Thanks for all the replies. caro - The person I was doing it for is/was retired. And she assumed it was necessary. citizenB - I was contemplating the effectiveness of the Barclaycard one and asking if anyone had experience. But thank you for the pointer. Good to know for future if not this one. dx100uk - Thanks for the offer I already have asked for the statements and have the necessary spreadsheets. I was just contemplating other avenues while waiting for the information.

Hi I just wanted to ask if anyone has used the PPI claim complaints page offered by Barclaycard to make a PPI claim? They have an online form and an option to print out a large PDF form to fill and send. To me there seems to be a large number of questions they are asking including employment status at the time etc, which I can not see the relevance of. If anyone has used this I would appreciate it if you can let me know of your experience,

Thanks, I will add a paragraph (see the original post - new paragraph in red) This is the letter I am looking to send to their solicitors.

Modified letter to be sent tomorrow. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again for the assistance DX. Cant remember it going to court. To be safe I will leave it off the sheet and ask them to explain it. Onwards

That was quick Thanks DX A couple more questions have arisen as I am going through the fees. Note that the account started in Oct 2005. 1) There is an amount in 2006 stated as "Standard Solicitors Fees" for over £300. I have no idea what this is or even why it was added to the account. Can this go in the charges? Or if not can I reclaim interest as I did not have a choice to settle it at the time if it was valid. 2) There seems to be an attempt to address the fees with two entries (Re-Dress Interest £35 and Re-Dress of Fees £444). This is was short as the total up to that point is £2500 without the above solicitors fees. Shall I just enter these as a negative in the spreadsheet? Thanks

Hi I am in arrears with Paratus AMC (Previously GMAC) whom I gather to be difficult to deal with. As part of their pre-action they have kindly forwarded me the complete statement of the account. In it I have noticed that there are a large number of fee items and wanted to know if anyone can advice which ones can realistically be claimed against as unlawful charges: Unpaid DD Fee (£30) Arrears Fee (£50) Non Payment by DD Fee (£30) Thanks for any assistance

Thanks you for the reply Brigadier. The account shows as Settled and belonging to the original lender, and I have had no communication from the original lender in relation to the reassignment. I guess I'll have to wait for the response from Lowell, to my letter requesting the deed of assignment.

Hi I am a little unclear on the rules around accounts and defaults. I have account which has been in dispute for a very long time with the credit company who kept passing the account from one DCA to another who then sent it back when I informed them of the dispute. Earlier this month the account was marked as satisfied with the credit reference agencies, and this week I received a letter from Lowell with the usual threatening tone. I have replied in the letter, and as well as stating that no debt is acknowledged I have also stated that no contract or agreement exists as I have received no notification from the original credit company. I have asked for a full list documents under CPR (they mentioned legal action so I took advantage). What I wanted to know is what right do Lowell now have about placing a default or even an account with the credit reference agencies since the original creditor has marked the account as satisfied. I have no agreement with Lowell and they have yet to produce a deed of assignment. If they place a default on the credit file, can I object to have it removed if there is no Deed Of Assignment?

As it is not my own account, I do not wish to put any details up, in case there are anyone from the company looking at the thread. My understanding is that Zinc is effectively the new name for 'Ultimate Credit Management' who went bust. Glad to provide entertainment for you there I noticed the "may have" as well, but I am going to put a complaint in on the basis that it is worded to mislead any who do not know the law and put undue pressure on them. And thanks for the offer of help. I am quite happy with handling this. I am however a little rusty as I have been inactive for 8 months or so, and wanted to make sure nothing has changed in the regulations while away. If you wish to ring them then the number on the letter is 0330 100 0850 and 53 (51 is down as a fax). Company registration number on the letter is 6450797 which is for "COMPLETE CREDIT CONSULTANCY LIMITED". No they were not paying UCS, nor have they had dealing with them before. They are probably listed under the actual name, whereas I think Zinc is just a trading name. Also if they are acting on behalf of someone else, I believe they do not need to be registered and can act under the registration of the other company. They have the proper details and account number so I imagine they are legit in that respect, but their practices may be suspect, as it was with UCS.

I am helping someone with an account of theirs which has been running for quite a while. They have just received a letter from Zinc Collections which states: Is this not effectively asking that they should borrow to pay them? If so is this not against section 2.6b of the OFT Debt collections guidelines? Any views or advice on a reply would be most welcome. Thanks

