Has our friend Mr Carter found a way around going back to court for more? Well, I suppose he could argue that his client had suffered damage (loss) on the grounds that your non payment of the debt had created the necessity to appoint a third party ie.B Carter to recover the said debt under his terms and conditions. In a nutshell...nah. Nice to see him sounding desperate now:-D Note that he virtually admits that the OC can't directly enforce the debt now he's taken his partial claim.

Statute barred for mortgage debt is 12 yrs....even so this CCJ looks defunct at best and enforcement should be rigorously challenged. You should really be seeking legal advice here and not relying on internet chat rooms to sort this out - even one as good as CAG.

From what you have said this is a biz2biz debt so there is no out via any consumer credit legislation. If both parties signed the wholesaler's agreement as a trading partnership then both are liable. Unfortunately unless you can raise doubt as to whether the wholesaler actually supplied these goods - or infer that if he did he did so in some defective fashion - there is no defence. The court will find in the claimant's favour and order repayment in line with the defendants' means.

You need to find out if Link are still pursuing the case - call the court and see if the action has been stayed (you won't be told if it has you need to ask). If they are backing off obviously don't sign it. Have you been given a hearing date yet, who was the original creditor and how much is the debt for?

Excellent. In the court papers you were sent you will find a box to write up your defence. Fill it in with what you said above (altering the phrasing as appropriate of course). Hopefully the last time you acknowledged or paid anything towards this debt was more than 6 years ago? If so mention that in your defence as well as the debt will be Statute Barred and totally unenforceable. You must do this quickly or the other side will win a judgement against you by default.

" a student loan taken when I lived abroad." How did you manage to do that? Who did you borrow this money from, was it an official UK student loan? How long ago was this taken out? did you actually get this money yourself or was it done in your name by someone else? A CCA is useless at this point - you need to submit a defence ASAP.

Reply as 42man suggests - it will at least show the court that you have tried to sort the matter out without resorting to litigation (rather than totally ignoring the claimant which 90% of people do) - this will certainly mitigate in your favour and may even cause Link to think twice about going any further with this.

Link will 99.9% certainly issue a Northampton BCC claim, whatever you do, whatever the previous circumstances. How old is this debt? When did you last pay / acknowledge it? These people are now without a doubt the biggest [edited]in the debt purchasing circus. However they can and are being beaten with a bit of professional legal help. I'd PM Pt2537 for advice here.

It will thus be allocated to the Fast Track in all probability. Link have become incredibly litigious in the last couple of years and seem quite willing to spend a fortune fighting the most marginal of cases. They have quite a knowledgeable in house para legal team with a lot of combat experience. You need to tread carefully here otherwise you will just end up with a CCJ plus a shed load of costs to add to your woes. If this goes to court you will need to hire a barrister as they almost certainly will.

It sounds like it must have been stayed and not restarted. You would not necessarily have been informed if this was the case. I'd just leave it be but discretely make sure they didn't somehow get a default CCJ.

Hi Howler - when did you last make a payment towards this a/c? Equidebt are notorious Statute Barred debt chasers. If no T&c's it's not enforceable as it stands however they could possibly reconstitute an enforceable agreement. You should also require them to produce statements showing how they calculate the amount you allegedly owe.

For a long time there has been some debate on these forums as to when and why a debt can become Statute Barred. Hopefully the following will help (from HMRC website : http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ihtmanual/ihtm28384.htm) IHTM28384 - Law relating to debts: statute-barred debts If a lender allows time to pass without receiving any payment an action for recovery may become barred. Under the Limitations Act 1980 the time limits are in simple contracts, 6 years in contracts under seal, 12 years. If the debtor acknowledges the debt in writing or makes a part payment within the original limitation period, then the time limits start to run again from the date of acknowledgement or the date of payment. Even though the lender may be barred from pursuing recovery, a debtor may decide to pay the debt after the expiry of the time limits. Because of this you should allow a debt which is otherwise statute-barred if the personal representatives pay the debt and you receive evidence that the payment has been made. The above instructions do not apply to debts in Scotland. Under Scottish law, if a lender allows time to pass without receiving any payment an action for recovery may become barred under the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973. (For details of this Act see Gloag and Henderson 10th edition at Chapter 15.). These debts are completely extinguished and cannot be enforced. Once the prescriptive period expires the debt cannot be allowed as a deduction.

