The particulars of claim need to briefly state that you suffered X because of Y, contrary to rule/law Z. The POC is very brief and does not go in to any of the whys and wherefores. For example, I suffered a loss of £X.XX because EDF would not reduce my tariff to the cheapest available, contrary to OFGEM rules. (Or whatever it is contrary to). The loss is X. The reason is Y. The rule is Z. Your particulars of claim will then need to be proven as the case proceeds. So, if you say that you have been unfairly billed you will need to show that a cheaper tariff was available and that they should have put you on it without having to telephone them to do so. You will need to show that you requested the lower tariff, and that their failure to put you on it led to you paying £XX.XX extra. The proof could be: Copies of your tariff. Copies of the cheaper tariff. Letters showing your request to change it Their response that they only accept such requests by phone Some legal requirement that they should accept written requests for example. Etc. for each point in your particulars. You are a Litigant In Person so you do not need to quote law. The judge will help you with that. Therefore, only put in the POC what you can prove. But you do need to follow a procedure called the Civil Procedure Rules. Failure to do so means you are unlikely to succeed.

This contradicts your first post, where you say you were checking your credit file and found a discrepancy. Can we assume that it is recorded with one of the reference agencies but not on Noddle (i.e. Callcredit) or Trust Online?

Nope, not experienced anything similar. But if you require cheap vodka shop at Tesco until the new rules percolate through their system. That could be months...

Create a signature box with Xs and sign over that. Moving things on rather than standing on a principle gets my vote here.

Unless Lowells have done the trick of changing the default date, the defaulted account will drop off your credit file this year anyway. If you aren't sure what you are trying to achieve then sitting and waiting is the easy way to achieve it.

Any "deadline" Optima have set is entirely arbitrary and singularly designed to get you to panic and pick up the phone where they can lie, cheat and coerce you in to paying much more than you can afford. In fact they are simply "hello, we would like to introduce ourselves" letters, written DCA style. You are doing exactly the right thing by ignoring them until you get to the bottom of it. If they are not the claimant on the CCJ then they can do nothing like drag you to court or an interview. Even if they are the claimant, it is likely that you would end up paying what you can afford, probably £1 a month for each. You are doing very well so far. (Don't be tempted to pick the phone up as you go forward). Let us know when you have the judgements and the team can decide the strategy from there. And put your husband out to the shed on rice and beans for a month for his sins.

I am still in touch with her via text but she didn't answer the question about the decree absolute. I did a search online and I couldn't find my name or hers for the right year on a couple of sites. Anything else needs a subscription for 2006 records. I will have to go up to the loft and dig out the correspondence I got at the time to find the court (and an unpaid solicitor's bill for £700... statute barred now).

Lowells will not know that this account is disputed and you will need to tell them in writing simply that the account is in dispute with the original creditor. I would also add the requirement to keep it in writing.

Might sound like a stupid question but here goes... In 2006 my wife instituted divorce proceedings. I was in a bad place at the time and didn't respond at all. I received a decree nisi and a solicitor's bill but I didn't get a decree absolute. How do I find out if the decree was made absolute? If it wasn't, am I still married?

Following on from what Brig said, they will write with specifics about the debt (creditor, account number, amount outstanding and a demand for payment) before any further action is taken. They will not send someone round anyway, but certainly not before a demand for payment. As he said, ignore until (or even if) you get a demand for payment.

Where are you with the status of CCA requests? Please explain for each debt. If you haven't done a CCA request for each debt to the organisation that you are currently paying I would do that as well. (They will not be aware of previous CCA requests).

The debts should fall off of your credit file around the 6th anniversary of the default. Whether you pay them or not. You will find it very difficult or impossible to get the defaults removed. (Whether you pay them or not). You would have to prove that they were wrongly applied to do so. A settled account next to a default may improve you history somewhat. You should Google "statute barred" and understand that before making (or offering) a payment.

I suspect "back up mode" is nothing to do with Word or XP but software designed to back your documents up. That is locking up your autosave so Word cannot then access it. Find it and allow it to use "volume shadow copy" or kill it while working on docs. Normal service should then be resumed. And WTF still using XP? Take all references to your personal life off the machine because you WILL be owned shortly... (OK - maybe not shortly - but you know what I mean).

It is possible that a settlement offer that stipulates removing the history from your credit file as a condition of acceptance will stick. If you want to try it: 1. Be absolutely sure that it is already statute barred. Get a SAR going for this. 2. THEN, be absolutely sure that they will comply with the requirement to remove your history. The offer letter must be water tight and be clear that they will get no money otherwise (assuming it is SB). If you have 1. then I would try 2. for the cost of a stamp. But don't hold out much hope. They are legally required to report the history of the account accurately and may well stick to that.

EGR helps a quick warm up and helps economy. Bypassing it will increase fuel consumption. Worse, it can light the EML. If it can be fixed with an "Italian tune up" and/or some carb cleaner it is best to keep it.

For me, this boils down to your order. If you ordered tyres to fit a BMW XXX model of YYYY year and were given a list of tyres that inlcuded the ones your ordered then you have a case (assuming your wheels are a like for like replacement). If you ordered 265/30/19 tyres without reference to your vehicle then you have no case. They said they are within spec for that size and you got what you ordered.

Thanks for digging that out and posting it up. It is a shame that the term "should" from the OFT guidance didn't make it in to "will" in translation to the FCA rules (in this context).

The last time I checked was a few years ago, but back then a reconstruction was sufficient to comply with a S77/78 request. However, it has to be a true copy of the original - they can't just make it up. And it still has to contain all the prescribed terms and be legible. However, they cannot enforce a court judgement without a copy of the original signed agreement for debts started before April 2007. They can still demand the money, report on your credit file and (and back then) they could still take you to court. I am not sure they can still take you to court. I see a lot of informed posters here and on MSE telling people they can't even take you to court these days. Perhaps the OFT guidance about not doing so has turned in to a FCA rule..?

Don't assume it is actually your debt either. Although this is a natural thought process, they will have written to every Chris**UK that they could find in the address book. It could very well be nothing to do with you at all. If they really do think they have a match with you then they will write with an account number, sum outstanding and demand for payment. Only then should you think about doing anything more than checking your credit file.

Cabot will start reporting on your credit file now then. It may take a month or two to come through on Noddle. Make sure that they don't change the default date. Also - CCA request now due to Cabot if I was you.

They did the same to me. And I was miffed at the time - I felt a bit let down TBH. I have since learned that there is no honour in debt collection at all. Don't waste any more time on feeling miffed. Get a complaint off to Marlin about the DD. At the same time, do a CCA request too. If they fail to come back with a compliant agreement you will have the driving seat.

It does stretch the limits a bit. But no more than many of the posts here, where speeders caught doing 84 mph in a 70 mph zone try to justify why engine revs and hills mean that they couldn't have been doing 84 mph. Or parking tickets for failure to display when the ticket got "blown on to the floor". Etc. But all I see is irresponsibility and the dribbling off of a load of poor excuses.

It is common for employers to restrict holiday bookings to times when there is sufficient cover in teams, time critical project activities are completed, or similar reasons. In most of the jobs I have done, the assumption is implied that normal workload is not postponed or disrupted for annual leave. Extra effort/hours are expended as required. While possibly not fair, it is normal practice. Implied and not guaranteed though.

IMO the original post (hopefully captured in the quote in post #7) shows irresponsibility. Not diminished responsibility. I think any court will be more than capable of distinguishing between the two.

Could be worse. Could have been Michael Gove. Now that would be scary.