12 months ago the worst part of this lark was waiting for the postie to bring in all the terrible threatograms off aggressive sharks. Now the worst part is all the infernal waiting for the SAR griff to arrive so that one can start banging up all the 'orribly missold PPI . And as we now know; missold PPI is a good 'un for making sure that any of them old flawed agreements are genuinly unenforcable too. Hell - its so tough being a victim of the UK banking system at times!!!

I like this!

"Mercers cannot issue a default notice. Barclayshark must do it in their own name." CB - not according to their gaffer BC. How much does it cost 'em to get investigated by FOS? LOL.

BC are clearly are a headless chicken. Their lapdodg Mercers sent me the DN on 11 Nov so look at the date of the threat on the letter below off BC. They shoot you and them tell you a week later that you will be shot! Wouldnt mind but the plonkers had a formal complaint off me a week ago regarding their unlawful collection actvity over the dispute .

Twiddling me fingers waiting for the SAR to come. However I just did a quickie run down of PPI since 03 and it seems that they owe me more than they want me to pay them for any alleged debt. And I also have a nice bunch of 20 quid late payment charges to consider as well.. Ombudsman has uphold 98 % of complaints about insurance moans against CAPONE according to their Jan - June 09 stats too so ... lol

These seem to be apt............ 1) I was self employed at the time and you were aware of this. 2) This was a joint account yet, I believe that only the “first named” person was covered. This means that cover was only partial. This was very unfair and quite worthless. 3) I was never given any appropriate professional, unprejudiced advice or choice over this product by you. I had no idea what PPI was then and what it entailed. 4) I was given the overall impression that PPI was an essential component that one had to have without question. 5) I had my own business insurance (being self-employed) therefore PPI would never have been relevant to me. Moreover, I believe that on the basis that I had business insurance any prospective claim in the PPI field would have ever been accepted by the PPI seller. 6) I was not ever informed that I could obtain cheaper alternative PPI elsewhere, if required either. This latter concern has now been the subject of an enquiry by the Competition Commissioners Office who were especially critical of PPI 7) I honestly have serious doubts that I ever even said yes to any PPI, believing that any tick box on any application form may have been ticked already, prior to me seeing this. and yes - SAR now in..........

I am also 99% sure that we never received any DN before the Notice of Termination.

For me with Williams the point is - should I be chasing them now for the 12 quid charges? They have admitted to no signed agreement so? I still also think they are on dodgy ground re this data protection issue too.

Hiya spark - no surrender here mate! Tons on the go and running well..... FOS has been a wash out so far with us on all fronts however.. There opinion is that if a shark manages to get your signature on a loo roll that is good enough for them to say its a fair and proper agreement.

This is how they try and cut through the DPA... All that puff and bluster without any signed agreement - still, there are always all those 12 quid charges to consider... And what about threats for damages to one's reputation via nasty CRA stuff?

I NOW HAVE A LETTER OFF THEM WHICH SEEKS TO JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE PROCESSED MY DATA WITOUT ANY SIGNATURE. NO MENTION ANYMORE OF A DEBT.......... LOL Their argument is that they have permission to process my data because of their data protection notification in their catalogues. 12 quid charges and interest do come out about the same as what they said I owed them too.

I will let you know if they come up with any silly excuses.

A three – pronged attack may be wise. Santander Please explain how you can claim to be administrators for the account when CL has clearly stated they have ownership/assignment of the account. Explain how you cannot be liable to pay me PPI when you are/were in partnership with HBOS. And kindly recall it was you who issued the defective DN on this account. CL Finance You are self-proclaimed owners of this alleged account therefore you should be liable for PPI compensation and cannot shift the responsibility to another company. The problems are yours and should be addressed by you, especially as you have tried to collect on an alleged agreement holding the WRONG number. Halifax/HBOS I am informed by Satander that you are the company who I need to approach for compensation over missold PPI. ----------- This seems logical to me.

