I really dont know where to start here but i will try and explain as best i can. The main reason for the post is to find out if the repossession is legal which is only the tip of the iceberg here. A financial adviser is contacted to source funding for a small residential development. The adviser contacts a company who happen to be a broker. The broker sources funding from a lender and charges £1,000 app fee. The application is made to LENDER which was successful, no issues. The name of the company at the top of the facility Letter is lets say "The Lender" There is no address or contact information of any kind within the contract other than the name of the company at the top. As the contract was to release the funding in stages, the first stage was released and work carried out to complete all underbuilding work. Not further funding was released after this due to the lenders demands outwith the contract. One thing led to another and the issue was unable to be resolved. The lender decided it was time to both serve a calling up notice and subsequently a court writ to repossess the partially developed land. This is where things start to open up and i find out who is who The issue is that the pursuer is a Limited Company, the same Limited company that the broker was a trading name of, effectively what this guy is saying is, the broker and "The Lender" were both trading names of the Limited Company- How was i to know that when the Financial Adviser requested £1,000 app fee payable to the lender and also there would be a £1,500 fee payable to the broker for sourcing the lender? Effectively it now looks like the Director of the limited company not only charged me to find the lender but HE was the Lender. Now, to make things clear. The Limited company using the two so called trading names had a Consumer Credit License (Legal Formation: Body Corporate) (Nature of Business- Mortgage Broker) (Category-Credit Brokerage) this is very clear from OFT. "The Lender" also had their own CCL as a separate entity,(Legal Formation: Partnership) (Nature of Business-Mortgages) (Category- Credit Brokerage and Consumer Credit) this is very clear from OFT. "The Lender" from the mass of information i found out about them has been a Partnership company for many years but the Limited company who is pursuing the repossession has only been set up for over a year. I am of the thinking that, as nothing mentioned in the contract about a trading name of the Limited Company (which would be a breach of the Companies Act) if it were the case. The limited company did not hold any CCL to be a lender. The Partnership was established at least 10 years prior to the Limited Company being set up, and most importantly, there will be litigation against the lender for breaching the contract it is simply a move to limit the liabilities to the Limited Company that seemingly does not much in the way of liquid funds. Another slight twist is that, the broker and lender have no association whatsoever with the Limited company now they are now trading names of two other Limited companies this guy has set up and the CCL status of all companies is that they are Mortgage Broker NO MORE BEING A LENDER! Again, just to add a little spice. the three individuals who own the Partnership/Limited companies have between them Dissolved over 40 companies within the last 8 years or so. Should it not be "The Lender" named within the contract pursuing repossession. Should i be suing a company not named on the contract and also unauthorised to lend? As i mentioned, this is the tip of the iceberg, Thanks in advance

my ltd company bought a laptop from someone on the express condition it wasn't faulty , stolen and as described. He was paid by a crossed cheque (ac payee only) A day later i got a call from a cheque cashing company who asked me a couple of questions , namely did i issue the cheque , how much , who to and what for. they also asked me if there were funds in the account to cover it and that there were no stops on the cheque. i answered all their questions.. I only tested the laptop breifly on mains power , after a day i found that the battery wasn't holding a charge and that if you did anything more than open a browser it overheated and died. I called the guy who sold it and after not being able to get hold of him that day put a stop on the cheque. He eventually turned up 3 days later and collected the laptop. I received a letter from the cheque cashing company , telling me the cheque is unpaid and demanding i pay them the full amount + £25 or they will "take further action" can the 3rd party , i have no contract with enforce this. If they can this means i'm out of pocket to the tune of £600 with no goods to show for it. a quick google search found this on http://www.chequeandcredit.co.uk "Crossed cheques The rules concerning crossed cheques are set out in Section 1 of the Cheques Act of 1992 and prevent cheques being cashed by or paid into the accounts of third parties. On a crossed cheque the words “account payee only” (or similar) are printed between two parallel vertical lines in the centre of the cheque. This makes the cheque non-transferable and is to avoid cheques being endorsed and paid into an account other than that of the named payee. Crossing cheques basically ensures that the money is paid into an account of the intended beneficiary of the cheque." The Cheque was a/c payee only , surely it was non transerable and there not enforceable by a 3rd party ?