Tell them to get off your doorstep and go away. They have no right to be there or to hassle you in any way. If they don't go away or if they behave in any way that could be contrued as harassment, call the police. Having said that, it's cheap to send out threatening letters. It's more expensive to actually send people out. I very much doubt that anyone will call.

I know that you are correct in respect of the legal position but most people have never heard of a charging order and are surprised that a lender can threaten their property for what was an unsecured debt. It's a question of perception and understanding. The main reason why mortgage lenders are required by law to state that non-payment could lead to repossession is because many borrowers simply didn't understand what "secured" meant. Some of them thought it was to do with the stability of the lender!

The key issue here is that borrowers are not told that a lender can effectively turn an unsecured debt into a secured one. Lenders charge higher interest rates on unsecured debt and are then able to convert it into a secured debt. At the very least borrowers should be warned about this when signing new credit agreements.

You can go back as far as they have information about you. There are no time limits although a lot of organisations will delete records after a (fairly long) period of time.

I doubt if it will have much impact as the debt will be owned by somebody. If it's still owned by SPML or SPPL then it's likely to be sold to someone else pretty quickly as it's an asset with some value. All this may actually be good news for SP customers. Having experienced their uniquely awful way of dealing with their customers, I find it hard to be believe that anyone could be any worse. And, I have to say that I didn't shed any tears this morning when I heard that Lehman staff in the UK probably won't get their September pay packets.

Worth mentioning that SPML and SPPL are Lehman Brothers by another name.

This thread is interesting but it repeats the arguments that have been circulating on this issue for years. How can ordinary members of the public protest against the Government's rip off taxes on a basic commodity like fuel? Cars blockading roads is difficult as it would be pretty indistinguishable from heavy traffic. Lorries doing so is different but, by definition that excludes most people. Picketing the refineries is a good idea but a) most people don't know how to do that and b) as I understand it the Government changed the law to make this more difficult. It also requires a degree of organisation that would be hard to establish. Finally, the idea of boycotting a particular fuel company for a period. Again this requires an awful lot of coordination and, with the best will in the world, without picketing the petrol stations most people would be unaware of it. Even if it did succeed it would be sending a confused message- buycott an oil company to hit the Government. There are a couple of internet petitions running at the moment. This is a more conventional form of protest but their impact is marginal and diminishes rapidly after they close. Governments simply ignore them. What's needed is a really simple form of mass protest, requiring as little effort as possible but that's sustained over a sufficient period of time so that it's noticed, gains momentum and is impossible for the Government to ignore. So here's my idea... The traditional way of making a written protest is to send a letter to your MP or to a Government minister. Quite often campaigning organisations do form letters with the idea that loads of people will send them in. If an MP receives a 1,000 letters from constituents on a subject they tend to take notice. However, these protests tend to be one offs. How about a campaign where a member of the public sends a protest note to the Government and/ or their MP every time they fill up? The idea is to design a simple A4 flyer that sets out the reasons why it's ridiculous that the Government thinks it can make us 58% fuel duty and VAT. The individual puts the flyer in an envelope and sends it off to Gordon Brown and/ or their MP. Imagine being an MP and receiving several hundred or thousands of these flyers every week. With any written campaign of this type there are all sorts of issues about defining objectives and the wording of documents but I'm not getting into that here- I'm focussing on the mechanism. This sort of campaign would depend on two things: Firstly, people would have to be angry enough to send in the flyer on a sustained basis. Personally I think there's a lot of anger out there at the moment and I think people want to protest. This is an easy way of doing so. Secondly, people would have to able to get hold of the flyers. This would be through a mix of campaigning websites, emails to contacts and some people would probably design their own flyers with their own message. That wouldn't matter provided that the message got across that people were fed up and wanted the Government to reduce taxes on fuel. The key argument against this type of campaign is that fuel taxes are a nice little earner for the Government and that they'd ignore it. I don't think they would. If vast numbers of people are angry about this (and I think they are) then this campaign would be pushing at an open door after the thrashing Labour has taken recently. They are already quite likely to cancel the increase in duty scheduled for the autumn but personally I don't see why we should pay any more for fuel than in the United States and at the very least in Europe. Finally there are a couple of variants on the concept. Firstly, people could send the protest flyers to the Government (not individual MPs) unstamped. I'm not sure if this is legal but, if it is, it would send a more powerful message. And secondly, in addition to the posted flyer, people could give the cashier another flyer every time they fill up. This risks making the campaign too complex but it would be even easier than posting something. Anyway, an idea that I don't think I've seen anywhere else. In case anyone wonders who I am, I used to be the moderator Seminole on this site.

Don't they realise that it may adversely affect their ability to get credit....?

That could well be the case with newer mortgages for some banks. However, I think older mortgages will tend to say at most that you can't let the property without their consent.

Does your lease say anything specifically about the timing of payments of invoices or the billing cycle?

HMRC's charges like this are established by statute and not contract. As they're not contractual penalties the issues surrounding unlawful bank charges don't apply I'm afraid.

One thing you should consider is opening another bank account if you don't already have one or arranging for your salary to be pad into it if you do. Unfortunately, it may be difficult to arrange all this in the time you have available but it may help you next month if you face a similar situation.

A former moderator on this site has set up a petition here http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Datahandling/ linking the Government's loss of this data with its ability to record and store data for the proposed national ID card. If you agree with the petition, please sign it and show the Government that we won't tolerate them playing fast and loose with our personal data.

Opening another account will also give you more control. They can add unlawful charges to their heart's content but at least you'll be able to manage your finances a little more easily.

I don't think you have to wait 28 days to apply to send in the bailiffs. Having said that it's more than likely that the bank will apply to set aside the judgment.