Yes, that will be done but will not pay for the losses.

I hope someone can give advice on this. I know someone looking to raise a claim for negligence against a bridging loan company / finance broker / solicitor. He borrowed an amount from the bridging loan company whilst a commercial mortgage of around £190k was being arranged and due to not paying within the period specified, incurred huge charges. Every time he went to the bridging loan company, the settlement amount had increased by thousands and he would then go back to the bank and borrow some more and back to bridging loan company where the amount had increased again and back to bank and so forth until the bank stopped at £220k. Due to the above, he incurred a lot of charges, not only the unfair ones from the bridging loan company but also from the bank and this affected the business for which the loan was being borrowed. He lost quiet a lot, about £500k. He asked a solicitor to raise a claim against the bridging loan company and was told he had a good case. But the legal fees were too high so he went to a finance company with an in house solicitor who agreed to take the case on lower legal fees. After some time, he was told that he had won the case and the bridging loan company had agreed to pay £1 million in compensation. He knew that the initial case had been won but had no idea what else had happened. Apparently he was told it had gone to High Court etc and a large case had been carried out. Now he's found out it was not true (when the £1 million hasn't been paid). The finance company made the whole thing up with fake court documents, letters etc only to extract money from him in legal fees. Their in house solicitor is not regulated. To date, he's paid around £6k in alleged legal fees. What can he do?

This is what it says "You agree that none of your liabilities underthis Guarantee shall be reduced or affected by ..... bankruptcy ..... of the Borrower." If you didn't agree to it, why did you sign it?

Debts get sold all the time but you keep referring to the CCJ being sold. I guess you mean the debt was sold and the CCJ was with it? This is what usually happens. You can raise arguments with the (sometimes) lack of Notice of Assignment and whether any company actually had any rights with your debt. This lack of a NoA has been successfully used by banks in securitisation transfers to retain legal title even though the debt was sold. If it applies to them then why not you? Looks like you've not been fairly treated by the court and this often happens. Banks and DCAs get away with things we could never dream to. BCOBs only apply to FSA regulated deposit taking firms, i.e. current and savings accounts etc. COBs apply to all FSA regulated firms. The Principles for Business also apply. The problem is that none of these apply to DCAs because they're not FSA regulated. The customer loses FSA protection but can't do anything about it. They're regulated by the OFT who have their own guidance but won't take individual complaints. Ours debts are sold for a small percentage and we're forced to pay full price whilst the banks/DCA claim tax relief. Sometimes the bank can come back and want their write off. This means we can pay twice or thrice for a debt.

The case of Wellstead is a Judicial Review so is it binding as a legal precedent on securitisation? It was a JR which was refused.

I had a credit card some years ago which was sold to a DCA in 2005 and fully settled in 2007 at the DCA with around £850. The default expired in 2010. I then reclaimed default charges and ppi from the credit card company and to date this is ongoing because they won't offer the money to me but want to set-off against a 'debt' at the DCA. The FOS has said they can do this and i'm not entitled to the refund. I continue to chase though. The DCA seems to be reporting a 'partial' settlement to the bank even though I paid the whole amount. What the balance is I have no idea but it can't be much (the refund would wipe it out anyway). This means I've paid twice for the account. Once to fully settle it and again through the refund. More worrying though, is that now the bank tells me the account was defaulted in 2008 and sold to the same DCA with a balance of around £1,400. This means the account was sold in 2005 and I paid £850 in 2007 to fully settle it, the default expired in 2010. It was again defaulted in 2008 (I had no idea) and sold with a balance of £1,400. I don't understand what's happened but will of course look into it. I don't know how the bank can sell the account again with a balance almost double what they sold it for first time (which was correct with default charges, PPI and interest).

You could try a Third Party Debt order which can freeze money owed to him by others to pay you. This can be his bank account or another creditor.

First of all I didn't know parents could claim carer's allowance for looking after their own children? Secondly, £21,500 is a lot for someone not working?

The judge has no choice but to agree. There is already an order and CCJ for the debt for £372. That overrides any credit agreement they have.

You only owe them £372 for the debt then ... that's a court order !!

That might be OK for the OP .... they are only liable for the debt from the first CCJ ... if this was £372 then that's ALL that is owed for this account. If the claimant split the claim, that's their fault. But also depends on what the first POC's said. If they were for 'costs' then that is different to them being for 'money due under the account'.

from what I recall, a CCJ follows you with a debt sale and the new owners also own the CCJ. I had this with a debt some years ago. in this case since they already have a CCJ on you for over £372 they cannot obtain a second one ..... FOR THE SAME ACCOUNT, and which is still registered as its under 6 years. you only owe a debt of the first CCJ ... nothing more. The rest of the money has been wiped off by the order. The CCJ overrides the CCA/agreement. But you say the first CCJ was for £3500 and £372 .... which one is it? That's what you would owe on the account.

I'll have to wait until it gets to the court stage after the Ombudsman .... if the decision is in my favour again then i might have to enforce it through court if the insurer does not pay.

