting, but in order to fight it, you've got to know who it is that really driving the show. It's not necessarily the person from whom you get your letters. Your mortgage has been - mortgaged - the entity that mortgaged your mortgage, together with the entity that owns the mortgage on your mortgage, are the entities that are really behind your mortgage. This may all sound complicated, but it really isn't. It just seems complicated because hitherto, everything has been concealed from you. So shead some light on what's really going on with your mortgage and shed some light on who really owns it, and shed the light on what they've done with your mortgage, then all will be revealed. It's very easy. It's nothing more complicated than plain old greed for money.

To all you SPML mortgage borrowers Just to let you know that SPML is the special purpose vehicle company (SPV) behind Lehman Brothers investment bank. As you probably know Lehman's went belly up a few months ago. The real drive behind the excessive interest rates and the problems you are facing, most likely has more to do with the Lehman Brothers securitisation of your mortgages. Because the SPV has to suck in all the cash it can (which you guys have to stomp up) to pay for the liquidation. The SPV investors want their cash now. That's why the pressure is on you. These securitisation companies are now in the repossession business (as contrasted with the mortgage business). Thus, they will force you into 'alleged' arrears through excessive charges and then repossess your home. The public need to get wised up to what has really happened to their mortgages and need to understand that what's happening is the result of your mortgages having been securitised. You will find that SPML is nothing more than a shell company that holds the assets, i.e. your mortgage contracts which is the assets. SPML most likely has no employees and the director's of SPML are most likely just companies, rather than an real person. You can find out exactly who SPML are through the Companies House web-site. SPML will probably have contracted with a company to do the administration of your mortgages. So whilst you are led to believe that you are receiving letters from SPML, the author of those letters is more likely to be another company that administrates the mortgages on behalf of SPML. If you really want to know what has happened to your mortgages, and what is really going on behind the scenes, the way to find out is to go to the FSA where the UK Listing Authority public records are held. Get the Prospectus which covers the securitisation of your mortgage. You will then find out exactly what has happened to your mortgages, and just how many financial institutions are really grabbing cash off you. You will be astonished. For those of you who are interested, the following is a basic outline of a general securitisation structure:

Hi Nigel, I think you need to read and understand what was ordered in the Order dated 25 September 2007 so that you can understand the order dated 28 November 2008. So first thing is to check the court order dated 25 Sept 2007. It kind of appears that the Nov 08 order is making the Sept 07 order final. double check this out with the court. You must check it out quickly and understand what the court is ordering because if you want to appeal, you have to do it quick. Additionally, phone the court and ask them what' it all about.

