Originally, I had a stall in the indoor market without any licence for over a year so I refused a lease outside 54 Act. As a possibly protected tenant the only way they could get me out was to offer a shop. No mention was made that the rent was only interim level and I genuinly believed that was the final rent. So possibly I can counter claim as the premises was a quid pro quo. There were licences initially although I know they have lost them because on the SD they cant give an exact date of the licence. Though, I all but admited in my affidavit there was I licence that was lost and I can always claim that was what the agents told me but there are no licences to my knowledge. Their case was that there was a licence for the first six months only and I was a licencee pending a grant of licence.for over 3 years based on six months of licence But as this has dragged on for 3 years because of changes in agents and their slowness to act I can say its unreasonable to ask three years licence fee even if there was a licence because I would not have stayed under a licence for so long but for their slowness to act which was negligent. I am hoping to argue that if money is owed its only as a common law tenant covered by the 54 Act if not then not at all. If I pay as a licencee I will certainly be evicted straight after. As they dont want to provide a protected tenancy this may force them to back off and come to an arrangement

Heres the website which tells you everything Publications and Guidance Material Issued by The Insolvency Service By the looks of it for people with no equity they can run up as much credit as they like and then get the slate wiped clean if they cant pay. All it takes is a little balls. This is quite comical really because banks charge high interest and penalties but they have no way of enforcing it on people with no equity. The banks lend to anyone without equity and the legal system washes its hands of the bank made mess. Thats why theres a credit crunch

I agree with everything you say, the problem is if you have assets. But Mrshn has no equity. Mrshn was worried about the house which I dont think is a worry. Using one of the forum links to a govt insolvency site I read the situation. Anything under 5,000 can be dealt with by a voluntary arrangent brokered by CAB where the creditor settles for a proportion. However, if the creditor petitions for bankruptcy it would cost a couple of grand with no guarantee of getting any money. The registrar can if the debtor has few assets issue an administration order where the debtor pays only a proportion, the home is kept and the bankruptcy is waived. I know someone who had 50k credit card debt reduced to 5k via administration. Mrshn may have other debts but the 4.5k mentioned is piddling money to banks. They should not worry-just get some help and advice

Also, in the scheme of things £4,500 is not much although it seems like a lot to you. They think its small beer so cant understand you not paying it in 3 goes. But once your circumstances are explained its not really worth the legal hassle just for £4.500 where there is no equity and guarantee of anything in forcing bankruptcy. I might be wrong but I think youll get it sorted with the help of CAB

If the money is owed and youve admitted it then I think you need to go to either a solicitor or insolvency expert via the Citizens Advice Bureau. I am no expert but I think you may be able to enter a voluntary arrangement or type of administration where most of the debt is written off in return for paying something off. But a professional expert has more clout in negotiations and I think you need advice and dont leave it until they petition for bankruptcy. The stat demand could be a bluff as it costs nothing to issue but dont avoid it as it may not go away- get some proper advice

I entered premises on a licence 3 years ago. After 6 months landlord refused rent and wanted a lease signed on a higher rent to be backdated. Whilst negotiating I still reserved the position that I was a tenant because of the circumstances and could insist on the original rent. After 3 years of this they finally send an invoice and statutory demand for 2 years licence fee when there was no signed licence and I think they lost those I did sign I know under the 54 Act payment of rent over 6 months creates a protected tenancy. So if I pay the sum am I protected or can they say its only a licence pending grant of a lease as they claim. If I dont have a tenancy can they insist on the licence fee when I only stayed on the basis that payment would be subject to agreement. I am not at fault over the delay as there were 3 agents and 5 managers who could not agree on anything. Its a large amount to pay without obtaining any rights In my affidavit to set aside the statutory notice I mentioned the licence and the negotiations that took place and are now using that to back their claim I have no right to stay and have asked me to leave within a month. Looks like they dont have the licence but I never confirmed which licence. I can say I paid rent after the initial one month licence and before negotiations for a lease I would appreciate advice from any qualified person