Sorry, i'm slightly confused .... I thought the claimant pays costs win or lose? If it's only on a lose then there's little risk because the claims are under £1,500 and the bank is likely to pay. What i'm basing the case on is that the bank has already offered to refund charges and interest but their payment method to send the money to a DCA was unfair since (1) the account was fully paid and (2) the DCA was never a party to the complaint at the FOS. The FOS have no powers to bring anyone else into a complaint (they told me) but seem to have the power (misused?) to pay someone else my money. The bank has paid PPI and interest directly to me (after some letters back and forth) and raised no limitation or set-off for that refund, so why are they doing it for default charges? Both are for the same account.

They had more than 2 years before it went to the FOS ... i only got some info from them, the insurer and developer wouldn't and haven't sent anything.

By the way, i've already been through the FOS but got an unfair decision ..... the bank stuck to that until charges were over 6 years ago then uses the 6 year limitation. The account was sold to a DCA, I paid it off in full with cash 3 months before asking the bank for default charges and PPI. The amount I paid off included charges and PPI plus associated interest. I had settlement letters from DCA. The bank first offered to refund the DCA and they did the same at the FOS, who agreed with them, even though I showed that I'd settled in full before making my claim. The Ombudsman was of the opinion that even though i'd settled in full, the 'poor' bank hadn't been paid (by me) so they can either send the money to the DCA or pay it towards their write off. Nothing for me. The FOS said they're not bothered about the legal assignment because the bank still wasn't paid by me. The above happened on 4 accounts and all the banks have taken the same stance. For 3 of the complaints at the FOS I had the same Adjudicator and Ombudsman who both made the same points across these complaints.

So it's not in the interests of justice for the 'average' consumer, only those who can afford it. If the bank behaves unreasonably why should the consumer have to pay for something that the bank should provide anyway? I'm not arguing the point, I just don't understand how it is fair in cases like this where the bank won't provide pre-trial info and the consumer has no choice but to take it to court.

I've heard these costs can be quiet big ... but why is the claimant paying for something the defendant should disclose anyway? If they have been unreasonable, what then?

That's bad news and not in the interests of justice .....

the FOS has also said the loss adjuster's report was done only to decline the whole claim .... they did not carry out any survey or look at the requirements. They did a walk around the house, looked around, and made a report. They incorrectly applied the minimum claim value and excess. They incorrectly used exclusions (which the insurer now accepts cannot be relied on). it's been an uphill struggle for me over the past 3 years .... if i hadn't persevered the insurer would have got away with it.

I bought a new build house to stay away from these problems and i've had to live with extensive damp and black mould (the insurer loss adjuster's statement) for the past 4 years. It was building up before that. The last 3 years 2 months because of the insurer's refusal to pay my claim. Both the developer and insurer say black mould is not dangerous to health but I think it is extremely dangerous to people with breathing problems (I have 2 people under 16 in the house with asthma). This does not seem to worry them. Both the insurer and developer have even said that rather than spending time chasing them two, I should carry out the repairs if i'm so worried !!! For one thing, I don't have the money and secondly they'd only use it to their advantage and say there's less or no damage to pay for. They doing this with the third head of claim which the FOS changed on because i'd carried out the repairs (they were a danger to health and safety). The insurer says this has prejudiced their position because they can't see the damage. But they had over 2 years to see it before I repaired.

the adjudicator recommended they pay 2 out of 3 heads of claim .... the third they paid a fifth of the value as 'compensation' but not the actual head of claim. The insurer rejected this. it's waiting for an Ombudsman final decision. Before that it has been reviewed by a junior Ombudsman and he has recommended they pay all 3 heads of claim .... and increased the compensation award. I'm not sure if this includes my time and costs over the years but is definitely for the 'distress and inconvenience'. The insurer has again rejected this. now it will go to a full Ombudsman and get a final decision which could be either of the last two recommendations or different (in which case my claim will not be upheld). but i cannot see how the insurer can deny liability based on the definition of 'major damage'. They accept that there are defects which have resulted in damages but say these are not 'major damage' which the policy covers but only 'damage' which it doesn't. The policy states 'major damage' as something requiring 'substantial' repairs and in this case I think £15,000 or more is definitely substantial. Plus it's all as a result of the developer not meeting the requirements (hence the defects) and the insurer not surveying the property properly (hence they missed the defects). They've both been negligent.

the bank complaints? there is only one complaint here .... with 5 heads of claim ... this is how the insurer separated each damage. two I let go .... the FOS upheld two out of three heads of claim and then all three .... and recommended compensation (this claim has been ongoing for 3 years 2 months).

yes, second time the FOS actually recommended more for me .... more compensation and upheld a full head of claim (which the insurer had paid about a fifth for). There are 5 heads of claim, the insurer split each damage into a separate head of claim and applied a minimum claim value to each (and this as an excess when there is none). The policy has a clause for a minimum claim value but nothing about a claim being split into a claim for each damage or anything for an excess. In their way, some heads of claim will obviously fall below the minimum claim value and don't need to be paid (they think). Two of the heads of claim are from the first two years and a lower minimum claim value applies (the developer did not carry out the repairs).

i don't have a good record from the ombudsman ... in the past they've sided with the banks. but this is my first claim against an insurer.