If you have the letter which has the backdated housing benefit then I would have thought that is the most important since the whole point of HB is to pay your rent. If they are not going to allow you pay the rent and any arrears on it then that is not what the money was intended for. If they do not budge then it will be time to escalate it to their head office and CEO.

I would also suggest opening a Post Office Card account since Barclays wouldn't be able to take any money from you and the benefit money can go there without anyone taking anything from you. Is there any credit card charges from Barclaycard since we might as well go after them as well?

Did they ask you for an income and expenditure form? Did they do this over the telephone?

Are you talking of First Right of Appropriation or are we going down the Social Security Administration Act 1992 route? To the OP, were you paying the Barclaycard bill regularly if not more that was required?

In that case, tell Barclays it was fraudulent since you did not authorise the transfer. Was there an amount outstanding and was an agreement already in place to pay it?

Define "delinquent" please so that others can understand your definition of the term.

How did barclaycard take the money? What does it say on your statement?

Was it taken by Direct Debit? If it was then they have to refund under the Direct Debit Guarantee Scheme. The answer is yes they can under the Right of Set Off.

Hunter_01, come on, I have seen that done on CAG where the creditor after not having an enforceable CCA has offered a discounted deal. Have you not got something better than simple debt negotiations and why would that specific case be important since if the debt is sold the debtor owes, under the business model, £0.00. You just got me close to understanding your business model and the case you have is NOT that exciting.

To be a pedant, and to help this discussion he is the link direct to the case from Bailii: Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB) (23 December 2009) The judgement was posted up Christmas Eve after 10am.

All of them are giving you 8 weeks before they will close the complaint re charges. I think you need to be careful with a templated response. UTCCR 1999 reg 5(1) is about an imbalance in the contract between the buyer ie you and the seller, ie the bank. No doubt there will be a template response to give but it may not be the best response to do so but to look at how the charges have caused the imbalance.

It was but many newspapers have only just found out about one of the judgements recently for some reason

That sounds fairly standard, ie that a debt is outstanding and so therefore, until it is paid off then they do not want your business(was there an outstanding amount left??). They will formerly give you notice that they will be closing your account soon as well I would expect. Unfortunately, opening account can be subject to further additional checks which can mean an account being opened will be closed within a short period of time.

I do have one further question which doesn't require any spin whatsoever because it is a simple. What area of timescale does the debtor have to sell their debt to CCK/Momentum or any other company who might want to go into this market? This kinda leads to the assessment of the contract since, someone can ask you to assess the contract but speed will be of the essence since they could be at the point in which the creditor has issued proceedings against them for the debt they are selling. If assessment takes too long then the creditor will argue that the debt is the debtors since they sold it after legal proceeding were commenced or is that wrong? If that is wrong, is that not a further way of avoidance of, we shall call it, a properly executed agreement(as Bookworm has said above, not all agreements will be and will have other grounds for challenge). Hunter_01, I'm starting to understand the theory more or less but still need a bit more info but the practice and live examples is preferable.

That is what Rankine argued and paragraph 17 states this: "17. In my Judgment the Rankines submissions on Issue 2 are unsound in fact and in law"

I know THIS forum all to well and I have read the other threads on the other forums(the [problem] forum thread was pretty much a "you're a moron...No, you're a moron" kinda thread). I still don't fully understand what CCK actually do. I don't yet understand how a debt is relinquished by the debtor if the creditor does not consent and what CCK does with the debt or why since surely a debt is not really an asset? Furthermore, if the bank does take the debtor to court what is their defence and how should they(the debtor) defend that line? Has any banks gone after CCK on the basis that the debt is sold to them?(is there any figures of this happening and have CCK defended them and won cases?) Am trying to understand your viewpoint but I am still having trouble understanding it?

And btw the burden of proof rests on the banks under the UTCCR as well as under the CCA.

Change of tactic from DG in this. A previous one here asked for a three month stay. Its possible they are asking for different directions depending on what was included in your POC ? http://i48.tinypic.com/2guz5ah.jpg is their proposed directions in another case.

2 questions come to mind. When on the 19th did you check the balance online? the next question is the type of account you have ie step, advantage Blue, advantage gold?(top of your statement will show you this). It's not fraud by the way.

Guys please be careful. Hunter_01 has been having this "debate" on a couple of forums. You only need to google his username to find out. Some of that debate has been pretty vociferous with lots of swearing. It is possible that he works for CCK yet he will not confirm this. Hello Hunter_01.....we meet again here. I offer no opinion but it is better that people know that you kinda like this "debate" and you are pro CCK. The same arguments appear on most of the forums so please expect to see the repeats......tis the festive season .

It is what took over from the Banking Code in November 2009. Below is the lending code. The Lending Code Page 20(its in HTML btw)

Well, they have asked for one and it does show a deficit of £400 so they should be looking at your financial hardship sympathetically as per the BCOBS and the lending code section 9(which took over from the Banking code in November 2009)

Putting Your Finances In Order: HSBC Bank UK The above takes you to their link on financial hardship and on the top links is says "calculate your income and expenditure". Is there anyway of popping to your local library and print out a copy of the form?

that explains why you have been asked to pay, the judge will make his decision when appropriate, and I assume once guidance comes down from Moore-bick - its possible there will be some kind of bulk directions hearing for all his stayed claims. People/banks asking to lift the stays or anything else outside the standard 'wait for the judge' will have to pay any additional court fees they incur by trying to move things forward a bit quicker. Other courts are having directions hearings end of Jan/Feb, I don't think any courts will just bulk dismiss claims - more like give you a month or three to get new POCS in.

You are trying to lift a stay and the court has not lifted the stay on its own so that is why there is a £75 fee. With regards to the statement in bold, I assume it is a set template to make you aware that no further costs need to be made on your part since the case is not going forward further at that stage. The letter you have quoted is not great and there is one case that I have seen in which an application to lift a stay and amend the POC has been contested. I guess we will see what the bank responds to you once you have paid the fee for lifting the stay.