Do you therefore conclude that the 5 years will start from the day I asked for the charges to be repaid or the day they were credited to my account (around a month later)?

Is there not a difference between the debt on the account and the account itself? The charges refunded relate to a period prior to the existing debt being run up i.e. the account was in arrears and charges applied prior to March 2005 at which point the then outstanding amount (including charges levied) was cleared. A further debt was then run up on the account, which is the debt I am hoping has prescribed. The refund of charges was applied to reduce that outstanding amount. Surely acknowledging the existence of an account does not mean that you accept that whatever the lender/credit card company say is the sum outstanding on the account is in fact the true incontestable amount? Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but I cannot find any legal authority either way.

IdaInFife Thanks for responding. "and the courts as well" Are you aware of any court cases in point on this that I could reference? maroondevo52 It is not that I claim that I have not acknowledged the debt, the fact is that other than the two instances I mentioned where I referenced the account in question, I have not. A claim for refunding of charges could have been made against an account on which there was no balance or debt. I don't mean to be argumentative, but I need to be fairly sure of my ground here, if my approach is to be to approach the CCA in some shape or form, as opposed to doing nothing (unless a summons is served on me) and wait it out until Dec 2013 when the debt will definitely prescribe. If I do approach the CCA, then the prescription clock will be reset to zero.

Thanks for responding. That's what I feared. Any authority, precedent or reasoned basis for this, or is it based on your best interpretation? Not meaning to be rude - just keen to know the rationale for your conclusion re the charges reclaim, before I go basing my whole approach on that. Thanks for any further thoughts you can give it.

I have an outstanding RBS credit card debt which has been assigned on to Arrow Global. My question is if the debt has prescribed as nothing had been heard of it for ages, until a recent letter from a CCA in Scotland. The last payment made by me was in Dec 2005. The debt was assigned to Arrow Global in Feb 2011. There had been no acknowledgement by me of the debt for over 5 years, so normally the debt would prescribe. However in Dec 2008 I wrote to RBS requiring penalty credit card charges on that account to be refunded, which were credited to the account. Also in Sept 2008 I made a s77-78 request to the then CCA acting for RBS in standard template form. Both letters quoted the account number, but not the amount outstanding. Do you consider that these letters constitute "the subsistence of the obligation having been relevantly acknowledged" in terms of s.6 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 i.e. that the debt will not prescribe until Dec 2013? Thanks for reading.

I attach more correspondence from CPP. I am not entirely sure of the date of the CPP booklet attached here. Either 2004 or 2007.

I attach various correspondence, booklets & T&Cs from CPP dating from 2004 to 2010. The T&Cs are contained in the letter dated 3.7.2007. I hope these might be of use to someone.

I should really have explained more of the background to avoid the previous two answers. The planning application which the owner of the land has lodged is for property immediately adjacent to mine for over-development of flats on that site. He will reclaim the parking area on which my car is situated from the council lease to form the required car parking for the flats, even though it will leave the office parking with less than the required amount, and the council as tenants are playing ball on this. Most importantly he will then expect to take access to my garden ground or the air above it (still my property in Scotland) for the purposes of constructing his flatted development, without any right, title or interest to do so. He cannot build his flats without doing so, and no approach has been made to me for such access. So yes, my unroadworthy car is parked on someone else's land, and I have no right to do, and it could be removed by them (although it probably would be theft), and it is probably not moral, but it is all part of a larger dispute. Yes, the council can ask me to remove it, but what is their remedy if I don't? They are suffering no loss, and no damage is being caused to their property. Obtain a court order requiring me to move it IMHO. My question was, not am I morally wrong, but do the police have the power to do this?

My car a few months ago failed its MOT. Until I could decide what to do with it (initially I was looking to rent a garage or lock-up so that I could take it apart and then learn how to do the necessary repairs myself) I parked the car on a private car park, owned by a private individual and leased to the local council in connection with a small council office building, 50 yards away from my home. I let the insurance expire and made a SORN notification to DVLA. There are more spaces in this car park than are ever used, and there is no doubt that it is not a public car park, but a private one. The only notice up is "Private Car Park", with no tow-away or clamping warning signs. As I am in dispute with the owner of the land over a planning application he is making which will impact on my property, I rather cheekily did not seek anyone's permission to park there. Now the council have asked the police to intervene, and they came calling. I have explained to the police what the score was, and that eventually I would get it moved, but the police officers stated that if I did not, then they would tow it away and charge me. I expressed my certainty that they did not have the power to tow the car away as this was strictly a civil matter, and with all due respect, nothing to do with them. They confirmed that data protection issues meant that they had not passed my details onto the council, but that if they did not have the power themselves, they would do so on behalf of the council. I again expressed my scepticism as to this claim, but left it that I would speak to the council, and eventually get the car moved. Does anyone have any idea if the police do indeed have the power to tow away and charge me? The police accepted that the vehicle was not abandoned, and it was not in any way a danger to the public, even if it does look somewhat scruffy in the bodywork department. I am in Scotland.

Newbie poster here, although I have been reading the site for some time. In Sept 2011 I renewed my car insurance with Axa through QuoteA. I have been with them since 2007. My premium was £215.50 plus insurance tax of £12.93. I negotiated by phone out of being charged any policy arrangement fee. I discussed with QuoteA at the time the possibility that my car might fail its MOT in December, and be uneconomical to repair, and this was acknowledged. I was made aware of the cancellation charges for early cancellation, which for 4 months into the policy would see only 35% of the premium refunded, plus £25 being payable to QuoteA as a cancellation charge. I have at no point during the four years been given a full copy of the policy with Axa, just a summary of terms and conditions. I opted to pay by ten monthly instalments, of £28.93 each, and have paid 4 instalments so far, totalling £115.72. Finance was arranged by QuoteA though a finance company Premium Credit Limited, so the total charge for credit works out at £60.87. Anyway, my car failed its MOT badly just before Christmas, and has been sitting off road since then. The road tax expired at the end of December, and I have done a SORN notification until I decide whether to scrap it or teach myself enough car maintenance to do the repairs myself. I phoned QuoteA today to explain and to advise them that the car has no MOT or tax and has been SORN’ed. They took that as a requirement to cancel the policy, and informed me that the total sum payable would be £71.95, and I could pay that in instalments if required. I declined to do anything as yet, and said I would phone them back. My gut feeling is that these types of cancellation charges are not enforceable under UTCC. I suppose that I should ask QuoteA and/or Axa for a breakdown of the calculation of the refund, and to show that the charges are fair and proportionate. My questions are: (1) is QuoteA acting as my agent or as agent for Axa? They quite clearly state on their terms and conditions: “You will not receive advice or a recommendation from us on any products, but we will offer you the lowest price products we have available which are closest to your requirements – it is then your choice how you wish to proceed.” Sounds to me just like what a shop does; (2) if I just notify Axa of my lack of MOT and road tax and the SORN status of my car, would they cancel the policy, and if so would I get any more refunded? (I see that from an Axa policy available on their web-site that they have the option of charging a £52.50 cancellation fee in certain circumstances, but it is not clear if that policy applies only to those who arrange direct with Axa, and if there is a different policy for those arranged through brokers). You might think that £71.95 is not a lot of money, but I am currently not working, so every penny counts. It also irritates me that insurance companies think that they can gouge people like this. If all that was payable was a £25 cancellation fee to the broker QuoteA, I would be happy enough. Thanks for reading, and any thoughts welcome.