Just checked the "Mobile Homes Act 1983" and it does not apply. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Thanks Aequitas. I'll have a look. This was a holiday site and not residential, so there may be a difference, but I'll see. Lots of questions to answer here. I do not care too much about Royal Mails definition as I am not looking to send anything. I am interested in what the law means by it. In the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977 itself there is a distinction between the two: We have been behind payments for a few months and I am not disputing what we owed them in any way. They were away of my intent to sell the caravan and to settle the account. I had even spoken by phone to the MD a couple of months ago about this. Over the years we had fallen behind a few times but always paid up. I am self employed so not always able to pay straight away. The caravan was not valued by anyone. Usually caravans at the age it was at go between £4K and £20K depending on condition and where you get it from. The price was originally set at £18K a couple of years back, with the advice of their sales staff, arrived at by what they believe a good price for ours was. There was no valuation as such. We brought the price down in order to make it more competitive to sell quicker. The value was coming down because they do not allow a caravan to be sited there above a certain age and the number of years left for ours was 4/5 years. This meant they caravan would have to be re-sited after that. Hence them selling other caravans to people we sent them from our own advertising. I'll scan the contract later and put it up. I have not made a decision about what action to take yet as I am investigating my rights. What I am looking at is that they sold the caravan based upon the "Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977" but failed to send the Notice as required by the act. I am suppose to have three months to remedy the situation from receiving the notice and I did not have that. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Thanks for the reply LP My understanding was that 'Registered' & 'Recorded' are different. see TS Factsheet: Trading Standards Fact Sheet 31 My assumption would be that the registered is refering to Spacial Deliver. I believe one difference is that Recorded is with the other normal mail, but Registered/Special is kept separate until delivery. They have not agreed to any reimbursement. They are actually asking for more as they claim that the sale was less than what we owed. The caravan was on sale by us through their sales office at about £13k to £15k. We sent them several prospects over the last 3 years and several of them were sold other caravans, usually because they were told the lease is longer on them. We owed them around £3,900 and they sold the caravan for £3,200, claiming we still owe £700. We have received letters about monies owed, but they were the usual statements. We have also in the last three years been in constant contact with them to try and sell the caravan. Including asking a letter from the MD to pass on to a potential buyer regarding the time they would be allowed on the site. The last letter received (before this one) was a standard bill for the quarterly fees. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Hi I have had a static Caravan sited on a holiday park for several years. We fell behind the payments for the park and have just received a letter saying that the caravan has been sold by the park. They are still after a further £700. Neither I or my wife have received such a letter. Looking at the "Torts (Interference With Goods) Act 1977", my understanding is that the letter must have been sent "signed for", either by Registered or Recorded deliveries. This obviously has not happened. Is my understanding correct and if so do I have a case for a claim against the company? The caravan was on sale for far more than the price they claim to have sold it. The price which it was on sale for was set with advice from their sales staff. Any advice would be most welcome. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Sorry about my last post. It seems that there is a lot of name changing going on (same as Cabot/Kings Hill). I leave it to your imagination as regards to why. From Companies House: APEX CREDIT MANAGEMENT LIMITED Previous Names: 06/06/2000 ANGLOPEN LIMITED 04/07/2006 APEX CREDIT MANAGEMENT LIMITED 20/07/2006 BCW GROUP LIMITED 30/10/2007 BCW GROUP PLC and BCW GROUP PLC Previous Names: 23/01/2002 HMS (404) LIMITED 30/10/2007 BUCHANAN CLARK & WELLS LIMITED Looks like they changed it after the takeover and now changed it back. Best Wishes MoonHawk

How is s.77/78 relevant to an Overdraft? I believe an overdraft does not require a CCA and is covered by your agreement. Best Wishes MoonHawk

The thread name is a little confusing and incorrect. Apex are a company that is part of the BCW group and were acquired in 2005. BCW Group are still going. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Just a pointer ... Apex are not "formerly BCW" ... they are "part of BCW Group" through an aquisition in 2005. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Finally after four and a half months a reply. They only went over the 14 days by a bit. :o The letter was accompanied by a photocopy of a T&C page with th year in question written on it by hand. No other indication as to the period it applies to (lacks a document number also). And to their claim about calls. The calls from '08009172225' stopped in July but calls from 0800 3289911 have carried on to the tune of 117 since July 2007. I shall sit down over the weekend and draft a letter. Any comments or suggestions are welcome

You are welcome. There tends not to be an agreement with DP for that period. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Thanks Tom ... without your help it would not have been so easy mate. And cheers SG ... hugs back at ya Best Wishes MoonHawk

Hi Sue. It is all now done and dusted. Thanks goes to CurlyBen and TomTerm8 for their amazing help. I have just put up the full details on my personal site . To save me time of having to put up all the extra communications here, you can go take a look. Basically they have withdrawn the claim and the account is set to zero with the CRAs. Best Wishes MoonHawk

They do take people to court when they think they can get away with it. But if you inform them that you are aware of your rights in this they tend not to. And you are correct, there is a difference between a DCA and a Debt Purchaser (as they like to call themselves). A DCA is an agency acting on behalf of another organisation who holds the account/debt. They can take you to court on behalf of the account owner .. but it is not the DCA that is on the PoC ... it is the creditor/owner. A DCA can act on behalf of a Debt Purchaser. When the debt has been sold, it falls into a cloudy area and the rights of the debt buyer (in this case AK) depends on how the debt was sold on. If they buy the debt outright, then the transfer is deemed to be "an absolute assignment" and they will have all the rights, but as importantly the liabilities of the original creditor. This means they can take you to court, but it also means you can also sue them for things such as penalty charges. As far as I am aware most (almost all) debts are sold/purchased in bulk, and there is no individual deeds as such, and the transfers are not an "absolute assignment". This means in effect, that the debt purchasers become joint owners of the debt along with the original creditor. The result of this is that they can not take you to court without the involvement of the original creditor. And the original creditor would have not washed their hands of the account if they were willing to go to court (usually they sell because they know it is not enforceable). So what you need to do is either make sure they know that you are aware of your rights in terms of the CCA, or if they have already taken you to court, then use CPR to get them to disclose the fact they do not have an enforceable agreement. I hope that answers your question. Sorry it was a bit long winded. Best Wishes MoonHawk

Thank you for all the replies chaps. I understand the explanation and have also read the previous discussions in relation to the "if any", including the comments of the draftsman of the CCA. My question still remains as what section of CCA or case law to I quote to say that they need to produce a copy and they are in default until they do. More and more of the credit companies are hiding behind the "if any" and continuing to chase the debt regardless, and OFT/TS will not act. Best Wishes MoonHawk