"Would the police have any powers/rights if they call or can I just tell them where to go and multiply if the time is unreasonable." Whilst telling numpty doorstep debt collectors to go forth and multiply makes good sense it's not such a good idea to do this to people with official powers....I'd just wait and see what his supervisor says.

Just submit your embarrassed defence in plain simple English - now. Don't worry about the Fast Track aspect for the time being - we'll go one step at a time.

You should still make quite sure they have at least a piece of paper with your signature on it that passes for an agreement. Without this they are sunk. We would need to see what, if anything, they are proffering as an agreement in order to best advise. You need to tweak (and submit ASAP) your interim defence to show you are disputing and put it in as an embarrassed defence if they have not produced any docs. Also is this debt over £5k? I'm slightly concerned that their lack of cooperation means that they are going for the Fast Track which means they can slap a load of costs on and make defending far more risky.

See http://www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/output/page80.asp (esp the bit about what to expect) You should ask him to speak to his supervisor to clarify how he/she intends to monitor this curfew and try to explain that frequent unexpected visits would be a nuisance to those he is staying with. Unfortunately you won't get too much specific advice here as we mainly try to sh@ft debt collectors rather than Probation officers

Roughly how long ago did you apply for this account? If it's an old MBNA account they won't have an agreement so this would make it short and sweet....

Yes usually but you if you are being obdurate and refusing to discuss ways of clearing the debt the petition may be allowed. You want to be able to show that you have made a serious attempt to make realistic monthly contibutions from any surplus income. Armed with a judgement (which I assume they have or they wouldn't have a charging order) the petitioner is in a strong position if you are refusing to make payments. I would get in touch with them and see if they come up with a realistic payment plan. If they don't that will work in your favour as you have at least tried to reach a reasonable solution. If you have other creditors that would be worth mentioning in your set aside too as they may be placed at a disadvantage if the bankruptcy went ahead.

Do they (the other 2 companies) have anything that actually has your signature on it?

That seems to be the standard Tomlin wording. In short yes if you miss a payment they can get an automatic CCJ (that's the whole point of them) and if you sign it you will have irrevocably accepted liability for the debt. The upside for the debtor is that Tomlin Orders are fixed so the creditor cannot endlessly keep shaking you down for higher payments as with a CCJ. If its only a very low token amount they are asking I would be tempted to sign unless you have quite a strong defence.

Pinky if you have an effective line of communication with the OFT I think it might be worth threatening them with a Judicial Review over their practice of allowing DCAs to operate without a licence pending renewal. Tell them there are plenty of CAGers ready to fight this corner! See http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment_guidance/judicial_review/index.htm

The bottom line is, I think, firstly that the OFT don't want to get into a massive legal sh*t fight with a well funded and lawyered opponent. They are probably tying themselves up in knots trying to find ways of justifying a decision to renew the licence. Secondly, if they did close Cabot down they would have to close all DCA's down as the others are doing exactly the same things. Denying Cabot a licence would thus be a "nuclear option" which would cost thousands of jobs and throw the entire consumer credit industry into complete disarray. That's why they are squirming here.

The actual deed of assignment shows what the DCA paid for the debt - usually not more than 20p in the £. Hence the unwillingness to produce it. Have you actually seen or heard anything to suggest that debts are passed back under the table to OCs or indeed actually still owned by them when they have claimed to have sold them?

Both the Court and the mortgagor maybe unhappy about it (the charging order) but since the latter is demonstrably receiving the best deal on offer given your financial circumstances it is hard to see what they would have to gain by terminating your current arrangement. It is a very distressing situation to be in but you have to remember that in your position both the overall system (child & family protection etc.) and the fact that your mortgage company will definitely lose out if they rock the boat should mean things ultimately work out in your favour if normal logic prevails.

>>What happens now and what should I do? Nothing & nothing. They will get the charging order but because the mortgage company has a first charge on the property and its in negative equity they are not going to try and force a sale - they can only sit on it and hope the value goes up. They will just get a nasty surprise when they ring your mortgage company - it is their boat that will be rocked:grin:. Remember the court would almost certainly never order a sale if it would make your family homeless. This is more of a nuisance situation. The big downside is loss of future housing equity if the value of the house goes up - :evil:annoying but not life threatening.