"You have from CL Finance an assignment and they advise you this was absolute, which means they are responsible for this account." Yes CB, I feel that CL should be the ones sorting out this whole mess. They say they own it AND HAVE BEEN THE GUYS CHASING IT so... THEY ALONE WANT ME TO GIVE THEM MY MONEY (ON AN ACCOUNT WITH AN UNEXPLICABLE NUMBER) AND YET RUN WHEN I ASK THEM FOR PPI COMP. My suspicion is that BOS changed this account's number early on and that it was later flogged to CL who have now found out that there is the ongoing problem. I have no modifying agreement to show for any on this lot ..... I am so sick of this one that I would settle for a tie at this stage. They can keep the PPI and just close the account for good. Silly old CL were stumped when I asked them to explain the numbers differance and whizzed off the Santander - they too failed to answer the numbers question. So how the heck can anyone try and enforce a so-called debt when they cannot even get the basic blinking agreement number sorted out or explain it to a consumer?? Hell, maybe I should just file the lot away under alien intervention... or get drunk! What a muddle .

Yes - the flawed DN was issued by GE in 07. But Santander said the account was originally opened in 05 by HBOS and that GE (now Santander) took on the admin. And we have an old agreement number as of the CCA doc plus the new one that they have used in all correspondence since. They have not told me why this number changed though. It seems that CL and Santander are seeking to shift the PPI issue onto HBOS. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE CL ASSIGNMENT HOWEVER MEANT THEY WERE LIABLE TO DEAL WITH THE LOT AS NEW OWNERS. Just not sure who to write to next? CL clearly state in 2008 that "ownership" is theirs. ???????????????

I have not found any sign in my files of a DN. However, I found these 2 letters threatening me. I though they have to send a DN first? Any error you can spot here would be handy please.

Cb - Must Notced Your Post So I Shall Wait For Bc To Issue First I Their Owe Name .. Have Mercers breached regulations by sending a DN to me ?

Can I hit then with this then if what you say is even to invalidate their DN ???????? And regarding the defective Default Notice. Kindly note. Failure of a default notice to be accurate (as in this case) not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages; Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

OK - pass the buck time folks.......... CL (who are supposed to be the guys who this account is absolutely assigned to) wrote to Santander, who were formerly GE Money when I mentioned the dreaded PPI word. Santander have now written to me (SEE BELOW) saying that the account was opened in 05 with HBOS. Comically, the agreement number Santander are writing about is incorrect and NOT the fella on the CCA that CL sent to me, as I have explained above. So far neither CL or Sandander have tackled this tricky part of the equasion. And we still have the invalid DN by GE to concider. Oh dear me! So where do I go now?

Since this DN, and its identical twin, were issued - Capone have kindly inflicted 2 DCAs on me. In my letter therefore - can I threaten then with any claims for damages etc ? I am also seeking to clobber them for PPI.

I got this one off Capone..... says 28 days but gives no date so is dodgy eh..and I really dont think it tells me clearly what to do to remedy the breach. Token payments ended months ago anyways, due to a very silly application form posing as an executed agreement. OPinions appreaciated before I write them a love letter.....

As I am new to this PPI thing I would appreciate it if someone could show me the best shortie letter to start the ball rolling against this Loanguard issue. Perhaps just a short please give me the dosh back type letter, that the bank can refuse to comply with, so that I can subsequently bang in a more detailed one after that... I do have one in the wings from another thread but will save this until later on. Basically - I was self-employed and had business insurance at the time; did not know what the heck PPI was and would not have wanted it. It seems like it was just shoved onto this contract above .

"Your DN just says BALANCE £ XXX. Am I assuming correctly they are asking for the outstanding amount they say is due ??" The Capone DN has the full balance mentioned at the top. It does not mention any arrears figure. So what I am to assume? Do I write telling them that this invalidates the account further as unlawful rescission of contract or whatever one calls it ?? Help! I need a paragraph to deal with this if it is so apt for purpose herein. If I have a weapon then I shalll utilise it well. I seem to be turfing up more and more of such imperfect DNs as I get into this battle. PS. I just noticed that both accounts I have with Capone have the very same type of DN which fails to give any 'arrears' figure, but states a full balance at the top. To be fair - they just mention one needing to take action within 28 days of the date of their letter to "pay any overdue amount on your account". No figure is however stated for this amount.

S'truth - how long do we have to wait before they either play properly or bog off?