They have done this to me, a fresh default recorded in Dec 12 for an account defaulted with 1month loan in '08. Completely messed my attempts and getting CRA files looking better! Have complained to FOS and OFT, in week 7 of the 8 weeks they have to resolve before the FOS adjudicate, so looks like it'll go there. Hopefully it'll cost MMF more than the debt was purchased for. If anyone knows the rules around this recording of asssigned accounts then please share!

Is this best moved to mmf forum? If so, can a site admin help?

I didn't have any contact either. Just a handful of threatotexts saying they now owned it-received mid last week. Equifax was updated 09/02 showing a default on 06/12- no default notice issued by anyone. I wouldn't mind so much if they'd just reported the original non payment from '08 - at least that'd make sense, now my credit rating is re-shot despite 3 years of gradual and tedious hard work.

Hi, I meant uncle buck! Well by own I guess they've bought it for knock down amount. This is the first time any mention of the debt has been on any CRA file. I've been disputing the charges on the loan since '08.

They've done this to me. Reported a default in Dec 12 for a UB account that's been in dispute since'08. As said earlier, this just as defaults start to fade... Mmf need to be closed down. Sent furious email yesterday, will go to FOS and ICO if no response. Thought anyone?

Oh, and don't worry - the bank details I have scribbled on it are CF1's.

Scan3.pdfLetter attached.

Thanks sillygirl. I might check with the BCC for completeness, but I'm not too worried about it at this stage. I haven't seen any cases from CF1/MTC that have ended up in court yet? Plus, I told them in my letter that they should issue a claim against me if they wanted to recover their "fines" (what they actually called them....would like to see what a district judge would have to say about that anyway!).

I have a letter from these rogues. Would it help at all if I uploaded it? Comical really. One of their services is "Baliff Collections" - their misspelling I hasten to add. I have responded offering payments that I can afford for the original amount (I have their bank details), so I'm not remotely scared. Text today saying to contact them to stop "current legal proceedings" - I called them and demanded the case number/court so that I could lodge my defence, they hung up.

Do not give these clowns any of your card or bank details at all please. Sorry to hear of what happened to you katiemc85.I have written offering them the original loan plus one month's interest, and disputed all the additional charges. They then replied to say that the minimum they could accept was just over twice this amount - a fifth of the alleged balance but still completely unenforceable, and without any logic either. I presume this is a reflection of the amount they bought the debt for or their charging structure to Uncle Buck rather than anything else.I now keep asking them for sort code/account number and reference to quote so that I can pay them via bill payments, and referred to OFT guidance on accepting smaller payments. No response. Instead, texts now threatening doorstep collection instead of "legal vetting". Nonsense, will now be ignored completely.

How ridiculous. A supposed DCA trying to cross-sell debt management. Which no doubt gives them preferential treatment by not disputing the 2 years of 2000% apr and charges.... Crooks.I've had no response to my letter, will leave it for them to PROVE IT!

Just a note on this, I never received a formal withdrawal/discontinuance from BC. As such, I issued a defence stating that they had failed to comply with my earlier requests and they had stated that they were withdrawing in a phone call. Their time limit passed ages ago, action stayed. I didn't have the energy to go after costs to be honest, though I'm well aware I probably could have had a go. Thanks for the help.

I have exactly the same issue. Text message received last week, but no letter. I can't recall the debt, but I think it may be that this dates from 2008.I am curious as to what's happening here, it would appear that CF may have bought a portfolio in bulk from UB.I am going to pre-emptively write to them and ask for the agreement, statement of account, default notice etc. Just in case this is a sneak tactic and they'll just issue. Whilst I would be more than confident in arguing against a judgement here, I would rather not have the hassle! If they come back with any negative response then I'll send statutory requests as normal.We all need to see a breakdown of what they're asking for before we can argue against it, but I'm more than certain that waiting 3 years before chasing an account and then asking for 2000% apr for the intervening period is entirely unequitable. Indeed, no other creditor or DCA I have dealt with has had the cheek. However, if anyone on the site knows some law/oft guidance to review to see if it applies in these cases, that would be helpful!

