I have read somewhere that the courts will also favour online applications that were made before 2007, because there is a defined process that can be explained. If you tick a box as a signature for an online application, then this is as valid as any personal signature. I only raise the Issue of online applications, as I thought the Cahoot were an online only company.

If this Cahoot account was signed up to online, my understanding is that it is much easier for the courts to accept lack of a CCA with a signature. If this is the case, please comment as to how the OP may be affected in dealing with an appeal.

Ask them why this would help them and to provide a copy of the Consumer Credit Act clause that would enable them to request this. Only a court can request details of any earnings. This is probably what they are on about, but they need to go through the courts first.

That is not true as far as I am aware. If Lowell have set up a continous payment authority with the OP's bank, this will continue even if the debit card numbers change. If it is not a continuous payment authority set up with the bank, then Lowell will not be able to debit. Halibutt, you should check with your bank to see if Lowell have a continous payment authority set up. It will show on your account. Lowell would have arranged this electronically, you would not have needed to sign anything.

Stop complicating matters. If you keep this simple then it will make things easier to follow. Your argument is with the University about what tuition they provided. They need to provide evidence of tuition you received and a contract to prove you are liable to pay for any tuition received. 1) Send the Universities most senior person a letter by recorded delivery stating the facts as you know them and question why they have made an allegation that you owe them a debt, which they have passed for debt collection. Ask them for full details of their complaints process and details of how you may obtain a full copy of any records held in your name. I don't think Universities are covered under FOI as they are not a public body as such. They may be covered under Data Prorection. 2) Send the Debt company the letter in Harassed seniors post by recorded delivery. You are not aware of the debt, because you have not been provided with 100% acccurate information to prove you are liable for these tuition fees. Enclose a copy of the letter sent to the University. Follow this advice for now and see what comes of it. The University should just aknowledge that they will look into this, before investigating and replying fully. The debt company should stop their collection activity, while the matter is in dispute.

Are the 3rd parties Insurers part of the same group of companies as Bell ? You could suggest to Bell that what they have said could be considered as unfair trading practices, if there was any collusion between Insurers. To see if there is any basis for this allegation, you could feel morally obliged to report them to the OFT, via Consumer Direct. An extra £100 is not going to matter too much to the 3rd parties Insurers. It is just that Bell have dug their heels in and don't want to pay this. You would have to consider whether for £100 it is worth challenging this any further. Perhaps make one further phone call to the person dealing with the claim and suggest they refer this to their manager. You don't want to cause them any trouble if you reported their comments to the OFT.

Surely you get a transcipt of what was said in court by both sides and the judge. If so wait to you get this and make a summary of the points from the beginning of the hearing to the end. Then add to a further post, so people can see what happened more clearly. From what you have said, I am a bit surprised that the judge has glossed over, lack of documents from RW. They must have given an explanation for this, which the judge accepted. What explanations did they give ? Once caggers have a bit more info, they might be able to comment.

In regard to the tuition fees that they are trying to charge you, what evidence does the University have that you received the tuition. What forms did you complete to contract you to be liable for these? In addition to sending the letter in Harassed seniors post, you should write to the most senior person at the University, asking them to look into this. Explain the position, as you have done in your post. Send the Debt company a copy of the letter you send to the University. While the debt is in dispute, the debt company has to suspend their collection activity to comply with the OFT's rules.

My address was used as a temporary forwarding address for a relative who had moved abroad. This ceased when they had finished all there dealings with UK companies. Years later various debt companies suddenly started to write to and phone my address. I kept on telling them that the person that they were trying to contact had moved abroad several years ago. Most of the debt companies, stopped their contacts and wrote to apologise. But then Lowell came on the scene and they just ignored any recorded delivery letters, passing the accounts onto BCW and Mucky Hall to chase. BCW eventually stopped bothering me and wrote to apologise. Mucky Hall were the most persistent and the dirtiest. It was not until I had threatened them, that they stopped. They had the cheek to phone my neighbours asking who lived at my address. One of my neighbours nearly phoned the Police, as he thought that burglars were looking for targets. I phoned Mucky Hall and had a blazing row with one of their compliance managers. Not long after Mucky had a warning from the OFT. It amazes me how their compliance manager is a board member of the CSA, when the company he works for sails pretty close to the wind in complying with OFT rules. Mucky even sent around a self employed doorstep collector over a £30 debt, that was statute barred. It strikes me that the debt industry does not have any incentive to share information . It is not in the interest of companies owning the debts, to publish information on individual debts to any shared database, as if they did, they would have difficulty selling some on for a decent price. What I am sure they try to do is muddy the water as much as possible, by not keeping data and destroying any correspondence received. If they stitch up an other DCA when the debt is sold on, this is all part of the game. It does concern me that this is just part of the mess financial services companies are in. UK banks apparently hold debt assets that are valued at more than 5 times the UK's annual GDP i.e about 7 trillion pounds worth. They not only own our countries debts, but debts of citizens and companies all around the world. RBS at one time owned 50% of the Spanish student loan book, which must be underperforming, as over 20% are unemployed, so they can't pay back. If the world does go into another period of recession, I think the banks and DCA's in this country will have more things to worry about than chasing for debts. They will be fighting for survival, as they will be holding worthless assets.

Mossycat You could always threaten to come around to scratch all their furniture to bits and mark your territory by rubbing your *rse against door posts etc. Not to mention sh*tting in their office plants.

They can't. You only lose the NCB if your Insurers don't recover their settlement from the 3rd parties Insurers. So are your Insurers saying that the 3rd party Insurers are willing to dispute the claim if the settlement is £100 more ? This sounds like utter rubbish to me.

