A result. I actually sent a letter to Citi Complaints Handling at the London address. They responded by email today to confirm form ESD1 has been sent and the charge has now been removed. Has took about a week. Thanks for your help; I think I worried unneedlessly.

I have made contact and told to write to office in Worthing. Thinking ahead I have some questions: What happens if they cannot find my details. I think they sold/transferred loan business a few years after my last payment in 2004. Again what happens if that business cannot be traced. If no records how do I get the entry removed from the Land Registry which was placed in 1996. Presumably if no records then no contract and therefore no evidence to support the entry. I do not wish this to be a barrier to selling/remortgaging the house. Anyone?

Ok thanks. I will contact Canadian Square first.

Ok, as I understand a SAR to Citi would give details of the loan payments. This should include the final payment and act as proof. Is this a better option than an initial request for discharge (trying to save myself £10). If they come back negative then a SAR is next They are not chasing any money, and nothing is on the credit file, just that they have not discharged the mortgage.

Unfortunately I cannot prove it as lost all paperwork (we are going back 10yrs). Maybe I should just request the discharge first to see how they respond.

They are not chasing any money. I was considering the option of asking them just to discharge the mortgage and see how they respond before the SAR. Should I do both to be sure.

In dealing with my financial affairs, my solicitor advises of a second mortgage registered by Citi Financial. The first one is Nat West which we are close to paying up. The Citi one relates to a secured loan taken out in 1996 and which was paid up 2004/2005 but is still showing up as a mortgage against the property. Unfortunately we have lost supporting paperwork - so how easy is it to get this removed as it is important for us to move forward. This was originally on my credit file and has since dropped off. Can anyone help.

Yes I like that letter. I suppose it is safe to assume they are referring to the same debt as IJ, even though there is no reference to the OC. I will send 42mans letter. BTW this does not show on my credit file.

Ok - so what would be best course of action. My thoughts are to start with the prove it letter first to see what they have. If there is a link to Intrum Justitia then send 42mans letter. What do you think.

Scan of letter as a pdf is here. I have edited previous post. Hope this is now ok

Reread the post - yes will do.

Scan of letter is here I understand referring to the Intrum Justita letter, but I do not know if Experto have taken over the debt. Although it does look very likely.

]The first line of the letter is - 'We write to inform you that we now have authority from our client to proceed with litigation'. The last line says - 'We are now preparing your case for litigation'. However if you telephone us and arrange repayment of the debt we will consider suspending any legal action'. The link to Intrum Justitia is an assumption as the amounts are similar and Nov 12 was the first time GDR chased referring to their client Experto Credite. I will scan letter later.

Good point, just looking at best options. I will do both as you suggest. Could be they are forcing the pace due to it being statute barred at the end of the year and hoping to cash in.

Thanks Brigadier. At this point I am assuming it is the same debt as they are similar amounts. There has been nothing from Experto that said they were/had taking over the debt. Did they takeover Intrum Justitia. Should I still send saying "if you are referring to this then note the content" or should I start with the prove it letter first.

GDR are chasing on behalf of Experto Credite who I have no dealings with. Letter received Nov 12 with no details only an amount they say is owed, and no ref to OC - this I ignored. Today a further letter stating they have been instructed to proceed with litigation and asking me to contact them to agree payments to prevent court claim. No timescale given, only unless they hear from me then litigation will start. This may relate to a Nat West CC where I was paying Intrum Justitia and stopped about Dec 07 and cca'd them. IJ responded Mar 08 saying the cca was not available and therefore could not legally enforce - I have a copy of the letter. The amount being chased by GDR is similar. What are my best options seeing they have been instructed to issue litigation by Experto Credite.

Thanks raydetinu. That is encouraging. I wondered what the situation would be if the dealer later realised he had been sold a 'pup'.

I part exchanged my car with a dealer. He looked over the car, started the engine, advised him of new cambelt kit and water pump fitted along with 4 new tyres within the last month. He noticed the Serv light lit (car is Renault Clio) and said it needs a service. An offer was made which I accepted. Paperwork was signed by both parties and cars will be exchanged in the next few days. The Serv light has been on a while but i also thought service is due. I have now learned that the serv light is an engine malfunction. Also I have noticed the airbag light does not come on at start but this was not spotted by the dealer. If he finds a serious fault after the deal is done needing parts ecu reprogramming etc will he have any comeback.

Can anyone help with my previous post. I am sure many people receive court claims for a debt they have forgot. Some may win due to dca/creditor not being able to prove debt. They may not even know the debt could be statute barred. If this is the case does the debt still remain statute barred even thought the claimant has not won the case.

Some interesting points. If legal action is taken and claim is not successful does this prevent the debt from being sb. Is this the case even if the debt has not been acknowledged through the claim process.

Thanks everyone. That clears up some queries a lot of people have. Also I understand once statute barred always statute barred. Even if a payment and/or acknowledgement of debt is made after 6 yrs. This does not restart the clock.

Understand statute barred now. Still not clear on the £1 cca fee. If this is sent with the request then they are not permitted to use it to credit the account - is that right.

Thanks for quick response. So statute barred remains even if interest is added as this a bank transaction and not the debtors. The £1 for cca appears to be a bit tricky. Could they really convince the court this was payment if the sum was sent within the cca letter recorded delivery.

If no written acknowledgement or payment has been made to a debt for 6 yrs but interest has continued to be added, can the account still be classed as statute barred. Also what is the situation if £1 sent for cca is credited to the account but within the 6 yr period, is this classed as a payment and therefore acknowledging the debt.

bump!