A chattel is an article of movable personal property such as furniture, pet, picture, rug - pretty much anything that isn't fixed to the home (ie a fitted wardrobe, a bath is a fixture not a chattel). It is also anything movable outside the home - car, bike, trailer, boat etc. Things belonging to you which can be moved.

With one hand they say - "Don't worry, you can take this cheque safe in the knowledge that we'll pay it because we've given our customer a cheque guarantee card." On the other hand they're saying "If we decide we don't want to do business with our customer anymore we'll penalise you by refusing to pay the cheque that we guaranteed." Now that's how people make a fortune... Sounds to me as if the bank are guilty of misrepresentation. "A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact made by one party to another, which, whilst not being a term of the contract, induces the other party to enter the contract." I imagine the 2006 Fraud Act would apply. And that would explain why, when challenged, a bank will honour the cheque. What's really nasty is that the bank tries it on in the first place.

Yes, the cheque was signed in front of me. Yes, I wrote the cheque guarantee card number of the back of the cheque. No, the cheque was not one of a series.

I am not "sitting her grumping" I am asking perfectly reasonable questions. Have you actually read the link posted by yourbank? Here's the link again: http://www.apacs.org.uk/payment_opti...heque_card.pdf What I am saying, albeit in a roundabout way, is that if banks issue these cards and then refuse to honour them surely the banks should be taken to court for failure to honour their committments.

If the bank has issued a cheque book and guarantee card surely they are responsible for settling cheques issued. Why should it be MY problem? Surely, under the DPA, I am not entitled to the names and address of the account holder. And why should i have to pursue the account holder when the bank has issued a card guaranteeing that they will pay the cheque?

I thought the bank has insurance against this type of thing and that's why some people can only get "basic" bank accounts - ie no cheque books and others can get accounts with cheque books and guarantee cards. I thought you could only get a cheque book if you passed the bank's credit scoring test and the value of the guarantee card is decided during that same test - that's why there are guarantee cards for different limits - there are £50 / £100 / £250 guarantee cards. I thought that banks just refused to issue new cheque books to customers who ran up debts? And if those customers were really bad the bank wrote to them demanding they return the cheque book and card. If what you are saying is true the bank gives customers the where-with-all - including promise to pay - and then says, tough, I don't have to honour it! I don't know the person who paid by cheque.

removed

Yes you do need to declare this.

What you are saying Conniff makes a complete mockery of the cheque guarantee scheme.

I have anti-reflection lenses and I don't get lights reflecting off them. It sounds as if you haven't got anti-reflection lenses. Do you have an invoice saying they are anti-reflection lenses? If you do you should take the glasses back to Specsavers and ask them to supply the correct lenses. This should be done free of charge. I would go into another optician and ask them to check what lenses are in your glasses (they can easily tell what the lenses are) before going to Specsavers.

Thank you yourbank, I will do this. That is a very helpful link. I'm about to add to your reputation count... Just as a matter of interest, going back to Conniff's post (no 2) - And I assume Conniff is correct in saying the bank may have refused the guaranteed cheque because "they are continuing to draw on an account that is having nothing deposited into it" what's to stop me putting, say, £1.00 into their account. Then the bank will have received a deposit and will have to pay the cheque?

OK I understand these two reasons, the card was definately not out of date. It seems the account is open. I don't understand this reason. Why, if the account is open and there is a valid cheque guarantee card, would it make any difference if money is being paid into the account or not? I understand this reason though this does not seem to be the case

I have just been paid by cheque. The cheque was guaranteed by a cheque guarantee card. The cheque has bounced. What is the point of a cheque guarantee card if they don't guarantee the payment?

Thank you Lilylou, OK, I understand now that you can read an email in the preview pane and if you don't send the read receipt it gets sent automatically after a certain time lapse and says "not read". I've just turned on "preview pane" and see that you can print and open attachments from it. So OK - got it.

Conniff - we are talking at crossed purposes. I couldn't care less whether he opened the attachments or not. I am concerned to know how he was able to send a computer generated email, "Not Read: Re: xxxxx" - the meaning of which was "I have not read your email and I have deleted it".

Read receipts are sent when the email is opened, not when the attachments are opened. It was a computer generated email that I received saying "Not Read: xxx". It was not an email that the recipient typed up and sent.

