Schrodinger's cat was both alive and dead, wasn't it? That aside, as I previously said (and GarageFlower has now said), the car may not be damaged. Not all autos are when towed, and virtually all cars now have dual braking systems. However a person may NOT repossess from land which they have entered as a trespasser - open or not.

As already said, repossession from private land without a court order or the landowner's permission is unlawful. Did they fail to take a payment when it was due because they stopped the direct debit before they collected the car? If they did they are in breach of the agreement by preventing you from make a payment as due and agreed. They are required to do no more damage than is necessary when recovering a car as this will reduce its value and so penalise you if it goes to auction. Of course, we don't know for sure if the transmission has been damaged. You have already learned that you cannot reply on what is said on the telephone so either communicate in writing or get a telephone recorder so you have proof of what has been said or agreed. I am assuming you don't live in Scotland where the law is different. Who is the finance company?

The PPI reclaim was paid direct to her, by cheque.

Almost exactly the amount she still owes but she had a successful PPI re-claim paid to her directly earlier this year..

Briefly: A friend owes NatWest a balance of £13k on a personal loan account from 2006. She pays them £10 a month under a self-administered DMP and interest is frozen. The account was defaulted in early 2008. A CCA request has found that the CCA is 'misfiled' and unavailable (unenforceable). She also has two other overdraft accounts (under £5k in total) which are now Statute Barred, although I haven't yet sent the SB letters. I made a F&F offer on the loan account (on her behalf) of about 16% in July which was ignored. I re-made the same offer in October which was turned down in November (they telephoned me). At this time they asked for additional medical info (which I provided). The latest letter from them is a fairly 'standard' one asking for a detailed I&E statement naming other creditors and giving the amounts she pays them, etc. It lists the loan account and the two (SB) overdraft accounts at the top. So, a couple of questions, please: Should I send off the two SB letters and get these accounts out of the equation immediately? Should I provide the I&E statement requested (although we don't want to as we think it may be to get her to acknowledge the SB debts)? And particularly: Should I put her loan account 'into dispute' and stop the £10 monthly payments with a view to pushing them to accept the F&F offer? Or what? Thoughts and advice most welcome.

SB (Statute Barred) applies to most debts, not just credit agreements. Come May 2013 it will be SB so, in you position, I would do my best to delay them and string them along but, as Brig says, your choice. Just remember, any payment or written acknowledgement of the debt will start the six-year-clock again.

No chance you have used 'cheque cashing' and a cheque you paid in didn't clear, is there?

If the agreement was made in Scotland they can only repossess with a court order, however much you have paid,

She should consider herself lucky that she has the option to get the car back, albeit by paying the arrears. I think there is little or no chance of reducing the amount she will have to pay AND getting it back. She has already shown herself as a poor risk by going into arrears so why would they let her stay in arrears and give the car back? Finance companies usually only repossess as a last resort so I assume your friend has already had opportunities to discuss her problems with them and has failed to do so. I wish her good luck.

Wiser heads will be along soon BUT, in the meantime DO NOT send a cheque with F&F offer. They will cash the cheque and still (legally) chase you for the balance.

I take it Advantage have not been back in touch yet? There are very limited circumstances in which they can repossess a car and, to the best of my knowledge, only one that allows them to do it without going through a set process including contacting you first. That one is: if they genuinely believe the vehicle is at risk. Examples of this are: it was about to be taken abroad, about to be sold-on, about to be stolen (rung-up), it was obtained by fraud, etc. It sounds that they are in breach of their agreement with you for no good reason. From what you have said about the car, it sounds as if you would be better without it and with all your money back anyway.

Excellent links, thanks Bandit. The bits that 'jump out' at me are: Failing to make the debtor fully aware of the status of the debt where: the debtor has offered a settlement payment lower than the total amount owing. This should cramp the style of those DCAs that are offering F&F on SB debts. Ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are disputed and continuing to make demands for payment without providing clear justification and/or evidence as to why the claims are not vali, I hope this one has some teeth in practice. Where businesses seek to recover statute barred debt in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, we consider that the following may be unfair or improper practices: pursuing the debt under circumstances in which the debtor has heard nothing from a creditor during the relevant limitation period. And perhaps that will stop a lot of SB stuff coming out of the woodwork. As said, good links.

Typical DCA bullying tactics. It is not your job to prove the debt is statute barred it is their job to prove it isn't.

