So, they turned up this morning expecting to be able to get in. Instead, they left a letter saying they had attended for non-payment of child maintenance (no mention in the letter for how much this is). They had not sent any warning that they were going to be attending - in fact this is the first time we have had dealings with Rossendales. Anyway, he said (through the door), I'll be back in 24 hours. Enjoy. Shouldn't my other half have received notice of a visit? If so, I am going to go straight for their complaints procedure, write a letter and get it posted (recorded delivery). I will also send a copy of the letter by email. He will be disappointed again tomorrow when I don't answer the door. My only question...will he give up and send it back to the CSA i.e. He can't force his way in no matter what? Luckily I am well aware of their bully boy tactics. (the other half hasn't got anything of value, no car and as we are in a flat, unless he is spiderman he cannot gain entry through any windows....which are closed anyway).

.....and I have NO junk food in the house. I have plenty of fruit to snack on

My other half smokes but, as he works stupidly long hours, I'm in a smoke free enviroment too. The last hour has been particularly hard as he is now home. Might just take myself off to bed with a good book. I am so looking forward to getting past this part. At the minute I am a smoker who is not smoking. I cant wait till I can say I'm a non-smoker who used to smoke. I have thought about the electronic ones but for now the patches and lozenges are doing the job. Better to be addicted to just the nicotine.....for now anyway. I have smoked for almost 20 years so all in all it's not as bad as I imagined it would be. Hopefully I can come back in week and say "yay, still smoke free"

Well, today is my first smoke free day in a lot of years. I went along to a stop smoking clinic and got some 24 hours patches and sone lozenges. Having been up since 4am it's been a very, very long day. But, no smoking. Is it going to get harder as today has seemed so easy? Maybe because I am doing this because I want to, not because someone has told me to. The lozenges are like a little miracle. Taste foul but works a treat. Especially after food.

Finally got my money back last night. The dealer paid scrap value for it and his mate, who has the same car, paid the rest so he can use it for spares and repairs. Dealer gets his.money back when his mate scraps it. I dont care. Got my money, thats all that matters.

They are collecting the car between 6pm and 7pm tonight. Cash in my hand....will let you know if they make an appearance.

Ok, reported the MOT place to VOSA as they passed the car last year with no mention of the corrosion. Also, the issuing name is the same on both certificates but the signature is totally different. Not sure if it matters, but I told VOSA anyway. They said they would investigate.

I don't understand? Sorry? One thing though, the same company who just failed my car passed it 12 months ago with one advisory (a tyre). I would have thought the corrosion and brakes would have already been in a sorry state.

Spoke to the dealer (naughty, I know) and he is offering me a part refund plus I get to keep the tax to claim a refund on that (they paid for the tax, not me). In total I will be short of about £50 that I paid for it. I can live with that. He tried to offer me scrap value but after throwing in SOGA he relented.

Trading Standards were useless. Need not put anything more about them.

More than likely. I'm having no luck getting through to TS as of yet. Just want to get him reported!

Slight changes to the letter: RE: Mazda MX-3 This is to inform you that I formally reject the above vehicle, as is my statutory right under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended). I purchased the Mazda MX-3 as part of a part exchange with a Corsa B on the 2rd May 2012. We were not informed that car had any problems. I was not able to take the car on a full test drive due to the lack of road tax and insurance on the vehicle. After submitting the car for an MOT I have been informed that the car is in a dangerous condition. This is clearly stated on the MOT certificate. The garage has confirmed that the issues surrounding the failure would have been present when the vehicle was sold to me. The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (as amended), states that items purchased must be fit for purpose and be of a satisfactory condition. It also states that the item must be safe. It is my understanding, that due to the failures on the car, that it was neither fit for purpose, not of a satisfactory condition nor is it safe. If I had been made aware of the faults on the car then I would not have purchased the vehicle. Further to the issues with the car I have had to incur further losses as I had to purchase a vehicle on the 1st August as a car is essential for my partner to commute to work. I am not able to cover the cost of repairs on the Mazda MX3 as it is uneconomical to do so. Therefore I request a full refund and that you arrange for the car to be collected at your expense within 7 days.

It is only a small business so he may/may not have had dealings with the court before. I can't use the car. It is now off road, SORNed and as it has neither insurance or MOT I won't be taking it anywhere. I can only try.....thank you.

They have a website but it just shows the cars they have for sale with basic details such as mileage etc. I'm not sure if they advertise their cars anywhere else.

The car had tax put on it after we purchased it as part of the deal so, yes, it was taxed. The car was just on the lot with a price. Nothing to say it had faults, including a dangerous one. The dealer gave no indication that there were any major issues.

How does this sound: I purchased a Mazda MX-3 as part of a part exchange with a Corsa B on the 2rd May 2012. We were not informed that car had any problems. We also were not able to take the car on a full test drive due to the lack of road tax and insurance on the vehicle. I am writing to you to inform you that I reject the car. My reasons being it's failure on it's MOT. I have enclosed a copy of the MOT certificate and a breakdown of the costs to repair the car. The total repair costs would exceed £1000 when VAT is added to the cost. The car has been deemed dangerous, clearly stated on the MOT certificate. The garage has confirmed that the issues surrounding the failure would have been present when the vehicle was sold to us. Under the Sale of Goods Act it states that items purchased must be fit for purpose and be of a satisfactory condition. It is my understanding, that due to the failures on the car, that it was neither fit for purpose nor of a satisfactory condition. If I had been made aware of the faults on the car then I would not of purchased the vehicle. Further to the issues with the car we have had to incur further losses as we had to purchase a vehicle on the 1st August as a car is essential for my partner to commute to work. We are not able to cover the cost of repairs on the Mazda MX3 as it is uneconomical to do so. Therefore I request a full refund and the car be returned to you as rejected. I ask that you respond to this matter within 7-10 days from the date of this letter. Yours sincerely

I have just spoken to Tesco 9as I have legal advice through them) and they have told me to write to the dealer rejecting the car, explaining why and to send a copy of the MOT certificate and the cost of the repair. They say, because I have had the car for such a short period of time then that only goes to strengthen my case. As does the fact it clearly states the car is dangerous on the MOT. Off to compose a letter now....