Doh, silly me. I forgot about that - If memory serves it's called a "preview" screen or something like that? We used to have that till a computer technician said it was dangerous...easier for viruses or trojans or worms or something so now we just get the sender's name, title, date, time stuff and have to click on it to open it. Can you print out from the preview screen? Or do you have to open to print? Can you see attachments and open them from preview screen?

But he must have opened the email because he replied, by email, saying he couldn't open the attachments. If he opened the email how can he send an email saying he hasn't read it?

?? Crossed wires I think. The read receipt is for the email, not the attachments (which were in formats the recipient has been able to open before). I'm not concerned about the attachments. I only mentioned them because it proved the email had arrived (when the recipient said he couldn't open them).

I concur with the others - if the alleged debt was incurred before the bankruptcy then it should have been declared to the OR and the OR should be pursuing you. However, as palomina says if it was incurred after the bankruptcy then I suspect the OR would let the bankrupt pursue it. I think it rather depends on how much it is because bankrupts are allowed to have some money and to live in reasonable conditions! Do you know when the person went bankrupt? If you don't you can do a bankruptcy search, if you have his full name, in the London Gazette. As bankruptcy only lasts one year now perhaps he's been discharged? He could have been discharged because he settled his debts. If he has been discharged (because he's settled his debts in full) then he will have had his remaining pre-bankruptcy assets re-assigned to him and will be free to pursue you. If he's been discharged because the one year period is over and is chasing an alleged debt from before his bankruptcy then he should have had his rights re-assigned to him by the OR; otherwise the bankrupt's assets remaind vested in the OR (as they'll be used to pay off any other outstanding liabilities).

I'm not sure I like the sound of that! Is it tasty?

A few days ago I sent an important email, with attachments. I asked for a read receipt (but didn't get one) but I know the recipient received it because they emailed me saying they couldn't open the attachments. Last night I received a receipt saying "Not read:" and the name of my original message. And when I opened it, it said "Your message To: xxx Cc: xxx; Subject: Re: xxx Sent: xx/xx/2009 xxxx was deleted on 05/02/2009 23:55. " Can anyone tell me how this is done? When I receive a "read reciept" email I am asked whether I want to send a read receipt or not. But I've never seen a "Not read" receipt before. Any ideas?

Sickntired - when you say "secured" do you mean you have secured (obtained) a loan from Welcome Finance or do you mean it is secured against some asset you own? Please clarify. I am trying to help the OP but you and suziedarkness seem determined to ask unnecessary questions and bring in unnecessary personal stories. So, though you won't want to hear it, I suggest that if anyone's hijacking this thread it's you two. But since you're both so wonderful and capable and fantastic I'm going to leave you both to help this poor person with your irrelevant and nosey questions. SICKNTIRED - we too have a loan with Welcome - they're a nightmare. They accused us of fraud too - though they backed down as soon as they were challenged. I only say this so that you know that we have been in the same boat but as that is as far as my personal experience is relevant to your post so I will not go into the circumstances of it.

Have you even read OP's question? They're not asking whether it's regulated are they. They're asking what to do about not being able to make the full payment on the due date and what they should do because they've been accused of fraud. You brought it up, not me. No, I don't know what your circumstances are and no, I don't want to know what you circumstances are. You complained that Welcome bent their rules to give you a loan which, by your own admission, you couldn't afford. But you went ahead though you knew that you couldn't afford it and now you're complaining about it. And what makes you so certain that I have never had, or don't currently have, a debt problem? It is you who is being judgemental and making crass comments.

Where in the OP does it say "i have been lent too much money by welcome"? Where does it say "i want to dispute what they lent me"? Where does it say "the fiddled the figures to make the loan to me"? It doesn't say anything of the sort. Your loan at Welcome is not what we are discussing here. If you know they fiddled the figures so they could give you a higher loan than you could afford then you were somewhat foolish to take the loan when it was offered to you - and they were foolish to offer it to you (but I expect they get paid commission...). It's a bit like saying I really wanted a Ferrari and the garage really wanted to sell it to me but we both knew I couldn't afford it: now that I've fallen behind with the repayments I'm disputing that I owe them the money because they knew I couldn't afford it. The judge is really going to bend over backwards to help you - yeah right! How does knowing why OP borrowed the money help to answer the question? It doesn't. That's OP's business and not ours. How does knowing how much OP borrowed help to answer the question? It doesn't - not unless you know EXACTLY what OP's income and outgoings are - but those questions weren't asked were they?