In the absence of other information, I am going to hazard a guess here: Perhaps Advantage have contacted the dealer and told him to repair the car and he sent out the collection truck for it. The driver has thrown you some bull-poo about repossession and paying the balance, etc cos his boss is peed-off with having to repair the car. Like I said, just a guess. You are not in default of your agreement and the car isn't 'at-risk' so, if Advantage have 'repossessed' it they are in breach of the agreement. As far as fraud is concerned (personally I think it is nonsense), if they believe fraud has been committed they must inform the police as it is a criminal offence. Even if they think there is fraud it is not for them to judge you, is it? That's why we have courts. Was the paperwork on headed Advantage notepaper? Did it say why the car was being taken? Was it signed by the truck driver? (My guess is no to all three). The whole lot stinks.

Unbelievable - you couldn't make it up could you? Sounds like they are digging themselves into a huge hole. Just as well you retained the original inspection certificate. Did they give you any paperwork when they 'repossessed' the car?.

Five weeks since the first post, several replies and still no second post! Sounds like the OP didn't hear what he wanted to hear and hasn't had the decency to acknowledge the advice given.

Well, they can close him down, bring prosecutions, etc. DTI are the big boys in this game, if they get involved you can be sure Trading Standards, OFT, etc will soon be on the bandwagon too. Your MP is the person to get involved though, especially if you can unearth a few other cases or get some publicity that may bring some to light. He/she can take it up directly with the DTI. Not related to your case at all but look here to see what the did with a business just up the road in Ashington - http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/2002/02/01/director-convicted-of-bogus-holiday-claims-50081-11583112/ Good luck.

Looks like he makes a living from doing exactly this Director Check shows: Director Summary Allen Young has 4 current or previous company director or secretary appointments. Short name - Allen Young Director ID : 914707133 Year of Birth: 1981 Address 1 Pickersgill Court Quay West Sunderland Tyne And Wear SR5 5DF Company Summary Company NameCompany Status ANDERSON REUTERS (UK) LLP In Liquidation ANDERSON REUTERS LIMITED Active NORTHERN DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED Dissolved FRASER FOX ASSOCIATES (UK) LIMITED Dissolved You can report him to The Department for Trade and Industry but they will only act if sufficient complaints are received OR IF YOUR MP GETS INVOLVED. I would get my MP involved and then spill the beans to the local paper, the Sunderland Echo always struggles to fill its news pages.

I do love it when the cracks start to appear.

Can't argue with that, it just weakens the SB argument a bit.

Err, there is a CCJ on this debt, isn't there?

Hard for the dealer to claim no knowledge as he filled in the v5c with one name and the v5c2 with a different name. Close are not fools, and it won't be the first time they have encountered this scenario. Also, let's remember that the payments have been made on under this agreement so any fraud here would have to be committed by the dealer, fraud needs intent and (potential) gain. IF the two friends did this without the dealer's knowledge (which I seriously doubt) the worst charge they could face would be gaining a pecuniary advantage by deception (and the associated conspiracy, perhaps). But how the devil could any of that ever be proven? The dealer is in a hole and he will know that. If he has an ounce of sense he will stop digging. Close have probably already debited his account with the sale price, hence they are not actively pursuing the buyer. Again, all in my opinion, of course.

Update: I received a telephone call from NatWest (Birmingham) today. The helpful gentleman refused the F&F offer of £2100 because my friend is currently paying £10 a month (and for the next 112 years at this rate). He did say that Fredrickson are now out of the loop. He then asked me if my friend has any 'medical issues' that would help him to reconsider the offer. As it happens she has. He asked for a doctor's letter confirming this. A couple of questions: 1. Has anyone any experience of NatWest taking medical conditions into account in considering a F&F, please? 2. Does anyone know of any 'guidelines' NatWest use in considering a F&F offer? Views, comments, etc most welcome.

It is the dealer who is deep in the cakky here. Two honest friends approach a motor dealer with a problem and seek his professional advice. He gives it and they follow it. He is obliged to be honest with them (CPUTR 2008) but he isn't. There is no fraud by the two honest friend because there is no INTENT to defraud. The dealer has defrauded Close by submitting a dishonest application - they WILL nail him for the amount they paid out to him - about that have no doubt. That will give them their money back so they should then refund to the other party (your honest friend) all payments he has made because they (Close) cannot profit from the fact that the dealer committed fraud. The dealer will (probably) do everything he can to minimise the crap because he is in fear of losing his Consumer Credit Licence. If a deposit (or trade-in) was part of the deal the car dealer should also (with the 'help' of the courts, if necessary) pay it back to the honest customer. He committed the fraud, he took the profit, he is in deep cakky. All in my opinion, of course, but I did own a car dealership for seven years.

This ^^ is good advice and much as I would have said. Also tell them that any auction/inspection charges are also their responsibility as they happened after the VT. You may also want to remind them of their responsibilities under CPUT Regulations (2008) and the laws on harassment in relation to for the charges they are claiming.