The FSA regulations state that a mortgage lender has to treat its customers fairly. It's the TCF principle (for what its worth!!). Thus, Oakwood cannot discriminate against borrowers and charge some of its borrowers more than others. It is not a question of whose T&C's are being applied. Oakwood have taken an assignment of GMAC's contract with you. Whatever GMAC could do to you, so too can Oakwood because at law, Oakwood are deemed to be GMAC for the purposes of your T&C's. The GMAC T&C state that if the mortgage is assigned/transferred, then the new lender will have the right to set the SVR. Thus, whatever rate Oakwood has set as its SVR, that is the rate that it should charge ALL its borrowers including YOU. This is in compliance with, and consistent with, your GMAC T&C's. Because, once GMAC assigned its right to set the interest rate, the GMAC SVR does not apply (but see below for the rising interest rate exception). Thus, under your GMAC T&C's and under the FSA regulations, your SVR should be 4.9% because, Oakwood have set its SVR at 4.9%. To be clear and to iterate -This does not mean that your T&Cs have changed. It means that under YOUR GMAC T&C's, that GMAC have exercised its right to assign its contractual rights and powers to Oakwood. Included in the rights and powers that GMAC assigned to Oakwood, Oakwood assumed GMACs powers and rights to set and determine YOUR SVR. Oakwood have set its SVR at 4.9%. Thus whatever SVR Oakwood set, is the rate that you should be charged. Consequently, Oakwood cannot be heard to say that your contract is governed by the GMAC SVR, just because the GMAC SVRs are at the moment higher and it suits them to charge you more than their other customers. If Oakwood charge you more than the 4.9%, then be sure, that Oakwood are overcharging you. These lenders cut their cloth to suit themselves all the time. When interest rates are falling they look to the GMAC rates and charge you the higher rate, but look at what happens when the interest rates were rising:- The flip side to this argument. It is when the new lender wants to charge more than the GMAC SVR. When interest rates are rising, the new lenders usually overcharges its GMAC borrowers over and above the GMAC SVR. At present, I have a mortgage that charges MORE than the GMAC SVR namely, Basinghall Finance plc. My argument is: that GMAC can only assign the contractual rights that it actually possesses. As GMAC was contractually bound to charge no more than its SVR, then a new lender cannot charge MORE THAN that which GMAC could contractually charge. Which means that a new lender cannot set the interest rate to charge MORE than GMAC's SVR, but as the new lender has the right to set the interest rate, there is no reason why that interest rate cannot be set at LESS THAN the GMAC SVR. The upshot is at law, you are in what's called 'privity' of contract with Oakwood. It is the GMAC T&C's that are applicable to your account. Oakwood step into the shoes of GMAC. Whatever GMAC can and cannot do under the contract now goes for Oakwood. In summary, GMAC contracts that have been assigned and securitised (which your mortgage 99% likely has been securitised), are always being overcharged in one way or another. In your case you will be overcharged because the new lender looks to GMAC's SVR (which is higher) and makes you believe that that is the rate you should pay, BUT when interest rates are rising, the lender will charge you more than GMAC and tell you that the T&C's give them power and liberty to charge you over the GMAC rate. They take their cake and eat it. If you've followed this, the upshot is: you are being overcharged. There is a breach of your GMAC T&C's and a breach of the FSA's treating customers fairly. I've just checked the GMAC site, its SVR today is 5.75%. You truly are being overcharged to the tune of 0.85%. Fight on for the 4.9%.

Hi You may have a chance. Bona is completely correct regarding the 12 year statute on limitations, regarding the mortgage deed, but this is a TRUST case. The Deed could be said to be extinguished when the bank sold the property and were paid in full. That is, the executory contract under the deed was fully completed and ended once the bank were paid in full. However, the deed did not entitle the bank to monies over and above what the deed provided for, i.e. repayment of the loan. Thus the excess of the sale proceeds are TRUST MONIES that the bank holds on TRUST for the beneficiary (i.e. the legal owner to whom they should have paid the excess proceeds) Thus, when the bank exercise its power of sale, the excess of the proceeds of the sale are held on TRUST. The bank is a fiduciary and trustee to the legal owners and have a duty under Trust Law to pass the proceeds to the owner. Until such time that the proceeds of the sale are passed to the owner, the bank holds the excess proceeds on TRUST for the benefit of the legal owners. Also, whilst the bank holds those funds on TRUST for the legal owners, the bank as a fiduciary has to look after the TRUST fund under a trustee's duty of care, which means, the legal owner should get interest too. As for the Land Registry file being "missing", they have to find it. If not, then you could consider a claim under their statutory indemnity. They'll soon find it. I find it hard to believe that the LR would 'loose' such files. It may have just been one lazy clerk saying that to get rid of your call. So do your enquiries at LR by letter. They won't tell you in a letter that they've "lost" files. Get the file, in particular the TR1 and find out who transferred the title to the new owners (i.e. who signed the TR1). The person/company who signed the transfer would have probably been acting as 'agent' for the bank and exercising the bank's power of sale. Then you can piece it together from there. Good luck, whatever you decide to do.

