Good Luck tergwin! Thanks for the words of support & compliments! If I had a spare minute I'd offer to help, but unfortunately you're more likely to end up being disappointed with my being so busy! I refuse to help if I can't go into the detail I go into, because I believe it's the only way to really help and ensure silly mistakes aren't made. Just my perspective and the way I work. Other's will work differently, but that's the way I feel I have to work, in order to ensure good results. And as you can see a few nuclear bombs or kicks up the backside work wonders too!

Hi angel I wont update this thread any more as its dead and buried,wrote off,cancelled, won I have had many victories over the Halifax and I can advise on the way I have acheived these, love to, If you have ppi then your in luck as one of my many accounts paid me back £4000 and paid the £2000 back on the card in redress, to name but one, if you have the default then keep this safe and use at the end, after you claim back charges, then ppi you can apply to have the default removed and they will do it, this is what I sent Retail Bank Collections PO BOX 607 Trinity Road Halifax HX1 2UJ DATE 23RD

PART 43 - SCOPE OF COST RULES AND DEFINITIONS - Ministry of Justice

You must supply a copy for each defendant to the court, a copy for the court and a copy for yourself, so go in armed with 4 copies of your form. It does not count as 2 claims by doing this, but each defendant must receive a stamped claim form from the court which they expect you to suppy. (I made that mistake on one of my claims and it cost me about a fiver to let them do a couple of photocopy pages for me ) I can't answer your court costs question, so I'll leave that for someone else.

Hi Mrspinkpaws. It could be for any number of reasons that compliance wish to speak with you, all we can do here is hazard a guess. You might be interested in my post here (post number 2) which highlights the differences between compliance and fraud.

Perhaps make it less prosaic - put down the pertinent points in easy to read bullets. You did not consent to be clamped Consent cannot be implied, due to inadequate signage (Vine etc.) You were not trespassing, as you were authorised The clamper is acting as agent for the land occupier On the value section, write the actual values, and don't forget the 8% interest.

Compliance officers do benefit checks & low level fraud cases. As you were told on the phone it concerned an “allegation” then this is probably the latter. All allegations must be looked at no matter how daft some of them sound. The fact that Compliance are dealing with you say’s everything tbh. They are NOT fraud investigators. Amongst other things they tend to deal with obvious malicious allegations, probable misunderstandings & cases the fraud investigators have looked at & then downgraded as it’s not fraudulent, or impossible to prove etc. The worst that can come out of a compliance visit is a benefit correction &am

If Proceedings were served on the 17.6, then you'llfind it very diificult to set aside Judgment based on invalid service, based on the emails and letter disclosed above. Given that they have Judgment, and Proceedings validly served, I can only advise you, when and if a repayment plan is agreed (it looks as though £5 a month is acceptable?), then get this, signed by both parties, in a formal Consent Order.

This is epic! You go Frettful! I would also have responded positively to LP's rants, sometimes we all need a bloody great kick up the arse!!

Hey Locotus, actually I agree the forum staff have been very helpful, one of the tech staff, Emma, has switched my profile and my speeds have gone up to approximately what I was getting with Tiscali, so if it stays that way I shall be happy. I will attempt to solve all problems via their forum in future and avoid the customer service like the plague, thanks for all your advice and help mate, hopefully the problems are resolved now, as long as the service runs well and I don't suffer from slow speeds like I have the past couple weeks then I'm pretty content.

You use section 140B (9) of the New Consumer Credit Act 2006 which says (9) If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.” Section 21: Interpretation of ss.140A and 140B of the 1974 Act 50. Section 21 inserts a new section 140C after the new section 140B (inserted into the 1974 Act by section 20). The new section 140C defines the types of agreements that are covered by sections 140A and 140B. Any agreement that involves the provision of credit to an individual, whether

See THIS thread for lots of info

Hi mrspinkpaws. As Rae says, please try not to worry unduly. I would be surprised if the pension policy was taken into account. As I think you're saying, it can't just be cashed in and moved to a building society account, say, because there are rules about pensions. But if your ex were to give you cash, then that could count, I think? If you're too young to take the pension, I'd say that's that. But post more if you want to know anything else and I'll try to look it up. My best. HB

No problem fergal71 - didn't want to appear rude and ingore your post just in case your question was for me. Thanks, Lee Web Relations Team Vodafone UK

Hi mrspinkpaws. I'm sure you'll attract better advice soon. However, don't fret about this too much. They won't tell you until the time you see them, you'll only drive yourself mad trying to guess what it's about. Infuriating, I know. You do sound pretty well organised. If you just take whatever bits and bobs you think you'll need I'm sure the matter will be resolved in no time. Best wishes. Rae.

Thats a fair point and I have advised that if what you have said is correct then the bailiff company wouldnt have a leg to stand on. Despite others pointless ramblings above, I have not suggested who you pay just that you need to get some kind of agreed arrangement in place and when you have this, you're original question regarding the Stat Dec will be irrelevant. Good luck

No you dont give 2 sh**s, thats why your on here ranting about us you moron

june 2010 is just another carrot in my opinion and will not resolve anything and will not open the flood gates.... each case will still have to be taken to court and the govan case just holds up thousands of others waiting for outcome.... I bet my hat eating that it does not open floodgates and that all individual cases still need to be challenged.... like I have said many times we need to bring a bank to its knees and challenge the government especially at this time when they need our votes. what needs to happen to the British public before we do something about it? MP's stealing expenses Lords selling Laws to companies Banks steali

Crikey, don't you ever go to bed? 03.48

I sent off the forms, one for each address and my entries were fully removed within 2 weeks. I am nagging my partner to do the same.