Ok, well I will give them a call and see what they say. Does the SOGA not apply to used cars? My oh is very good with cars and, like I said, it would have had to have gone up on ramps and a good poke about underneath to see the corrosion. We knew the rear brake shoe would need replacing but it's actually the whole thing, including the drum, that is dangerous. This is something that could not be seen without getting it up in the air. As for an independent inspection.....it's not something I thought of.

We bought a car from a dealer on the 27th May this year. It has just had it's MOT and failed dismally. It has been deemed dangerous to drive and the cost of getting it roadworthy is over £1000. These are things that would have been wrong with the car when we bought it. As most of the issues can only been seen from underneath the car we were obviously not aware of them. Also, the rear brake is so dangerous that the car should never have been on the road. It also needs some welding work as it is so corroded near the suspension that it could have given way at any time. The other issues are minor compared to these two. I called the dealer who said that because the car was bought for less than £1000 it's not his problem. He said that we took the car on a test drive and were happy. If you can call a 200ft drive a test, then yes, we did. We could not take the car on to the main road as it had no tax and no insurance. So, in effect, we didn't test drive it at all. Just to the end of his drive at the garage and back again. I'm so angry. I spent hard earned money on a car that is dangerous. I have a young child and knowing that it could have given way at any time is a scary thought. I have resigned myself to scrapping the car but I'm just wondering, should I report him to TS or anything like that? Have I really got no rights to demand he put the car right (after all, it was sold unfit for purpose). Any help would be appreciated.

Ok, it's all sorted now. Spoke to someone else at the office and they were more helpful. I can continue making payments as I have been and no further action will be taken. Still angry that it got this far though.

I am so angry right now. I received a reminder notice about 2 weeks ago which stated I had not paid my council tax for July. I had. I made the payment, online, on the 29th June. My mistake was that I overpaid by £1 so it was all offset against next years bill. However after speaking to them, they sorted it out and everything was ok. Today I have received a final notice. This states that I now have to pay the amount in full within 7 days or else it goes to court. I have also lost the right to pay by installments. I called the council straight away and they confirmed that they received my payment for July. But, to stop proceedings I now have to pay by Direct Debit. Well, I hate Direct Debits with a passion and I want to use their online payment service. I was told that if I do not pay as they want me to, they will issue a summons. I am just boiling with rage. How can they get a liability order against me for paying my bill using one of their methods (clearly stated on the back of the bill). They also state that I did not make the payment until the 2nd July yet I can prove I made the payment on the 29th June. It does not say to allow 3-5 days for the payment to go through (it does state this for 2 of the other methods of payment though so I would expect it to state the same for online payments if this was the case). I am due to pay tomorrow so I asked them just how they expected me to pay this by direct debit.....I made it clear I will be making a payment tomorrow, online or, if the payment processes quicker, over the telephone. They said this was fine, but for future payments I must pay by DD. Do I really have to? As long as I am paying have they really got a chance of continuing with proceedings? Wouldn't they look a bit stupid in court when I turn up with proof that I am paying my bill in accordance with their instructions and that they have received every payment to date? Waiting for someone else to call me back to explain why they are threatening me with court action for paying my bill using one of their prescribed methods. Should be interesting.

Just wondering if anyone has any information really. In February 2009 I split from my then Husband leaving him with the house. As he couldn't afford the mortgage we agreed to sell it. In March 2009 it was put up for sale at £98,000 (still have the paperwork). I paid the mortgage in February and March but then refused to pay anymore as I wasn't living there and couldn't afford to pay it anyway (had rent to pay). Anyway, the ex-husband decided to give the keys back to RBoS in May 2009. They then sold the house for approx. £55,000. Way below market value. The thing that is confusing me is that there is no marker on my credit file to show a VR just an outstanding balance of £16k+. They have never asked me to pay this and I only became aware of it last week when I checked my credit file. Since 2009 I have still been able to obtain credit so it hasn't had a detrimental effect. I thought the mortgage company were supposed to try and sell the property for market value? Or I am just wishful thinking? I'm not looking forward to the day a letter arrives demanding the outstanding balance..... Oh, and I never signed any paperwork saying I agreed to this. The ex did it himself. Shouldn't I have had a say in the matter? Was it even legal for RBoS to agree to the voluntary repossession without even consulting me first?

Brilliant.

Will do tomorrow....payday. If it is Link from 2004 (sorry, back to my original question) would this be statute barred or does the clock restart after the house was sold. Hopefully a SAR from GE Money and Welcome will help me.

There definitely was a charging order as it prevented us re-mortgaging at the time. It was Link too. I remember it clearly The CO doesn't exist anymore as I don't own a home I don't ever speak to these people, but they called me, didn't recognise the number so answered. This is the first time I have spoken to them and won't be doing it again. They were all friendly and everything Almost begging me for details. I let them put me on hold then I hung up. They haven't called again.