Hi, Just want to share some thoughts with you on your 'legal costs' question. If you check the terms of the mortgage it will say that the mortgagee bank are entitled to REASONABLE COSTS. The reasonable cost that they are entitled to is the actual amount that the solicitor actually charges them. i.e. a reimbursement of their costs only and only if the charges incurred were REASONABLE. I have recently had sight of a document that indicates that the solicitors who work repossessions cases usually work on a fixed fee basis. In the document that I saw, the fixed fee charged by the solicitor to the mortgagee bank in that case was £350. It is highly likely that the fee your bank paid to its solicitor was a fixed fee (and it is also highly unlikely that the fee was anything like £800). This is yet another example of bank overcharges. The court order against you for costs (if there is one) - is only an order to pay the actual (and reasonable) legal costs that the bank legitimately incurred. Alternatively, if there is no court order for costs and if the bank are charging under their alleged 'contractual rights', then the same principle applies. Therefore, you can ask to see a copy of the actual solicitor invoice that you are being asked to pay. After all, as you are being asked to reimburse their costs, you are entitled to see the actual invoice of their alleged 'costs'. And/or, (if there is a court order for costs) you have the right to, and can ask, to have their alleged 'legal costs' "TAXED", if you do not agree with the costs. There are special courts that deal with arguments over the legal costs. Hope this helps

Hi A thought worth bearing in mind regarding the fact that a second Judge overturned your Order of £15,000 against Redstone. The 2nd Judge deprived you of the benefit of your £15,000 order whilst at the same time benefitting Redstone from its legal duty to comply with the first court order. A court order is FINAL unless it is appeal (through the appeals procedure). Two observations: First, was the lst order overturned/varied by the second judge as a result of an appeal application? There are strict time rules for appeals. If Redstone did not appeal the order of the first Judge granting you £15,000 then the 1st Order stands. The second Judge does not have the discretionary judicial powers that would to allow Redstone to circumvent the appeals procedure. What judicial powers was the second judge purporting to exercise when he overruled the Order of the 1st Judge? Second, was the second Judge who overturned the lst order a Judge of higher rank in the Judiciary. If the second Judge was of the same level - then the second Judge HAS NO JURISDICTION to overturn the original Order! Keep on going - and never be ready to give up

Hi NottGuy, It's good to hear from you as I firmly believe that everyone with a Bashinghall mortgage is being illegally overcharged. The Terms and Conditions that were in force when I first was involved with GMAC in September 2003 were the GMAC Mortgage Conditions 2000. In that T&C section 13.3 it specifically states that you will be bound to a transferee or assignee TO LIKE EXTENT AND IN LIKE MANNER that you would be bound to GMAC. This means (in my view) that when your mortgage changes to the SVR rate, an assignee cannot charge you more than GMAC could charge you. An assignee cannot unilaterally increase the other party's obligations under the contract (i.e. your obligations) without your expressed and written consent. Therefore, it is my view that Bashinghall (as I call them) cannot charge you a SVR in excess of that which GMAC could charge you. In other words, the LIKE EXTENT and LIKE MANNER to which you are obligated to Bashinghall as an assignee is the extent to which GMAC could charge you - which means - you are obligated to pay no more than GMACs SVR. Bashinghall insist however on quoting section 13.4 which they vigorously assert gives them the "liberty" (their word) and power to charge what the hell they like. In my case, I went right back to the start of my account and re-caluculated on an excel spread sheet what I should have been charged using GMACs SVR. The overcharges are substantial. So my repossession litigation is being fought on the basis that there are no arrears according to my calculations and that they are in breach of contract for their overcharging. I have also raised a question of law with the court as to whether GMAC and myself have a valid contract at law - and if I am correct, it may mean that Bashinghall will have no contract to enforce against me in any event. I do not yet know how the court will decide. But I am determined to stop Bashinghall extorting more than they are contractually entitled to (that's assuming they can prove they have a valid contract that was legally and validly assigned). Also, I am very interested to find out what you mean by 'higher SVR'. I had written to Bashinghall asking them to provide me with their published SVRs. They will only tell me the SVR that they are charging me and state that the do not "publish" their SVRs. If they have a 'higher SVR' and an 'SVR' then there may be other SVRs that they charge (doesn't sound very 'standard' to me!). They must have different levels of SVRs and charge their customers according to what they can get away with. It indicates that they are not treating their customers fairly and consistently as required under the FSA Mortgage Code of Business rules. Have you taken up the overcharge issue with Bashinghall yet? I would be very interested to see if they use the same tactic. Keep in touch and let me know how you get on. Supersleuth

