Fair enough. To be honest, the last thing that creditors want to do is to make you bankrupt. It is very unlikely they will get any money unless you own your home and there is a lot of equity. If you do not own your own home or there is little or no equity then you have nothing to worry about. Bankruptcy now only lasts for 12 months so, depending on your cirumstances, you may well be better off if they do attempt to make you bankrupt. Other people have had SDs delivered personally and then had bankruptcy petitions delivered. I would suggest that the fact that they have sent this by oridanry post is just a scare tactic and it is unlikely that they will take it further. If your position is that you wouldn't mind that they take it further then I would agree with you that the best thing is to sit back and see what happens. People can only give advice based on what you tell us. If you had said in the first post that you were considering bankruptcy anyway then I am sure that the advice would have been not to worry about this SD. But everybody's situation is different and you cannot assume anything about what somebody wants to do.

Ok, So they haven't complied with your s77/78 request. If you keep on requesting more stuff from them then I would suggest that they might end up by actually complying preoperly with the request and you will not be able to use their failure as a defence when it comes to court.

Seasider, Did you read my previous post? What you need to do is call your local county court and find out from them which is the nearest court to you that deals with bankruptcy. Either that or go online and check the link I gave you. It is common for creditors to leave out the name of the court ass they may well not know which court you would apply to.

They are not obliged to provide a signed copy either under the DPA or CCA. You can certainly ask this but they do not need to comply with this request. Can you let us know what you requested from them and whether it was under the DPA or CCA. You haven't said what you have done in the past.

It's never too late to make offers to them. I would suggest that they really don't want to actually make you bankrupt. Although the usual advice is not to talk to these people on the telephone it may be worthwhile calling them and seeing if they'll agree to you going back to making monthly payments or some other form of payment. If you can manage to agree something on the phone then put it in writing and send it to them confirming what you have agreed.

babybear, It's too late for that I'm afraid. The OP had the statutory demand in post #1 above on 11th Feb and then states in post #21 on 31st March that they had the bankruptcy petition. As they say, they need form 6.19 not the forms you mention. I would suggest that the only possible defence here is that a s77/78 request has not been complied with and/or a defective DN

Not all courts can deal with bankruptcy matters. Bankruptcy petitions can be presented at the High Court in London, or in a county court that deals with bankruptcy matters. Generally, you should take your application to set aside a SD to the court that deals with the area where you live. If you are not sure which court to go to, you should telephone your nearest county court for advice. The Court Service website at www.courtservice.gov.uk has a list of county courts with bankruptcy jurisdiction, and an index of county courts which will show you the geographical jurisdiction of each.

Unfortunately, if the debt is payable in full immediately then the creditor is not obliged to accept your offer of monthly payments or a full and final settlement of 5 percent. He is entitled to demand the full payment immediately. In these circumstances, offering to pay monthly is not a defence unless the creditor voluntarily accepts this. These are the actual defences that you can use:-

OK, you really do have a problem here. If a statutory demand is served personally, as yours was - even though you shut the door on him - you really do need to take things seriously. There is case law that if you do not respond to a SD or you fail to get it set aside then the court do not need to consider any of your defences as you should have raised these when you were presented with the SD. However, having said that, the court may give you some leeway as a litigant in person. I don't know the full details of your case but, if the full amount is payable immediately - for example if you have defaulted on a credit agreement - then offering to make partial payments or a full and final offer of 5 percent is not a defence. You need to be defending on the grounds that the debt is not enforceable or that you have a claim against them or that the debt is less than 750 quid or is otherwise secured such as by a charging order.

Well, I would suggest the obvious place to start is Durkin v DSG Retail. Although it is a Scottish case it does rely on a lot of English authorities:- http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/A187_04.html EDIT the relevant part of the judgment is right at the bottom from para 114 onwards. Also try searching 'negligent misrepresentation'

Exactly, and so they cannot do this. As a result, the agreement is not terminated and continues. I'm afraid they can't claim damages. Have a read of section 170. Also speak to pt2537 - he tried to use a common law remedy for one of his clients and was soundly beaten in the Court of Appeal. With the second part of your comment, have you not read the thread about the person that did accept the termination and ended up being shafted as a result of doing that? I really would suggest that your comments are totally wrong on this

All you can do is wait and see if they do serve you with a SD

To be honest, I would just send the postal order made payable to Natwest along with the request direct to Natwest. If you send the postal order made payable to Natwest to Allied International they will just sit on it for a while before sending it on to Natwest which won't help you much. I would suggest that you also get a certificate of posting from the post office. This will be evidence that you have actually sent the letter and is free of charge.

What the others have told you above is not correct. What Allied say about who the 1 pounde postal order is made payable to is correct. It must be made payable to the creditor. Under the OFT guidance Allied are quite within their rights to return the payment to you. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?299805-No-CCA-Sent-Postal-Order-Back-ADVICE-REQUIRED-PLEASE&p=3352778&viewfull=1#post3352778

To be honest, I don't see the relevance of Woodchester. It had nothing to do with claiming damages and there was no recission of contract. This is from a thread that has been dleted from this site:- Also, there is always s170 that prohibits any common law claims for damages http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?257032-RBS-Mint-Loan-Court-Action-Started-amp-Dodgy-DN-issues&p=3315942&viewfull=1#post3315942

I would be interested to know what case you are refering to and I presume that you are also aware of R v Kettering Magistrates Court:-

Have you read the link that foolishgirl gave you above? There is plenty of advice there. This is on the very first page:-

Correct Have a read of the many threads on this forum regarding this matter. see here for example:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?280020-Contracts-Termination-Repudiation-and-Rescission Personally, I am firmly in the camp that termination can't take place without a valid notice so no notice means that there can be no termination. Have a read here:- http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?296622-Harrison-vs-Link-Financial-Limited-High-Court-judgment

What this means is that you have to pay the whole amount immediately. A charging order is a charge placed on your home that basically means that if you sell your home at any point in the future then they can take their money from the proceeds of the sale. Of course, if you are in rented accomodation then you don't need to worry about that.

stone broke, You will want to make use of Harrison v Link Financial which pt2537 was involved with. This is a more recent High Court case where it was held that a defective DN means that they can't bring a court claim:- The notice of enforcement [75] The notice of enforcement was a statutory pre-condition of enforcement. It was a bad notice and enforcement cannot be attempted in dependence upon it. However, bad notices can often be remedied by the service of good notices and I see no reason why that should not be so in respect of credit agreements. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this point. A liquidated debt is simply one that has a definite amount. A credit card debt has a particular amount that is easily calculated at any point in time. EDIT Perhaps you've been looking at some American websites?

because they don't have to - simple. Look at it from their point of view, why should they go to the cost and effort of doing this when they don't have to?

No need for apologies. Having this sort of debate enables a wider range of people to understand the issues. A lot of people only ever read this forum and never post so it helps these people as well.

I'm afraid that you are mistaken on this point. There is nothing in the Defamation Act that refers to this.

firstship, Sorry but you are mistaken on this point. Selling a debt is NOT debt collection, it is merely the sale of a debt.