The only way they communicate is through secure online messaging through the account. Then they send an email telling you that there is a secure message waiting for you. They don't email the message itself. Once the account is closed. I can't see how you can log-on to check the account since (as I say) the account is closed. I have asked them (via an online message obviously) but they will only give a pre-written message that they cannot send written confirmation. The account will be closed " in two or three months" "once we get around to it" the lines>

They said:I'm afraid I can't send you postal closure confirmation as we are an Internet only banking service. Email closure could be OK as a back-stop, but once the account is closed, I won't be able to get access to my account. Bit of a catch-22 really. I would be happier with written confirmation, and wondered if there was a requirement for them to do this.

I have sent a secure message to Egg saying that I want my credit card account to be closed. The account is dormant and has no missed or late payments. They have said that they are "unable" to provide written confirmation of closure since "they are an internet-only service". Am I entitled to recieve a snail-mail letter stating the account has been closed?

You need to watch that they don't clamp that.

One other thing. Make sure you sort the credit reference agencies too!

My personal fave is to ask them to quote which section of the Data Protection Act they are referring to when they claim that is the reason for the security questions. Then when they can't answer that, I ask them for their date of birth so that I know who they are. I've only got Post Office insurance on that one so far. He was 19 . Otherwise, just give them wrong information. It usually works, anyway. The other line is "I know who I am - why don't you just tell me the information tha tyou have there, and I'll tell you if it's right or not". You could try this of course: anti-telemarketing EGBG counterscript

which I think is considered by HM constabulary as "fraud". Really, you don't want to pursue this.

Class And I've just deleted a response, when something popped into my mind. Don't send the PCN back to them. Otherwise, they'll just stick it to something, pull it off and claim if was fixed to your car correctly in the first place. Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you

Tell them. Invite them to make you bankrupt, then you wouldn't need to pay the fees. If you've stopped paying your IVA, your supervisor may well be initiating proceedings anyway. What does your agreement say about this? Hm. Not sure what the SAR request would achieve. You know the amounts you owe and that they are legitimate, by virtue of your payments through your IVA.

Ummm, well. Quite frankly. No. Your employer is not duty bound to inform you of every law applicable to your working day. I doubt "You shall not stab a fellow employee to death" forms part of section 6 of your contract, for example. That said, are you sure the NIP has been served appropriately?

Eh? Have you got that the right way round? In any case, harrassment is a criminal action and is definitely one for the police if it can be proven. I would also suggest engaging a solicitor.

FWIW, yes. New elfin safety requirements require that any vehicle that stops on the hard shoulder of a motorway must have the appropriate visibility markings. In many cases, companies will provide specific vehicles where you are required to work on the motorway. I take your point. You might just want a different example

Do you mean "calling you" = telephoning you or "calling you" = calling to see you? If the former, sadly you might not be in. If the latter, then this letter might help: Dear Sirs, Please note that I now formally withdraw any implied right of access to my property to yourselves, your employees, and any agents acting on your behalf. If you should trespass on my property after this notice, then I must warn you that I will not hesitate to call the police to have you removed from the property. I further warn you that any such trespassers will be cautioned in line with Police and Criminal Evidence guidelines and be questioned as to why the trespass is taking place, and a statement will be written from contemporaneous notes, which your employees/agents will be given the opportunity to read and sign. Such a statement may be given in evidence to obtain an injunction in order to prevent further harassment by yourselves or your agents/employees. You will of course be expected to pay the costs for these proceedings. Yours faithfully, Now, whatever happens, you must keep making your payments to MBNA in line with your revised SOA. The advice in the thread above is extremely worthwhile, and I would suggest you heed it. You'll then get into this cycle: Payment -> Letter from them saying that's not enough -> Letter from you saying that's all you can afford -> Letter from them saying they'll take you to court -> Payment -> Letter from them saying that's not enough -> Letter from you saying that's all you can afford -> Letter from them saying they'll take you to court ->Payment -> Letter from them saying that's not enough -> Letter from you saying that's all you can afford -> Letter from them saying they'll take you to court.... and so on. No court in the land will grant a Charging Order against your property if you have been maintaining payments on a formal (CCJ) or informal (DRP) basis. The law simply doesn't allow them to do this. Keep making your payments and updating them every 6 months or so with a revised SOA. They'll bluster. They'll threaten. Tough. They can't have what you haven't got.

In a word, no. "Independent Financial Advisers" are nothing more than salesmen. Always remember that: (a) your aims are to keep fees and charges as low as possible so as to maximise potential returns (b) their aims are to maximise fees. As such, your aims and theirs are diametrically opposite. You would be much better advised to manage a pension yourself, if you are one of the few people for whom a pension is suitable. In many cases, paying down your mortgage and/or maximising your ISA allowance will be the better option.

