Yes, pretty sure I'm getting letters without delay to my current address. Will double check next one with date on letter/when it actually arrives.

Just a quick update on this. Lowell have been fairly active, sending 3 letters in the 2 months since the initial letter. Just begging letters at this stage, along the lines of "Please let us know how you'll be repaying", "Please contact us to arrange payment". One interesting point (maybe nothing) is that they are consistently quoting my old address incorrectly, only by the prefixing what appears to be a flat number (the address is not/has never been converted to flats) to the address - but it is incorrect as such.

Yes, sorted on the defence for that one thanks.

Sorry, should have explained better, the telecoms claim has just failed mediation (due to them not producing docs) and has been transferred for allocation. Lowell DO know my correct current address - we have communicated (in respect of the above telecoms claim).

Interesting. I do have another ongoing claim with Lowell/BW Legal for a telecoms account (currently at the transferred to court stage), if that has any potential bearing. Last activity on this EDF account (until now) was at the start of 2014 when Buchanan Clark & Wells were sending letters.

Didn't think about that...highly dubious behaviour - are there instances of them actually doing this? Not that it should surprise me! So, a letter to get them to acknowledge my current address and deny the debt should suffice for now.

Not at the same address. Debt is from circa Aug. 2013 - left EDF at the same time.

Thanks, sorry about the redaction - that'll teach me for using Preview to do it quickly rather than redact properly with a PDF editor! So...you think it is not common place for the mass sale of utility 'debts' to DCA's? The letters are just a fishing exercise?

First thing I've heard on this EDF account in quite some time, seems Lowell now have their grubby fingers on it! Received the attached two letters (in the same envelope) - one from EDF, the other from Lowell. Pretty standard looking letters. My gut tells me to ignore until such time as they send a Letter of Claim. If/when they do then put them to task in terms of following the pre-action protocols. Just wondered what the current thinking is in regards to engaging or not at this stage? My position is that I do not acknowledge the alleged debt and they will not be receiving any payments at any point, now or in the future. Thanks edf-01.pdf lowell-edf-01.pdf

Purchased a new phone (online) on an O2 pay monthly contract via mobiles.co.uk. My current provider beat this deal at last minute hence me wanting to cancel the O2 contract and return the handset. I am within 14-days of receipt of handset but have used the SIM/handset (no calls - just testing coverage). mobiles.co.uk's return/cancellation policy (here) states use of SIM/handset signifies acceptance of contract. It also mentions that coverage issues should be discussed with them/the provider before a cancellation can be approved. Either way, the handset will be returned and I will not be honouring the contract - however, just interested if anyone has had experience with similar and best way to approach them - purely because I want the upfront cost of the handset refunded without any problems or protracted battles. Thanks.

Back in 2013, a bank where I held my current account secured a CCJ against me, and also a charging order on my property. The property has since been sold and they received no money from the charging order as there was another creditor in line before them. Historically I have been paying them a token £1 per month and continue to do so. Every six months or so, Shoosmiths requests an Income & Expense statement from me. In the past I have completed and sent them one. However I am not really comfortable doing this. I’m not even really sure why I chose to agree to the £1 payment per month, as I did not do this with any of my other creditors. I guess as it was a reasonably large sum (close to £10k) I did not want them coming after any other assets which I had at the time, and just wanted to keep them off my back. I’m in the process of re-assessing the remaining financial issues which still exist from that time, I’m wondering is there any point continuing to pay the £1 per month - is it in fact of detriment to me? And what potential further course of action could they take, considering they already have the CCJ? I currently have no assets and not currently in employment or claiming any benefits. I am living with my partner who has a mortgage, in their name only. Any thoughts appreciated.

Thanks for the replies, appreciated. As I expected, they have written off as a Cat C. Currently in negotiations regarding their final settlement value. They are very quick to send out cheques etc. and ask for V5C documents before you have even agreed to a settlement! Reasonably confident I can squeeze a little more out of them than they were offering in the first place, but we shall see...

My stationary car was hit in the aftermath of an accident between two other vehicles. Made a claim via my broker/insurance company and the car has been uplifted by them to access damage/repair etc. It is probably touch and go as to it being a write-off, so just interested to know at what point the insurance company becomes the legal owners of my vehicle? Is it when they make an offer and I accept, or before then? Thanks.

Interested in what peoples interpretation of this paragraph from Chapter 3a of the Work Programme Provider Guidance. Chapter 4 paragraph 101 : ‘.... must ensure that, as a minimum, participants have access to all ongoing mandatory requirements in a single document that is available to them at their request. This should include a clear explanation of what each activity is, when it occurs, when it must be completed by and what evidence is required to demonstrate completion of the activity.’ Also, mentioned in Chapter 3b– Action Planning : 'all ‘live’ mandatory requirements must be held in a single document . This should include a clear explanation of what the activity is, when it occurs, when it must be completed by, and what evidence is required to demonstrate completion of the activity' My question, is it right for us to expect a single document detailing all ongoing mandatory requirements, or do these paragraphs merely refer to how they should record details internally? EDIT: ...kind of answered my own question on reading that first paragraph again, I guess it is the 'at their request' bit which is important. Not sure what others experiences have been, but I have never received a consolidated list of mandatory activities, just the individual MANs. Cheers

Thanks for that.