You don't have to send them a letter. You can phone them to request that they cancel the debit card instruction. Just advise them that you cannot keep this arrangement going as the funds going into the account are being inconsistent. They have to cancel when you ask them, otherwise you can report them to Trading Standards. If you report the card damaged, even if your bank issue a new card with new number, they will still accept the debit card instruction from Lowell and continue to accept debits. You have to cancel the instruction with Lowell, who should cancel this with your bank. It is all done electronically these days.

The bank won't stop a repeat Debit Card transaction unless it is fradulent, when they will cancel the card and look into it. You need to contact Lowell and cancel any authority for them to use the debit card. They have to do this on your instructions, otherwise you could report them to Trading Standards and they could be in trouble.

I can't see why you could not make a claim through the small claims, for the additional premium you had to pay, as a result of a non fault accident. It would depend on how much extra was involved to see whether it was worth it or not. Is there any case law or legislation that prevents this ? I am not aware of anything that prevents such action. If you are successful then the 3rd parties Insurers would have to pay the relevant amount. My experience of premium rating at renewal, following one non fault accident, is that it increases the premium by an average of £50. However, this loading in premium stays on the policy for about 3 years, so over that period of time, it adds up to a reasonable amount of money. It is not just the premium. It can also be the loss that results from a write off payment, that is less than the actual cost of obtaining a replacement car of the same quality.

The only additional comment I would make is this. If you have spent a lot of money maintaining the car (or the previous owners have), you will presumably have invoices/receipts showing all the parts/labour that have gone into keeping it in pristine condition. Have you copied these and passed to the Insurers/FOS to help them consider the value? As you say the valuation guides are only that ' guides'. Proving that the car was worth more than the top guide value is down to you. However far you take this, it is about the mass of evidence that you compile that could make a difference.

Student loan agreements are simple contracts and this gives the Student Loans Company (SLC) 6 years from the date you last paid or acknowledged the debt to go to court to enforce the agreement. There are two sorts of student loans and different rules apply depending upon when you took out the loan. Old style or “mortgage” student loans are consumer credit agreements. Payments cannot be automatically deducted from your wages. The SLC has to go to court before they can enforce the debt against you. This means that the Limitations Act can apply if you have not paid or acknowledged the debt for over 6 years. (Asking for the loan to be deferred could count as acknowledging the debt and start time running again). From September 1998 new style or “income contingent” student loans include rules to say that repayments are automatically deducted directly from your wages or through your tax return if you are self employed. This means that the SLC are still allowed to take money from your wages for a loan over 6 years old as they do not have to go to court to do so. So on the basis that you have not paid anything in the last 6 years, send them the statute barred letter. Add a sentence to the letter, saying that the alleged debt relates to an old style student loan taken out in 1994, so the limitations act does apply.

More information needed. What did you receive from the bank that held the overdraft? Did they issue a termination notice and advise you they were selling the debt on ? When did you stop making payments to the account?

You could also do what cerberusalert suggests and send them a CCA request as well, to see if they can provide one that is capable of being enforced. This would be a sensible thing to do.

So the Lowell debt they are chasing is the Cap One CC ? Have Lowell actually purchased or are they chasing on behalf of Cap One? In these circumstances, you can only pay what you can reasonably afford. They wouldn't get any more if they went to court. Best advice where you are not disputing the debt, is to tell them what you can afford and advise them if they don't like it they can take you to court. Ask them for the standing order details, so you can set up the payments. Advise them that you require all future correspondence to be made in writing only and that if they breach this, you will consider their conduct to be harassment and you will report them to the OFT. Don't just threaten this, if they continue to hassle you, make a complaint via Consumer Direct. Always correspond with Lowell by recorded delivery letter, never on the phone. Lowell have been known not to respond to any letter not sent by recorded and ignore any phone conversation that is not totally obedient to them.

They are basically saying that they have to go back to court, if they wanted to pursue this. As has been said already, this does not seem likely, so they have lost the chance. Looks like you can sit and ignore, until they try to go back to court, which if they do, you should receive some paperwork from the court, so you can submit your side of the story.

Statute barred applies to the actual debt and not to who is chasing it. If you have been making payments to Yorkshire up to 2009 and have never had 6 years without payment or acknowledgement of the debt by you, the debt is not statute barred. What have Apex actually sent to you ? Is this a copy of the original agreement with Yorkshire? If it is, then it may be worth posting a copy of it on here, so people can have a look at it for you. Just copy it first, then remove all personal information, add to photobucket and place link in a further reply.

Have a look at your policy to see where you think the claim is covered. If the pipe was old and this was the reason for the burst, then the Insurers would not cover the actual pipe, as this would be considered wear and tear, so a maintenance issue. It was only that that the water had caused a subsidence issue that they dealt with the claim under the subsidence peril, subject to the excess.

Have they said that this is a subsidence claim ? Which Insurer are you with? What caused the pipe to burst ? What are the Insurers covering exactly (what repairs)?

Get on the phone to Consumer Direct and make a complaint. Once you have sent the letter asking for contact in writing only, they should stop other forms of contact. By not doing so they are in breach of OFT guidelines. Consumer direct as the helpline for the OFT and Trading Standards are the people that should help you nip this is the bud, so you don't have to send further letters, for them to be ignored.

Don't you have to prove 'intent' to commit the acts you have accused them of. If they didn't do this intentionally and it was simply down to errors, then surely they will just tell the court this. Before you take action, suggest that you ask CCCS about this. Would they need to supply you with copies of documents and reports showing payments, so you can use these to help with any actions you may take ? Have you written to the bank asking them for a full explanation, advising that you are providing them with an opportunity to provide an full accurate reponse, before you decide on whether legal action or referral to the FOS is necessary.