I would wholeheartedly echo sillygirl1 on this.I'm currently in a long exchange of correspondence concerning CF1.I emailed CF1 prior to the loan becoming payable advising I needed a repayment plan. They ignored, so I cancelled my debit card and wrote again. The still ignored.They then sent numerous emails, each saying that they had added "fines". I kept referring them to my original emails.D.S. are now writing, I have pointed out that I had made CF1 aware of the situation and offered a repayment plan, and highlighted that I believe there charges are unlawful since CF1 referred to them as fines, and they are exorbitant. Aside from that, they clearly ignore your correspondence to build the amount they think you "owe".I have offered a staged repayment which I consider affordable for the original principal along with 1 months interest. If they don't accept, then I will send Postal Orders for the amount I have offered each month, and let them try and convince a judge that their charges are enforceable. Don't lose heart, their tactics are deliberately trying to scare you in to paying, are unlawful/unfair and they are unlikely to want the whole affair discussed in open court. If you want to see anonymised copies of letter that I have sent, then PM me and I'll see if I can help.MrGruff

Having spoken to BC re: last post, they have confirmed that they have withdrawn and issued a discontinuation notice today. Will wait for that and check it's legitimacy with Northampton BPC. Thanks for help on this.

Hi NH27, I would certainly recommend an FOS complaint here - you will be able to complain straight to them if you complained originally 8 weeks or more ago. Alternatively, the CEO office at Aviva will give you a leaflet and confirm you have the right to take it to the FOS when they finish dealing with the complaint - it sounds like they may have done this already? The FOS, in many decided cases, have awarded actual financial losses suffered by customers who have experienced avoidable delay or broken promises - even when the policy doesn't cover them. You will have to demonstrate that such expense was unavoidable, and you will need to document them. In any case, the referral fee to Aviva for such a complaint will be circa £500 (whether the FOS agree with you or not) - which someone in Crawford or Aviva will need to provide an explanation for. And, it's free to you to do this, but they definitely won't award you the cost of appointing a solicitor if you choose too.

To be honest PriorityOne, it may actually be in your interest to try a professional broker here as a comparison exercise. You have to bear in mind that comparison sites have to have assumptions so that they can provide broad quotes so quickly - if it's a very standard risk then an actual underwriter's opinion won't be sought. However, a broker will be able to find you a quote from an Insurer who's prepared to consider the risk based on your specific circumstances. Although, if you're still happy with your current Insurer then I suppose there would be no need! Just a suggestion.

Thank you very much for that. I'll call and write to them tomorrow, and post any response. Your advice has really helped to put my mind at rest - for now anyway!

Thanks for that useful info. The date on the claim form was the 2nd of February. I acknowledged service on the 7th - did it online on the 5th, but that was a Saturday. Wrote to solicitors with CPR request on the 8th. Chased on the 15th, no response as yet. So, should I now write to them and request an extension as they have failed to acknowledge my previous request and provide the documentation they had pleaded in the POC? I am very conscious of costs here, the original loan amount they are claiming is only £250 - so incurring a massively disproportionate costs order would be crippling for me. That said, I'm pretty certain they shouldn't bring a case unless they have the supporting documentation?

Thanks for this, I gave them 14 days to comply with the CPR request I made on the 8th. I chased up again at the start of this week, but I haven't heard further. Having read around, I believe I need to issue a defence before the end of the 28 days. Is the fact that they haven't supplied me with the evidence a defence? If so, has anyone seen any defences that have worked that I can personalise? When should I serve this? Any help would be great, bit worried about what to do!

Hi all, I have received a Court Claim from the above. It says the claimant is Instant Cash Loans Ltd t/a The Money Shop Re: Payday Express. Payday Express are a payday loan company. I have no memory of this company at all, though it is possible I took a loan out at some point with someone and it's been sold. For background, I had personal issues around three years ago, for which I'm still engaged in a struggle to pay off with several creditors. However, all the other creditors write to you before issuing proceedings. I have not had a letter before claim, and cannot trace the default letter. So I called BC, they said the original debt was £200, with £50 interest, a £100 default fee(is this enforceable?) plus contract interest. It was from February 2008. On top of this, they are claiming court fee of £30, solicitors costs of £50 and statutory interest of 8%. However, they haven't sent a statement of account to me at all. As such, I acknowledged service last weekend to get the 28 days underway. Then I posted a letter from this site (CPR 31.14 Request), and asked them for the agreement, default notice and deed of assignment - as I don't recongnise the claimant, and they referred to the agreement and my alleged failure to pay. I am still waiting for a response, but is there anything I should do in the meantime? I do not want a CCJ, as this will ruin the chances of moving home later this year. I could probably offer a payment of some of the claim towards the end of this month if it will make this go away, but I am certainly not prepared to pay a £100 default on a £200 loan I can't remember! Thanks all.