Hi there, Is the mortgage really still with GMAC - or has GMAC 'securitised' the mortgage. Usually, GMAC just originate the loan and then they sell it on to another finance company. In my case, my GMAC loan was sold to North Yorkshire Mortgages Limited - who then sold it to Basinghall Finance plc. My suggestion to you is that you read the terms and conditions. GMAC mortgages are usually paid in ADVANCE. Which means - you have to give them the payment on the 1st of the month, BUT the payment is not actually DUE until the last day of the month. Therefore, you need to miss two payments, before you can be ONE month in arrears. Check it out! Check out the FSA website and look at the FSA handbook. There is a MCOB (Mortgage Code of Business) which GMAC HAVE TO COMPLY WITH - irrespective of what the contract states. GMAC have to help whether they like it or not and if your chap makes a reasonable offer then GMAC have to take it!!! Respossession is a last resort. Check out the FSA handbook and the MCOB and then you'll know some of your rights. If GMAC do take repossession proceedings, it would be better for you lived there. It is more easy for GMAC to get repossession if the place is already vacant. Let me know how you get on. And do please let me know if the mortgage was sold to another finance company. Good luck.

Hi Ell-enn, Thanks for the tip about Bona. I'd also be interested in anything Bona can offer regarding GMAC so will keep an eye out for a posting. Hopefully we'll work out how to take on GMAC. Keep your spirits up pipefitterplumber, there may be some hope and good tips out there! Supersleuth

Hi there Mister pipefitterplumber Sounds to me like you've gone out of the frying pan into the fire. From some of the stories on this site, Kensington seem to be as ruthless as GMAC. And the costs you've incurred seem really heavy. Would like to encourage you to have a go at it, but you may have an uphill struggle and whilst you may get an out of court settlement, you must be prepared to go the whole hog if you start. Chances are, that GMAC won't make it easy for you so you need to make a determined decision that you will be prepared to take court action. There's some excellent sucess stories on this site. Have a read of the tread subject heading "Penfold v Amber Home Loans. That lady has posted her particulars of claim, which you could use as a starting point and adapt it to the particular facts of your claim. See also the library which is a great resource. If you had a discount on your mortgage during the first two years, calculate what the mortgage payments would have been without the discount and if then, if the extra payments amount to less that 5K, that could be argued to be the correct liquidated damages and anything over that amount could be argued to be a penalty. However, check to see if anyone else on this site has had any success with ERC charges refund. This site has plently of excellent suggestions and template letters. Read and study as much as possible to gain the confidence to fight for your justice...and if, or when, you're ready...go for it. In conclusion, I think it's unlikely that GMAC will take any notice of requests for refunds unless they're under threat of a court action they think you might win. Good luck Supersleuth

Dear Redjax, If you have written receipts from the Woolwich acknowledging payment of the mortgage, then it may be the case that you have, what is legally known as "good receipt". Plus, it is possible that the Barclays could be "estopped" from arguing that you now have mortgage arrears and/or denying your good receipt. Essentially it seems to me that Barclays are the ones who are suggesting that the Woolwich did not get the payments. When Barclays bought the Woolwich the bought the assets as well as the liabilities. Therefore, in principle, Barclays cannot be said to deny the "good receipt" that the Woolwich gave you. I find your experience interesting as I had a letter from Norwich Union suggesting that another person had been paying my insurance by DD. It casts asperisons which imply that you had done something wrong thus making you feel unnecessarity guilty and fearful of not being able to prove your innocence, whereas in fact, the banks have made the mistake and avoid taking responsibility for their own mistakes. In my case I did not even have a policy with Norwich Union, having not renewed the policy. When I enquired as to why they "thought" I had a policy, it transpired that Abbey had apparently arranged the policy. Therefore, you are not alone with this new ploy of the banks suggesting that another account has paid your bill. Ask them for details/name of the account that they are suggesting paid your mortgage. Bet they give you the Data Protection line. On this point, I suggest you do a Data Protection letter to them to get copies of all the documents. There are plently of sample letters on this site. Hope this gives you a few more positive pointers to think about. Don't crumble - fight back.