= ROSA OR A MOD = If I were you, I would take down the .doc file linked in the thread. It is easy to remove the boxes in the document to reveal personal information

Zoiks. Best pay up then!

Not heard of them specifially, but it sounds like you've done the right thing by sending the CCA request. It sounds like you know about the debt. Have you received a Notice of Assignment? Whether they apply for a charging order or not depends on whether they get a CCJ first. If you maintain payments through your contracted agreement or a fomal/informal arrangement, then the charging order route becomes unlikely. In any case, they are likely to want to see a Statement of Affairs (as would a court) to know that what you are offering is fair to both of you. Despite what they are probably telling you, they cannot get a charging order from the court unless: (a) they have been granted a CCJ (b) you fail to keep to the terms of the CCJ I&E statements (or SOAs) sometimes don't ask for equity, but some do. There's more on charging orders here: Charging Order

The TVLA (like DCAs and the DVLA) tend to act above the law as it suits them. The onus is on you to prove you don't receive TV signals. If you fail to inform them of this, you are a criminal. In fact, I would just ignore them. You might want to withdraw their right of access to your property (I'm sure you know how to do that.) All their collection is outsourced to capita, who are even shown to be prone to the odd assault if things don't go their way. Otherwise, there's a wealth of information here: mainframe (Incidentally, I've often wondered why you guys don't hook up with them to create some kind of "super-consumer group ) Here's my favourite clip:

Don't forget the golden rules when dealing with the DVLA: 1. Any mistakes they make are your fault 2. Any mistakes you make are your fault, and means you are a criminal 3. You are responsible for checking their database to ensure accuracy. 4. You are responsible for making sure they read your letters. You are responsible for receiving their letters. 4. They are permitted to override any law of the land they see fit if it means they can fine you. 4. If you do not comply with 1, 2, 3 or 4, you will be fined.

You're absolutely right, Rob. Unfortunately, the Government has chosen this measure as a tool to pretend it is accomplishing something in terms of road safety. Reducing the number of traffic police and raising revenue by artifically lowering speed limits and slapping up cameras is apparently the cure to the road safety problems in the UK. What the Government ignores is that the road death rate in the UK fell consistently form the mid-40s to 1992, when it suddenly levelled and began to rise again. Anyone want to hazard a guess as to when speed cameras were first introduced into the UK? Also, there are huge discrepancies between the "official" accident rate and the number of hospital admissions due to RTAs. The fact is that scamera partnerships very rarely operate within the law, which is why pepipoo and other similar sites are a very useful venture. For those who want to find out more, check out this excellent article: Telegraph

It would depend who the agreement was between. You could try sending two letters: one from yourself and one from the Company Secretary. However, if you were a guarantor rather than a debtor, then I think it would be the company who would apply first. That said, if you are being chased for payment, you have (I would have thought) the right to know on what grounds they are pursuing you.

No, he wont. You're quite right. My point is that you should take it seriously and my advice would be for you to try and get the council on side, rather than going in guns a-blazing. In this case, a face-to-face might me qa good first step. You'll get some good advice on here regardless.

Just a word of warning here. The Government doesn't care whether you owe me money, or I owe the bank some money. But when it comes to not paying taxes (or Council Tax), they take a very very dim view. In fact, you'll know that Council Tax non-payment (for whatever reason) is one of the debts for which you can be jailed. Consequently, if I were you, I'd put any other debts to one side (except your mortgage) and concentrate your full efforts on clearing this. You need the council firmly on your side. I'd take the softly approach, go and see someone, explain your circumstances with a full SoA, and hope beyond hope that they'll accept a payment plan. Sadly, I think you are already on the back foot here.

I'm not sure that's actually right. If alex1640 was in a DMP then the right for a creditor to take further action is not suspended. Only in a formal legal arrangement such as an IVA is this the case. The fact that this has been going on for 10 years suggests it is an informal arrangement. I would also say that 10 years is a massive length of time for such an arrangement to be going on.

But the letter says this: I will give you 14 days to reply to me accepting, unconditionally, my request in principle and letting me know a date by which I will receive payment. If you do not respond, or you do not respond positively, within this time period, I shall send you a letter before action giving you a further 14 days in which to reflect. They respond negatively within the time period. IMHO, you are justified in sending the LBA following their reply, since they could still be reflecting AFTER the LBA has been sent. You are not starting action yet - just entering dialogue. Letters can overlap in that period. In fact, I would go so far as to say you are being courteous by responding promptly