You can look at this a number of ways. Would Cabot/Morgan be so keen to settle as quickly if they had a solid claim against you? I doubt it, so this could be because they doubt the quality of their evidence,they would normally use such an offer to demonstrate to the courts that they have been "reasonable" however, they have headed the letter "Without Prejudice" Would it be in your interests to simply pay them and get on with your life as it's not a massive amount? It may be that people won't/can't comment because you are asking them to make decisions for you, only you can decide to continue or compromise From experience Cabot/Morgan will push right up to the point where they know you have them beaten, or until it is equally clear that it makes no financial sense for them to continue

You don't know until you try, However, most if not all banks will perform a credit check on all parties involved before allowing such a facility to be opened. obviously avoid the company with whom you have the credit card otherwise you might find the funds in your account being used to offset your credit card debt. Some banks like Barclays and Co-Op bank are more friendly than others, but when it comes to a business account, you might struggle If you find this problematic would it not be possible to perhaps run your business from a personal account (initially)

I would try to avoid using too many templates as they are now instantly recognisable by the other side as exactly that. whilst the "document" that they have sent you may bot be an enforceable agreement, they obviously believe that it fulfills their obligation with regard to you s77/78 request You could write to advise them that the reason that no repayment programme has been agreed or entered into is because the complaint has not been resolved and Lloyds are fully aware of this.

My OH had (very) brief contact with Iqor regarding an alleged "overpayment" by DWP which she kindly allowed me to deal with on her behalf, absolutely pathetic they are. Two letters and they vanished, to replaced by DWP themselves, who tucked tail and ran after only one letter.

Credit where credit is due Paul, there were no templates anywhere which would have covered all of the areas that the defence and witness statements did cover and the documents produced were totally top drawer and also inspired confidence certainly in this client. once again, Hats off!!! But I particularly like the fact that it was at least in part, evidence that was actually supplied by both Egg and Morgans themselves which scuttled their little boat.

absolutely although in fairness to those concerned there was more to it than just a witness statement. The defence was excellent and covered a lot of areas that i wouldn't have picked up I would advise anyone to SAR the OC as soon as it looks like it's heading to court, or even earlier if possible. It's amazing what those creditors keep on their internal systems than can scupper an unwary DCAs claim and you're completely right about having someone on board who knows the legal system and has a clear picture of processes and what should/could be done. I reckon a lot of people who have lost their cases wouldn't have even had to go to court if they'd had the correct sort of guidance

If you are claiming that you do not have enough money to pay your mortgage then they can be expected to make such demands for further information. As already mentioned all you are really doing is giving them a view of your finances to which they are not really entitled, as you have already found, they will happily strike through anything which doesn't fit in with their unique standards of needs and requirements. The only person who can reach an informed opinion on how much you can afford to pay is you, the only person who is qualified to reach such an opinion is you. A court can of course make a judgement on how much you should pay, but even then the judge would normally request clarification of your income and expenditure and unless you are obviously understating or overstating your figures, the judge will make a judgement based on what you can realistically afford. The DCA does not have any say at all in this process

Eventually it became apparent that even though the arguments against their claim were sound, I was going to struggle if it came to a court appearance with one of their trained barristers. So I obtained the assistance of a firm of solicitors, who went through the process without any stress and eventually after a stirling witness statement was served, they dropped their claim. Must say a massive thank you to Paul, and also to Andrew and Kate for their invaluable input and assurances Admin: Can the title be changed to reflect this please

Sorry about the silence on this, but I thought it could be counter productive to post my progress for all to see. This morning Cabot/Morgan discontinued with their claim Hello guests

IMHO If the charges form part of the agreement ie if there is (for example) a monthly interest charge then this should also be taken into consideration as part of the sale/hire price when calculating the figures. However, charges not forming part of the agreement, such as penalties or late payment charges and the like should not affect the amount paid against the original sale/hire price unless there is a stipulation which allows them to allocate your payments in a particular manner or order which prioritises their charges, this may have an effect on the calculation. but even then, the credit card companies have been getting their hands smacked for allocating payments against the lowest interest rates to maximise their income and could be deemed to be an unfair relationship. so if (say) the initial price of goods/services including interest equated at 36 payments @100, then the total sale/hire price equates at 3600 and after paying 1200 off the original sale/hire price the goods should be protected and should remain so protected. If they add (say) a further 300 at some point - this should have no effect on either the original sale/hire price or the proportion of it repaid, but it would be reflected in the outstanding balance. Again, this is just my opinion, please feel free to disagree :o)

As far as I'm aware, It's not a matter of how much is outstanding, it's how much you have paid, if you have paid more than a third of the original amount, then it is protected....end of. If they then add charges/fees and associated nonsenses, then this will have an affect on the remaining balance, but will not reduce the amount or proportion of the original debt paid

start scanning the documents, remove anything that can identify you and then I would suggest you open a photobucket account here and upload the images

you need to wait until you get something in writing from the court

this is a "one size fits all" form, for claimants, counterclaimants and defendants and as such only the applicable parts should be heeded, as you are not bringing a claim, nor a counterclaim, then you have no fees to pay. it asks if you have attached a fee in regard of any other matter, not the mediation service The mediation service is free

To be honest these firms seem to get away with murder when it comes to non compliance with orders and breaching CPRs, there is always time to second guess yourself and wonder if you should or shouldn't have done something differently. You should shortly receive the allocation questionnaire and when completing this you have the option to seek an order for disclosure of any documents they will rely on in court.

You might want to have a look here Why do you need the permission of the uninsured motorist to deal with my claim? Even uninsured motorists have the right in law to deal with their own affairs, and the agreement does not permit us to ignore their rights. However, if the uninsured motorist does not co-operate, we will tell you what options appear to be available to progress your claim. It seems to me if you have never heard of these people before, then they didn't do what they were supposed to do - namely get your permission or involve you at any stage of their "investigation" I cannot see how they can bring a case where there is no agreement, or conviction to support their POC. I think you really need to take some legal advice on this one, do a bit of googling and it looks as if they are part of the Dept of Transport and they believe that the SB regs don't apply to them.

There is quite some distance between threatening someone with court and actually starting a claim. Their letter (at this stage) is still only a threatening letter. If you are sure that the app is unenforceable then you have a defence in principle. the CPR 31.14 is used to obtain documents or information therein specifically mentioned or referred to in the Particulars of Claim (POC) as they haven't yet issued a claim this is not the route to take (just yet) the CPR18 is used for further information (whether referred to in the POC or not) You could approach the Original Creditor with an SAR request (this costs £10) but can be useful in pre-empting anything the DCA may produce - but at this stage they are still sending generic threatograms

Until you hear from the court, assume that it hasn't been discontinued. it is not unknown for these "people" to tell you the claim has been discontinued and then when you fail to turn up at court, they win by default, best to err on the side of caution until you are 100% certain what has been done. When you do receive notice from the court, go after those wasted costs

In fairness, I think the OP's arguments surrounding the termination and default hold some merit, just not as much as he believes, or in the manner. IMHO the OP's focussing on what seems to be an untenable defence is a mistake The fact that they sent him a default after termination is worth mentioning, as is the threat to terminate after the account had already been terminated would indicate that the paperwork may have been c@cked up and should be examined asap. The initial termination appears to have been concluded correctly, but the the assignments, the agreements and the amount claimed, plus if any, charges and PPI should be examined, very closely but by someone other than I

Banging my head hurts

Banging my head hurts

Banging my head hurts

Banging my head hurts

Banging my head hurts

Don't you just love it "Unenforceable debt agreements must be paid" or else what? they're going to erm...... do nothing?