The letter you have been sent is designed to make your Insurance company pay the other party as soon as possible. The third party is holding you liable for the incident, and is allowed to write to you. The procedures involved are quite complicated, but they would have to send a letter of claim to you giving notice of their intention to take it to court, which is what they have sent. This has to go to you as the responsible driver, but it is really intended for your Insurer, and they are always sent a copy. Your Insurer will now respond to the letter acknowledging the matter, and either offering to pay or advising of what further evidence they need. They will be as keen to avoid it going to court as you are, as this incurs further costs which they will have to pay. As such, I wouldn't worry about the situation. Just make sure you pass any correspondence you receive from the Third Party on to your Insurance Company immediately, and don't contact the Third Party yourself at all.

Hello, I agree with UncleBulgaria above. If Swinton have acted as your agent in arranging the policy, then they are responsible for ensuring you have the correct cover, and are liable for any loss you suffer as a result. That aside, the policy itself cannot be voided for your valuables exceeding the amount claimed, if I have read that part right. Misrepresentation of the value at risk can only lead to voidance of the policy if it is established that the applicant did it deliberately - usually to obtain a cheaper premium. Even then, there is case law on this point suggesting that the Insured elects to be his own Insurer for the remaining amount that isn't Insured - and receives a proportionally reduced settlement as a result, known as average. This is rare in consumer contracts, but still very common in commercial policies. In a standard contents policy, which from what you've described this one appears to be, a valuables limit is NOT a sum Insured unless it refers to specified cover for a particular item (say, a very expensive watch or piece of art). The limit only affects what the policy defines as "valuables", and serves to limit the company's exposure to claims arising from easily portable and valuable items. The limit is effectively considered to be a part of the overall contents cover, so underinsurance would only come into consideration at all (let alone avoidance for it) if the TOTAL value of your contents exceeded the overall contents sum insured. This doesn't seem to be the case here. The correct course of action is to pay the claim in it's entirety - where you are able to prove your loss with receipts/valuations etc - but limit the jewellery pay out to £5k, as you have suggested. I would judge that you may be more likely to obtain payment of your claim by complaining about the claim decision in the first instance, though I note this is awaited. If you need any help with what they come back with, feel free to post here and I will do my best to help.

The FSA rules on this are quite clear. The ICOBS (Insurance Code Of Business Sourcebook) rules say that a firm cannot unreasonably reject a claim, including by canceling or avoiding the policy, except for reasons of fraud. The question of reasonableness and the right of the insurer to void can be complex, and I don't know enough about your case to provide exact guidance, but I will try to sum up how this issue should be dealt with. A contract of Insurance may be voided if information provided to the Insurer at the application stage is incorrect, and the person applying knows it to be incorrect. The same is true if information is simply left out of the application. This principle is a lot more strict in commercial insurances, as a business is deemed to have the knowledge of these processes or be able to obtain guidance easily, by use of a broker etc. However, in order to be able to avoid, the Insurer must establish the following; That the information not provided (or provided incorrectly) by the applicant was given deliberately, with the knowledge that it should be disclosed. and... That if the information had been given correctly, the Insurer wouldn't have offered cover AT ALL. In the case of under-insurance, in consumer contracts, it is difficult to see how the company could confidently state the above two. For the record, mere ignorance of the facts in question is not enough grounds to avoid, as it sounds to be the case here - you simply didn't know how much value you had. Furthermore, if the Insurer had been advised the true value at risk, then they almost certainly would have offered cover, but maybe asked for a higher premium (which, I'm sure, you would be more than happy to pay now). I've looked at esure's published, current version of their home Insurance policy. Whilst it does make references to the Value at Risk being important to them - which it is to any Insurer - it doesn't make any specific mention of them asserting the right to avoid in cases of Underinsurance. Even if it did, this would be contrary to the court cases on this matter and the FSA's rules, neither of which they could contract out of in the case of consumer insurance. As such, I would definitely stick to your guns here. It may well be that they have a rogue Underwriter or team of them, but a company wide policy of this nature is unlikely to win them any favours with the Ombudsman. You should take it to the FOS if you get the opportunity, even if esure succumb. I would push for compensation on the basis of the distress caused. Basically, just to get the matter heard so that further customers do not fall foul of the same tactics. That is of course if you have the energy. I am confused how Cunningham Lindsey, in the post above, have managed to make this error. They may of course be acting on esure's direct instructions. If you need any specific advice, feel free to PM me.