Wilsonio, was it made clear to to you at any time that the deposit would be taken at that point? Did you give your consent to the sum being taken from you?

Rubbish. Of course the bank has the money in reserve to lend to you, if only the right to draw that from other banks It's a term from Roman law relating to the status of Roman citizens and so is about 2,000 years out of date. It means the maximum loss of status but doesn't have anything to do with capitalization. "Capitis" in this sense refers to "Status" Utter drivel.

I have sent a copy to the Court but I wondered if anyone had heard of anything like this before?

Evening all, I am being chased by a utility company for an unpaid bill from a property I lived in a couple of years ago. I don't dispute that I owe them something, however they have never sent me a closing bill and I believe the sum they are claiming is incorrect. I have asked for a correct bill but they have ignored my letters and just kept threatening me with Court. Finally a few weeks ago they started proceedings against me. However they have misspelled my name, and in the meantime I have moved again. I have entered a Defence and told the Court of my correct name and address. I have also given the Claimant this information. This morning I received an Allocation Questionnaire from the Court and notice that the case is being transferred to my local court - all issued to my correct name and address. However, in the same post I received an envelope from the Claimant containing a Judgment by Default allegedly made by the Court - in my old name and address. What's more, the Court stamp is not right, the typeface is different, and round the edges you can see the marks where the original image has been scanned before being overtyped. All in all, it doesn't look a bit like it came from the Court. Any ideas, anyone? Thanks B-B

I agree with Andrew. The long (16 digit) number is the card number. The purpose of quoting it is to demonstrate that the card was present when the cheque was signed. Not all guarantee cards have the small number at the bottom, and in any case this is usually the account number. As this is also printed on the front of the cheque there would be little point in writing it on the back too.

No. The right to quiet enjoyment is not absolute. Furthermore with regard to S3(A), the question is whether the L/Ls request for access is "likely to interfere with the peace or comfort of the residential occupier or members of his household". A short visit necessary for the L/Ls business does not fall into this category.

I would suggest that those who claim that the Landlord has no right of access read the very helpful sticky on this point :- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/landlords-tenants/74053-access-property-landlord.html Reasonable access from the L/L, after due notice has been given, does not breach the Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment. This would only be the case if the frequency of the L/L's visits were unreasonable or notice were not given.

Sorry, but this could not be more wrong. The long (16 digit) card number is unique to the card and does not contain the account number. The short number is the account number. It is essential to quote the long number as the account number is obviously on the cheque itself already.

You really need to take more water with it.

Ashford County Court are staying claims if requested by the Bank, not automatically. However the DJ did instruct us to use the extra time to reach a settlement and told us she would award Wasted Costs against a party which refused.

Barclays will be there and will request a stay. If you do not agree, they will apply to have your case struck out on the basis of the decision in Berwick -v- Lloyds. Be sure to have your case against a stay ready, and also be ready to defend yourself against a strikeout. (Remember, the Berwick decision was made on the basis that he was not in breach of his contract with the Bank. You disagree, you definitely are in breach, so it does not apply in your case.)

If they have taken Crossie's £1 as a payment on the account, they will claim that the clock has restarted and there is another six years left to run before it is statute-barred. IMHO it is imperative to point out to Crapbot that this was the statutory fee - do not just ignore them because this will come back to haunt you later.

I would definitely report this bunch to the DTI. If they are serial offenders they can be disqualified from acting as Directors. However I'm not sure that it will be possible to pursue the Directors personally for the unpaid wages. Normally Directors do not have to meet their Company's debts except under very specific circumstances, usually allowing the company to trade after it has become insolvent ("wrongful trading")

Whether the clauses are enforceable would be a matter for the court, so obviously they would have to hear the case in order to decide whether they are enforceable or not. Clear?

I don't know how I can make this any clearer. A precedent is a definitive statement of the law, binding on lower courts. As such, it is the law of the land. You may well have the inalienable right to take your case to court but, in deciding your case, the court will have to follow the precedent laid down by the higher courts. If there is a precedent about to be set, the courts are entitled to wait for it, in order to ensure consistency. Like I've said, there are excellent resources here for resisting a stay. But this isn't one of them, quite frankly it's just a lot of woolly words without any real meaning.