Yes, indeed it is a shame I had not discovered CAG and the other useful resources, some of which, of course, were not available then. I defended it but could not afford a lawyer. I turned up at court and conducted my own defence, but the debt purchasing company had hired a barrister who was able to convince the judge (or, let's face it, a stipendiary magistrate) that I was wrong and the debt purchasing spiv was right. This resulted in the injustice which persists to day.

Please explain.

But why are you assuming I didn't defend it?

So a charging order would legally allow a debt purchasing company who bought a debt 10 years ago for 3p on the pound to extort 33 times the cost of what they paid for the (originally unsecured) debt from the sale of my home which I have worked to pay the mortgage for 20 years? Is that right? Is that legal? Is that ethical? Is that honest? This is not right. I want to be able to buy the debt back for 50% of what the last debt purchasing company paid for it. It think that's fair. Otherwise I face a retirement of poverty and want. Is there no legislation in place that will defeat this stupid calumny? I thought we were a civilised country? Clearly not.

The house is not in joint names, just mine. What I wanted to know was that, if my credit score is clear (which it is completely) because the debts are over 6 years old, how can these charges still be invoked upon sale of the house?

Hi, I have two or three charges on my home as a result of unsecured (credit card) debt from about 10 years ago. These charges do not appear on my credit report as they are over 6 years old. However, if I try to sell my home, can the creditors (who are all debt purchasing companies and who all bought the debtor account for pennies on the pound and then turned it into a secured charge through a CCJ) impose the charge and block the sale of the property unless I pay them the full sum of the old debt? I'd really like to know where I stand on this , as I have my mum's care home bills to pay as well as my own living expenses. Thanks.

Interesting. OK. What about this, then.... In my first reply to them earlier this month I told them that if they wasted any more of my time I would invoice them for my time (which is charged out at £250 per Half Day). They have clearly wasted more of my time. So shall I send them the invoice?

Perhaps I haven't explained myself adequately. The letter I got was from a DCA employed by the company which tried to reclaim (laughingly ineptly) my unlawful credit card charges. The actual debt was for about £2,000 or more. But they were not trying to get this from me. They were trying to collect fees charged by the original reclaim company, their client (except they didn't do a very good job and I ended up doing the whole thing myself). They know various details of this account so I know that at least their knowledge of it is legitimate. What I'd like to know is, have these people got any right to demand this money from me: 1) After they'd made a complete hash of it (including sending court papers to the wrong party!) 2) After I did all the work myself. 3) 18 months after the work was discharged and over 2 years since the contract was signed; and, 4) Are they allowed to charge 18,864% APR late fees, bearing in mind I cannot see any reference to a £100 in the T&C and I spent an hour actually reading it from end to end. My guess is that they do not have any right at all. But that is only my opinion. What I'd like is other expert opinion who may take a different view.

Well, they already know my account details. So it can't be phishing. Phishing is where you get a letter/email from somebody who tries to get your trust so that you supply them with account details so that they can access your account and take money from it. ??

Hi there, I wonder if anyone on this forum has any advice for me about this. About 18 months ago I engaged Conkers (AKA Brunel Franklin) to handle reclaiming credit card charges for me. My time was at a premium and I had assumed that they could do it for me much quicker. Well, I should have followed the advice I see everywhere on this site and done it myself, because that's what I ended up doing anyway! Conkers, and latterly a legal firm called Miller Gardner, made such a pig's ear of things that I decided to do it all by myself. But not before a few cases were successfully concluded by Conkers, for which I paid their invoices. However, 18 months later I get a letter from a company called Credit Care Financial Management saying that I owe £38.19 to Flairford Securities T/A Brunel Franklin. There was nothing to say what this amount was for, but the letter said that unless I paid up within 5 days I would be charged £100 on top of that for late payment according to the T&C (but I've just read the T&C and I can see no reference to this £100, only an addition of interest at 4% above HSBC rate). I wrote back to Credit Care Financial Management to ask what this amount was for (the time spent in doing this, of course, put me in "breach" of their late fees deadline) and it turns out that this was a case against American Express credit cards which was actually handled by Miller Gardner (AKA Flairford Securities T/A Brunel Franklin AKA Conkers). I recalled this case very well. It was handled with such incompetence that I ended up taking the work from them and doing the whole thing myself. They dragged it on and on for ages. Then I discovered the reason - they had actually served court papers to me, their client, rather than to the defendant American Express. When I got these papers I naturally assumed they were just sending me the copies of what they had sent to Amex. But no! On checking later I found that they had served them on me! Amex were in blissful ignorance all the while. This was the last straw. I wrote to them (one of a series of 5 letters which I still have and which, when read now, show my increasing concern about their incompetence). My final letter effectively tells them I am taking over the case. So 18 months later they are now charging me £138.19 (I do not recall receiving any invoice from Miller Gardner before this) of which £100 are these 'late' fees which I cannot find reference to anywhere in the T&C. Where do I stand legally on this? Their T&C is full of get-out clauses saying that I will be liable to pay the money even if they do not do the work, etc. But the £100 on top? It's 262% of the original fee! Expressed as an interest rate it is 1572% a month or 18,864% APR! Do I have to pay them £38 as they delayed asking me for it for 18 months and did not even do the job in the first place? I'd be grateful for any input on this. Thanks.