Totally agree with you all. I was told a hearing was "cancelled". I decided to check for myself by attending the court only to find out that it was not cancelled at all. What they call "cancelled" is the bank solicitor send a letter to the court asking for the hearing to be "adjourned with leave to reinstate" (or words to that effect). Thus the case is not "cancelled" in the terms that we understand to mean "cancelled". So do consider turning up at court to protect your interests or you will miss your chance of defending yourself and getting the protection and judgement that you want.

Hi Bona, I am currently at loggerheads re my GMAC mortgage. In my case, GMAC appears to have sold my mortgage to North Yorkshire Mortgages Limited, who then sold it to Basinghall Finance plc. The main facts of my case with Basinghall is (1) Basinghall acquired my mortgage from GMAC, (2) under my GMAC mortgage I am contractually bound to pay GMAC's Standard Variable Rate, (3) Basinghall have consistently charged in excess of GMAC's standard variable rate...and therefore... my argument is that Basinghall are overcharging and have no contractual entitlement to demand payments in excess of GMAC's standard variable rate. Basinghall are seeking repossession of my home on the grounds that I (alledgely) have mortgage arrears. Such alleged mortgage arrears in fact, comprise of the interest that they have charged in excess of GMAC's standard variable rate. Do you have a similar situation with GMAC? Have you checked the rate GMAC charge you against GMAC's published Standard Variable Rate? (which is currently 7.24% and should go down to 6.99% on or around 1 May 2008). As most mortgages have been "securitised", there may be alot of people who are being overcharged on their mortgages. If your mortgage company has changed from your original lender, it is likely that your mortgage was securitised and therefore more likely that you are being overcharged. This, I believe is a major issue affecting millions of homebuyers. Therefore, I'd be interested in hearing from any one who has had their mortgage lender change from the original lender to ascertain he extent of mortgage lender abuse and their overcharging. Supersleuth

Hi Worried Girl, The first two companies (who are Abbey and MBNA same company but different names) offered it to me, however, I know that other companies must do the same. This is because the the letter offering me the deal suggested that I ask the other companies for the same deal. The discussion arose when I spoke to one of the managers at Abbey to vigorously complain about their abusive telephone calls. They had harrassed my retired mother and upset her with repeated calls such that we had to make a complaint to the local police. However, I don't think you need to have suffered harrassment in order to do a settlement deal with them. So, I have written to the other credit card companies requesting that they settle in the same manner. Here is a copy of the letter. If anyone out there can offer other precedent letters that make the point stronger, please post an alternative suggested letter. Here's my version of the letter: After speaking with your customer services personnel, I have been advised to write to you with respect to my account. At present, I am unemployed with no income and therefore unable to meet the monthly payments. I have secured an arrangement with two of my other credit card companies whereby, they have offered to accept a full and final settlement of 40% of the total balance outstanding. The full and final payment of the 40% of the balance outstanding is agreed on the terms that: (1) certain minimum payments are received for each of the next five months; and (2) that the full and final settlement of the 40% of the balance amount is made by the sixth month. Consequently, in order deal with all of my creditors in total, please send by return, the terms of such similar arrangement that your company will accept. As mentioned, I've yet to her back from the my other two credit card companies. Nonetheless, I send them letters frequently, enclosing a copy of this original letter and inviting them to reply. Good luck - no worries Supersleuth

