Although they are saying a charge on the property, because your property is jointly owned and the debt is in your name, they will only be able to register what is known as a charging order restriction. It would be highly unlikely any judge would order a sale, primarily because your childrens welfare trump anything financial, plus they will not have a full equitable charge, only an interest in your share of any money left after paying back any mortgage. All through the process the solicitors and the judge tend to talk of a charge on the property, but since 2003 the Land Registry can only list a restriction on a jointly owned property when the debt is in one name only.

I have read a lot about these charging order restrictions and how one can sell the property and inform the charge holder after the sale has gone through if there are joint owners and one debtor. I have spoken to a couple of local solicitors about this and might have well been speaking to a brick wall, as none knew anything about the workings, since the law changed in 2003, of these restrictions, all saying that 'charge is a charge', which I know is incorrect. Can anyone recommend an aggresive solicitor in West Sussex who fully understands the law concerning restrictions, and that may be able to assist. Any help will be appreciated.

I am in the same position with Tesco, although I have been paying them £1 a month for a little while now. They have ignored a couple of CPUTR requests, never sent a copy agreement under my CCA request, and I feel that I am just extending the 6 years statute period from starting by continuing to pay this monthly payment. I'll send them a recorded delivery letter also this time and see if I get any response, but I feel that PriorityOne is right in saying that if they ignore a CPUTR then the chances are that they do not have enforcable paperwork.

Wanted to thank MrShed for advice, as after threatening legal action for return of deposit my daughter has received a cheque in full settlement.

I'll advise her of this, and thanks so much for your kind help and advice. It obviously is the money, but also the fact that someone has arbitrarily tried to fiddle my daughter when she was in a vunerable position after having some valuable jewelery stolen.

He originally said he wanted it to be a six month agreement, but did not ever produce any form of written agreement. Nothing was ever said about any notice period, until he told my daughter this when she was about to move out.

Yes, the Landlord lived in the same house.

Hope someone can advise what to do. My daughter agreed to rent a room in a house, paid rent until the end of the month and a £400 deposit. On the first of the following month she paid the months rent. Six days into the month she had jewelery stolen from the room, and was so scared she decided to find somewhere else to live, and moved out a few days later. The landlord told her he needed 30 days notice and said he would deduct the extra 10 days from her deposit money, and if she contacted him after 30 days he would return the balance of the deposit to her. On contacting him she was told he had changed his mind and although he had since relet the room her actions had cost him a lot of money so he would not be paying her anything back. He has confirmed this in writing. She did not sign any rental agreement, nor did he tell her where her deposit money would be held. Has she got a case to take to the County Court, and should she ask for 3 times the deposit? Grateful for any advise.

Bumping.......can anyone assist?

Earlier this month I was contacted by Barclaycard saying that my personal details had been 'misplaced' by a DCA, and that all the authorities had been informed. After looking at this thread I thought I would check what DCA had been chasing me, and surprise surprise it's NCO Europe! Me thinks that it's not just MBNA card details that have been stolen.

Can anyone advise or help BB ?

Subbing

Thanks for the prompt replies, and I'll send them Scots letter just adding that they have not also complied with the SAR. The help offered by fellow Caggers is really appreciated as it's good to know that you are not alone when fighting the might of the big banks.

Hello All, Need some advice on what, if anything, I should do now. A few weeks ago I sent B/Card a CCA request and all they sent back was two copies of the terms and conditions applicable when the card was taken out in 2001. I have since sent them an SAR asking for all the data they hold on me, to include credit agreement etc (got the SAR from here and ammended to suit). B/Cards reply is to send on a bunch of statements from 2004....nothing else, with a letter saying that 'The information we have enclosed relating to this account is all that we hold' Confirming that they do not hold anything else, ie credit agreement, surely makes this an unenforceable case....am I correct? Should I now point this out or wait to see if any enforcement action is taken? Any help would be appreciated.

I have had various letters sent from Mortimer Clarke, but all computer signed 'MCS' only

Looking carefully at what they have sent me I tend to agree with you. The copy seems much fainter than any of the other documentation sent.

