No, I would just keep it simple "with regard to your letter of [date], please take notice that this account is in dispute and is now the subject of legal proceedings. Any enforcement action taken by you whilst the account remains in dispute will be reported to the court." or words to that effect

good point gb

" it was unenforceable when Robinson Way starting hounding me, due to no inadequate/non-existent documents," - isn't true, I'm afraid. If they sent a document in any shape or form which had the prescribed terms on it, then the court would accept that as an enforceable agreement. I think the case is simple: 1. there was a debt but settlement was reached in 2001. 2. the original creditor has supplied information via SAR that says the last payment made was in 2001 3. the debt is therefore statute barred under s5 of the Limitations Act 1980 since 2001 is over 6 years ago 4. RW trying and collect the debt is an unfair business practice under the OFT guidance on debt collection

Yep, wasted costs order

This a small claims case and they thought they could just get their £80 and move on. You are obviously a "difficult customer" and they realise that they are going to lose money if they carry on. So, they run away.

gbjadyy - you are absolutely right. Unfortunately (and stupidly), the dealer has already started court proceedings. Since no one else is stepping up to the plate, here is a draft defence. What do the various contributors to the tread think? (I have put it in the correct format)

Presumably, daiseymouse, you have this document that the agent signed. It would be a good idea to attach a copy to the defence. Have you replied to the court saying you are going to defend the whole of the case? (there is a tear-off form on the court papers)

Nail on the head, I think afcwben

So, who is going to have a first go at a defence? Put it here and we can all comment, add bits, etc Here's some bullet points: - DH told him about the problems, nothing was hidden - He is a car dealer, who presumably knows about cars, saw the car before he agreed the sale and he took the car anyway. - It was only after he had taken it that he claims to have discovered other faults - Caveat emptor applies, therefore - "The claimant's statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim" CPR 3.4(2)(a) so court is invited to strike out his statament of case

As I said above, let's have a look at the POC Even if what is said on the altered papaerwork was true, caveat emptor still applies.

Can you post the particulars of claim. You will need to respond to the papers within 14 days - presumably, you are going to defend. You have 28 days to get in your defence - we will help. Main thing is to ask fro a strike out - this guy has no case! Start here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveat_emptor and from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/caveat+emptor (my emphasis) This is useful too - http://en.allexperts.com/q/UK-Scottish-Welsh-935/2009/3/help.htm

You can send a subject access request under the data protection act. They have to supply all account details

can you give us the monthly payments for both loans too, please

ruth, helen Start by reclaiming the charges - see link in my signature to my BH case for info. Look at Lefty's fact sheet about the insurance to see if you do something about that too.

Fred_funk asked me to look in as he was worried about BOG's spreadsheet. I am afraid he is right, the spreadsheet is wrong as it gives the total paid instead of the interest paid, at least. I've not checked anything else. CitizenB has pointed to a more current (and hoperfully correct spreadshheT

Here's a link to a summary http://www.shweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/woodchester%20v%20swain.pdf

I think 14 days is reasonable. 28 days most certainly is. 'Bit of each' - 14 days notice usually goes with a court claim not FOS, that's all s69 - I was merely agreeing that it is a good idea to mention iterest in restitution at this point whereas you wouldn't do that for s69 interest.

I have a couple of comments - random order: 1. the 8 weeks is entirely random but is the timescale for a bank to respond toa complaint (not to reolve it ) set by the FOS. IMHO it is far too long, but Hey Ho! 2. courts expect you to be reasonable. I think you can argue that you are being reasonable if you comply with the relevant pre-action protocol, which says that you must give 14 days for resolution. We have always been far more reasonable by giving 14 bays on a prelim and a further 14 days on the LBA. 3. I think you need to decide on your overall strategy - FOS or court. I think the approach is a bit of each ATM. 4. you wouldn't mention s69 interest at this point as that is only awarded post a court claim. However, I think you are right to mention interest in restitution at this point as that is a diferent issue (although related in the courts' mind as s69 is a sort of interest for your trouble)

I should - the trouble is that I am subscribed to just under 5000 threads

OK As I said, I haven't read the thread (perhaps I should ) So they stopped charging interest at some point in the past and are now seeking s69 interest from that point on. That is what s69(4) allows.