Hi guys, Here's a few pointers that you may like to consider. 1. GMAC's mortgages generally provide that the mortgage payment is made in ADVANCE. Therefore the payment that you make on the first day of the month is not actually due to be paid until the last day of that same month. To confirm, the payment you make on e.g. 1 April, 2008 is not actually due until 30th April, 2008. Therefore you actually have to miss at least 3 payments in order to be 2 months in arrears. Do you follow? See your T&C's and especially the Special Conditions (item 15) that were attached to the mortgage offer. 2. As your sister has now only £800 in arrears, it is unlikely that she is 2 months in arrears (particularly as she may be paying her mortgage in advance anyway) and therefore, she could argue that GMAC do not have the right at law to be granted the relief (possession) that they are seeking from the court. 3. At the very least, your sister may be able to ask for an adjournment. The Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 36, the court can exercise discretion as to the order it gives. She might be able to ask the court to adjourn the hearing on the ground that she will have cleared the arrears by a certain time (and tell the court when she will have the arrears cleared). See para.2(a) of section 36. You can get the text of the act on British and Irish Legal Information Institute (I'm techno incompetent so I'd like to add the link for the text of the act, but don't know how to do it yet)...so here it is copied and pasted with the relevant bits bolded for your particular attention. [Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 36] 36. Additional powers of court in action by mortgagee for possession of dwelling-house. — (1) Where the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling-house brings an action in which he claims possession of the mortgaged property, not being an action for foreclosure in which a claim for possession of the mortgaged property is also made, the court may exercise any of the powers conferred on it by subsection (2) below if it appears to the court that in the event of its exercising the power the mortgagor is likely to be able within a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage or to remedy a default consisting of a breach of any other obligation arising under or by virtue of the mortgage. (2) The court — (a) may adjourn the proceedings, or (b) on giving judgment, or making an order, for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property, or at any time before the execution of such judgment or order, may — (i) stay or suspend execution of the judgment or order, or (ii) postpone the date for delivery of possession, for such period or periods as the court thinks reasonable. (3) Any such adjournment, stay, suspension or postponement as is referred to in subsection (2) above may be made subject to such conditions with regard to payment by the mortgagor of any sum secured by the mortgage or the remedying of any default as the court thinks fit. (4) The court may from time to time vary or revoke any condition imposed by virtue of this section. (5) This section shall have effect in relation to such an action as is referred to in subsection (1) above begun before the date on which this section comes into force unless in that action judgment has been given, or an order made, for delivery of possession of the mortgaged property and that judgment or order was executed before that date. (6) In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, “ the court ” means a judge of the High Court in Northern Ireland, and in subsection (1) the words from “ not being ” to “ made ” shall be omitted.

The letter smells like a [problem] to me. Be very careful. The banks will not do anything charitable for you. Their objective is to screw more and more money out of you. I believe that the IVA route means that you will NEVER get away from them and they will own you lock, stock and barrel. My limited understanding of the bankruptcy law is that bankrupts get discharged after two years and that is the end of it. The debt is completely absolved and you can start afresh whereas under the IVA route, you never get absolved and they own you and everything you ever earn thereafter. If you are considering the IVA route then please first get independent legal advice. Even if the company tell you their advice is independant, don't believe them - they clearly have a business connection with 1st. Therefore, you must choose your own legal advisor. Clue yourself up on the IVA law and remember, that the law is generally more creditor friendly than it is debtor friendly and our courts are very quick to support the banks. The one thing I have learned from all these financial shennanigans is that the banks make it easy to contract you IN, and once IN, then you'll find it very hard to get OUT. Always check out how you EXIT these contracts. That is, check not only how you can enter into the contract, but also how you can finanalise and finish the contract. Likewise, check whether the IVA laws will primarily benefit you or them. Chances are that they'll probably benefit the banks, which is probably why you got the letter. Best of luck Supersleuth

Hi Mojo130, I had a similar call with a credit card company. I told them I would only communicate with them in writing (because that way there is no ambiguity as to what was said and more importantly, I was sick of taking their grosly abusive phone calls). I received the soundbite regarding their being a "telephone" banking company which, in my view, is their way of avoiding the truth plus - they are reluctant to abuse you in writing. When I received this "telephone banking" excuse, I suggested that they must have at least one person at their company who was literate and therefore, they can ask the literate employee to write to me! In the meantime, you do not have to receive phonecalls from these abusers and recommend that you write to the company expressly stating that you will communicate in writing only. I have started writing to my credit card companies and some of them have yet to reply. Nonetheless, I will amass evidence of my repeated written communications to liaise with them and will have proof of their refusal attempt to resolve the matter without litigating. With respect to the two credit card companies that have made a settlement agreement with me, the upshot was that they "wrote off" 60% of the debt, and agreed not to pursue me for the written off 60%. This means that I had to pay them 40% of the outstanding balance and they gave me six months to pay the 40% of the outstanding balance The written off 60% balance will still show on my credit file for 6 years, but in my view, so what - it's unlikely I would ever want credit ever again!!! Good luck Supersleuth