Your right to cancel is on the front of the application form. I think the problem is proving that there are no prescribed terms on the rear........obviously the only way is to ask for the form to be available for inspection at a local branch, which I do not think Mint will agree to.

Looking at your third page of the nine you have posted I think that Mint are saying it is this that is on the back of your application form and therefore forms part of the agreement. Perhaps a member with more legal experience than us can advise whether this contains the exact prescribed terms that are vital. However without seeing the original forms who knows whether the third page is on the back of your application form. I have been sent exactly the same as you (although dates are one year on from yours) and if the general census of opinion is that these copies they have sent us are unenforceable then I will send the same letter by 'cerberusalert' as you.

I have received exactly the same documentation as Esile back from Mint. Mine is also an application form, but on the bottom of it under the declaration section it does say 'I accept and agree to be bound by the general conditions applying to the card as set out separately, and the details about the card as set out overleaf both as may be ammended from time to time'. These details, which they have provided, and say are overleaf, seem to have all the prescribed terms, as I think do yours Esile. I was under the impression that if these prescribed terms were all part of the application form/agreement then it would make it enforcable. Perhaps someone can advise or put both of right on this, as obviously I hope that my account is unenforcable.

This may help a little: Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1557) Quote: 2 Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms (1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the . (2) The wording of any Form prescribed by these Regulations shall be reproduced in copies of unexecuted or executed agreements or in Notices of Cancellation Rights sent [by an appropriate method] under section 64(1)(b) or (2) of the Act without any alteration or addition, except that-- (a) the creditor or owner may enter the name and address of the debtor or hirer in any Cancellation Form prescribed by these Regulations; and (b) every Form shall be completed in accordance with any footnote. (3) Any such footnote shall not be treated as part of any Form prescribed by these Regulations and may be reproduced in addition to any such Form. (4) Where any such footnote requires any words to be omitted, those words shall be omitted or deleted.

Good hunting and lets see if we can help each other, as I am sure that Marlins are hoping we roll over and accept whatever they say as gospel. I have always found good advice from members of this site, and I am sure one or two of the legal eagles will be able to offer help on what to do if Marlins start any enforcement action.

I've just had a very similar experience with Marlin. Restons obtained a charging order a year or so ago, and a few months later I received notice from Marlins that the debt had been assigned to them and I should now make payments to them. I ignored this until I had heard from Restons or HFC Bank. A couple of weeks ago I did receive a letter fom Restons telling me to now pay Marlins, and I will now pay them my monthly amount. Today I received notice from the court that under CPR Pt19.4 Phoenix Recoveries be substituted in place of HFC. I phoned the court to try to see how this would affect me, and the the advice was just to keep paying as I had been doing so over the past year, but now to Marlin. I presume that the whole point of this, from Marlins point of view, is to try and make me pay more per month, not to enforce a sale, but it is obviously worrying. Can anyone give advice as to what, if anything, I should be doing now?

Thanks 42man, Your letter going off to the Ethical Bank asap.

There are no prescribed terms on the application form/agreement they sent on, but it does say 'I have read the Terms and Conditions on the reverse and customer copy) and I agree to be bound thereby'. However they seem to be unable to send on these T&C's and have both times sent on T&C's for 2001. These 2001 do include prescribed terms etc The letter I received from them states ' As such we do not have a copy of this particular application form or the terms and conditions from the back of the form' which indicates to me that they cannot prove that the prescribed terms are actually on the form. Any idea how illegible the form has to be to be unenforcable?

I have CCA'd the Ethical Bank for a copy of my credit card agreement, taken out in '98, and have on two occasions been sent a partly illegible copy together with T&C's from 2001. I have now had a letter from them stating that they do not have the original agreement, but a microfiche copy, as they are only obliged by law to keep them for six years. However they still intend to enforce the agreement. I think I can insist that the original is produced in any court proceedings....is this the case? If so, and they are unable to produce the agreement, is this a full defence against them.