It's hard to have sympathy for someone who ignores the instructions of a uniformed police officer instead believing a random stranger on social media!

As I said, in every show I have watched they ALWAYS clearly identify themselves as HCEOs. My guess was based on the episode you quoted which I haven't seen. I completely disagree with your conclusion regarding editing; each episode is only 60 minutes long yet they cover at least 2 or 3 debtors, each visit being normally at least an hour long, so there is obviously a huge amount of editing before we see the finished show. Agreed for a personal debt and again they always do ask for the individual by name in the shows I've watched. Looking at the HCEO Code of Practice it says "so far as it is practical, avoid disclosing the purpose of their visit to anyone other than the debtor" which suggests they did exactly the right thing in the football club example you mentioned. In the case of evictions I'd alter my statement to "won't leave" rather than "can't leave", very often as a result of the outrageous Council tactic of "Gatekeeping." I stand by my assertion that the vast majority (on the show) are due to people either burying their head in the sand hoping the debt will go away or chancers who just think they shouldn't have to pay what they owe. I think that what you are also forgetting is that when a debt gets as far as a HCEO then for many creditors this is a last resort and last chance for them to get what they are owed. To get to that stage they've normally gone through a number of hoops, been out of pocket regarding the original debt for 6 months or more and had to pay out even more money to try to get their monies back. You need to remember who the real aggrieved party is here! There will always be exceptions but in the majority of cases where it is won't pay rather than can't pay what would your suggestion be other than to hurt them even more in the pocket? Prison for ignoring the original court order? Community service? Write out 100 times "I must pay my debts?" If there is no further financial penalty then who is going to pay to enforce the court's order? Or should people in debt be allowed to ignore a court's ruling?

Do coppers wear jackets that have "HIGH COURT ENFORCEMENT" in huge white letters on their backs? Every one I've ever seen, yes, when they actually meet the debtor they always introduce themselves as such. I can imagine there are times when they may be discreet with non-management staff and I guess there may be some editing of the show such that the initial introduction is not always shown. I do get that bailiffs are not the most popular people in the world but the "impersonating a police officer" is a total non-starter in my opinion and more likely to get the accuser in trouble than the accused. From what I've seen on the show the HCEO is a necessary evil and the vast majority of cases are of people who "won't pay" rather than "can't pay" and the real victim is the hapless claimant who has been out of pocket to the tune of several thousand pounds for months and months.

Do you have a source for that? 'Peacable entry' is surely just that, "entry" into a property. If an occupant kicks off 10 minutes later how can that invalidate peacable entry?

How could that ever work? Anyone wanting to deliberately avoid paying a debt would simply never sign for a recorded delivery letter.

As a fan of the show, it's difficult to see how anyone could accuse them of impersonating a Police Officer when they ALWAYS introduce themselves "Hello, we are High Court Enforcement Officers!"

I recently sent off my 'bundle' to the court and Barclaycard and now, with less than 14 days to go to the court date, I've realised that Barclaycard haven't sent me any documents... The letter from the court stated that "each party shall deliver ... copies of all documents ... no later than 14 days before the hearing". Does this mean that Baclaycard have no intention of defending my case or that if they do then they can't use any documentation to support their case? What normally happens when the defendant doesn't abide by the court's instructions?

I'm sure there's a few of us waiting here with bated breath on the outcome or did you have to agree to a confidentiality clause?

Not quite the same but fairly similar to my experience with the phone company Orange. My mobile phone bills are paid by Direct Debit and so of course I rarely check them. When I did recently I discovered they'd been charging me since last year for phone insurance at £10 a month for two phones. I wrote to them advising them of their error, stated that I had never agreed to having phone insurance and asked for a refund. They didn't reply to the first letter so I sent a second letter marked Letter Before Action stating the same thing. A week later they replied offering a full refund. So basically I'd suggest you do the same, one standard letter requesting a refund and if no joy within 14 days then a second LBA one. As in your case there's no signed agreement then there's no question you'll have your refund in no time. Good luck (not that you'll need it!).

Correct registered address is Barclays Bank, 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP but you'll be fine with the PO Box address. Good luck with the claim. (not that you'll need any luck!)

I gave American Express until near the end of the month to respond to a LBA but they've written straight back saying "get lost". Should I now wait until the deadline I gave them before issuing a claim or can I issue now based on their written refusal to refund?

I cannot confirm or deny your supposition.

Firstly for the mods, would it be appropriate to have a Marbles sub-forum and move existing Marbles threads into the new forum? I'm sure a number of people don't realise that Marbles is part of HFC (or HSBC for that matter) and therefore may not be finding all the useful Marbles threads here. Jun '06 Sent prelim letter Jul '06 Marbles replied "charges fair and reasonable ... not prepared to refund" Jul '06 Letter before action sent Aug '06 Count court claim issued So now we wait and see if Clare Plummer continues to support her company's unlawful actions or settles out of court.

Letter before Action did the trick, entire claim of £1500 will be refunded back "as a gesture of goodwill". Survey and donation will be made once I actually get the refund. Again, many thanks to everyone here for the support.

No, a very polite letter with the usual "we will refund your charges as a gesture of goodwill". I wouldn't expect anything less from a bank that promotes itself as being so ethical.