But s69 interest and interest claimed in restitution have nothing whatever to do with 'running' interest. You claim charges PLUS interest charged by the company ('running' interest) PLUS either s69 OR compound interest in restitution. Read the tutorial.

Ford I'm not sure I undertand the last post. Anyway, here is the lowdown on interest - more details in the interest turorial linked in my signature - I haven't read the tread so some details may not apply. If you have a loan, credit card, etc you will be charged interest at some commercial rate. If the creditor adds unlawful charges, mis-sold PPI or some other dubious thing, they will have added this interest onto those charges as well. Interest on an unlwful charge is itself effectively an unlawful charge and should be reclaimed at the same time. However, you are entitled to something on top of that for your trouble. Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1980 says you can add 8% simple interest on top of everything from the date of the charge to the date of settlement of the claim. Now, many people claimed that this was nonesencse - in what other sphere of actovity do people charge simple interest? This was at the heart of the case Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue. The creditor' wrongdoing has two effects: 1. They may have used their ill-gotten gains to make a profit. The law says this profit is unlawful. It is called unjust enrichment. 2. The other party may have suffered damage in that they have been deprived of money rightly theirs and had to borrow money to replace it. Both of these can be represented by compound interest at commercial rates: 1. A financial institution will have made a profit by lending the unlawfully obtained money at interest. Compound interest at commercial rates is a good estimate of this profit. 2. If the other party had to borrow money to replace what had been unlawfully taken by the creditor, they would have hd to borrow it at interest. Compound interest at commercial rates is a good estimate of their loss or damage. There is a legal principle called restituition which says that, in the case of wrongdoing like this, things must be put back as nearly as possible to what they were or what they would have been as possible - unlawful profits must be surrendered, damages made good. Making the creditor pay you compound interest at commercial rates does both of these things - the unlawful profit (estimated as compound interest on the money taken) is surrendered and damage (also estimated as compound interest on the money taken) is made good. This is all supoprted by the House of Lords judegment in Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue. Of course, if you claim compound interest, you cannot claim s69 interest as well.

Absolutely right SF. If you do file in court, you cannot claim both compound interest and 8% anyway - may as well go for compound at the outset. Compound interest is claimed in retitution. The rationale for compound interest is given in the House of Lords judgement in Sempra Metals v Inland Revenue. Restitution is a legal principle where a party acts wrongly. This wrongdoing may have two effects: the wrongdoer may profit from their wrongdoing or another party may suffer loss (damage), or both, as in the case of unlawful charges. Restitution demands that, as far a possible, things should be put back as they were (or would have been) before the wrongdoing occurred - unlawful profits must be given up, damages repaid. In the case of a financial company (like CapOne) both of these can be represented by compound interest: the financial company has unlawfully taken money from another (you in this case) and has made an unlawful profit by lending that money to a third party at interest. The compound interest charged to that third party represents the unlaful profit. On the damages side, to replace the money unlawfully taken by the financial company, you would have had to borrow the money from someone else at interest. The compound interest you would have been charged represents your damages. Making the company pay compound interest to you sets both of these right and things are put back as they would have been had the comapny not charged you unlawfully. Simples. Both of these aspects are covered in Sempra

Just responding to citizenB's request for help. You seem to have some expereinced advisors here already - PM Andrew1 as suggested - I will also flag up for car. In the meantime, the only thing I can add is that, as this is a business loan, the CCA 1974 probably doesn't apply. It probably wouldn't help anyway as it is the guarantee that matters. That wouldn't be regulated by the CCA I don't think.

Do what CitizenB says and refuse to talk to them on the phone - everything in writing. A couple of questions: did MAzda/Volvo ever inform you of the assignemnt of the loan from Mazda to Volvo? (this is a requirment of s36 of the Law of Property Act 1925)? Send Link a request under s79 of the CCA 1974 for a copy of the regulated hire agreement and a statement of account. Let's see if they all have their ducks in a row