I would follow Delfi's advice and send off a CCA request. When was this agreement taken out with MBNA? MBNA seem to ignore loads of letters and send out lots of threats... so you are not alone on this one. It's designed to panic you into paying. Nonetheless, you need to know where you stand which is why a CCA request is important.

I think you've spent too much time abroad Mark and forgotten all about this jobsworth culture we actually live in!! Expecting a favour from a civil servant on a Friday afternoon is just asking for trouble! Make sure you do get it sorted out on Monday though. Best of luck!

Alarm bells are ringing here Ripper!! :eek: By all means meet the Bailiff but do it somewhere neutral and NOT inside your premises. Also make sure that all windows and doors are securely locked to your house. There is a statutory schedule of rates/charges for Bailiffs but hopefully someone else will advise on this aspect.

I was referring to this specific claim where there appears to be negligible damage on both sides. Hence, any claim by the OP is likely be off-set by the counter claim.

No, I agree with you entirely on this. Do you have a copy of the contract that you can post up (personal details removed) for comment? Alternatively, have you searched for threads on this company to see what others have done in similar situations?

I can't comment on this, but it's an interesting observation...how did you manage to read the thumbnail?!! Such technicalities appear to be the only grounds for appeal in this case.

Yep, I have to agree...even though I can't see much in the OP's thumbnail pic!

It's entirely up to you Matt. All DAS will do is refer it to an approved repairer and you will probably get a courtesy car. If the third party successfully claims, then you will probably still have to cough up your excess. However, if it's 50/50 then they're unlikely to be successful.

Just to add that any traffic orders prohibiting parking normally extend to the rear of the adopted footway. You probably need to check the limits of adoption.

I would ask them to put your options in writing so that you can read through it properly and make a decision. DAS are essentially there to try and recover your losses but they're saying that this is a 50/50 claim so you're unlikely to recover anything from the third party. What I think will happen, if you're not going for PI, is that DAS will arrange the repair and you will pay for the work as it is less than your excess. However, I believe that you are will still be covered by your insurance in case of any claims. I reported a bump circa 4 years ago, just to be on the safe side, where there was no/minimal damage to either car just incase the other party submitted a PI claim.

Unfortunately, there is no cap on the interest rate that can be charged in this country with some payday loan type firms charging up to 3000% interest...and yes, I meant 3000 and didn't add an extra zero!! (Check out the recent C4 Dispatches programme). If any payments were missed then obviously the contract has been breached and immediate repayment can be demanded. However, I didn't think that they could demand the money AND charge the interest for the duration...but please don't quote me on this. Have you complained to Trading Standards/OFT/FSA??

Suspension is a without prejudice action and the employee should not be out of pocket as a consequence. Therefore, if he/she would normally have been paid these shifts then such payments should continue. I can't personally come up with any specific legislation/case law to say that you must pay it but I'm pretty confident that the employee would win any case for the money against your employer. Just to add that our HR department instructed such payments were to be paid in suspension cases, so there may be something out there stipulating this.

I'm a little confused Dusty...what amount was on the warrant? £200 or £1600?? Was this a court bailiff or debt collector? Please excuse my ignorance but I thought there was a statutory limit to the fees and charges that can be added by bailiffs anyway??

Sounds as if Gimp0r knows what he's talking about!! Shame the same can't be said about Mr Builder and Mr (Contactable at Hotmail) Architect!!

I'm with Zurich also and have dealt with DAS in the past. They will get there eventually, you just be patient as Kurvaface suggested.

I think Mr Builder must have worked for a DCA in a former life!! It's intimidation. Just stand firm and let him do his worst. As Maverick has said above, the builder is the one who needs to be putting things right with his client first and foremost. Also, what reputable architect is contactable at a hotmail address??

Thanks for that CitB!! Just an update...heard nothing from Collect Direct until a letter arrived from Philips Collection Services stating that they were acting on behalf of a company called Improved Financial Services Ltd whom I had never heard of before. Turns out that Improved Financial Services Ltd is Collect Direct's new trading name...perhaps they're trying to ditch the "Collect Nowt" tag!! Will tell them where to get off and shall also be logging a complaint with OFT about this as I have already provided a copy of the letter from M&S stating that this debt is uneforceable in court.

You can also watch this online if anyone missed the programme... Dispatches - 4oD - Channel 4

My info is there from 2002/03. Trouble is, so is my ex and my name is linked to his so I'm going to have to get him to sign a letter also!! The annoying part is that we split long before this date but the council wouldn't let me remove his details from the register saying that only he could do that!!

This is something of a contentious issue. There are threads on this site where dodgy DN's have been highlighted as a defence in court and the creditor has simply said ok, we'll stop these proceedings, issue a compliant DN and then start fresh proceedings! This often boils down to what constitutes termination of the contract (most believe issuing court proceedings is effectively termination) and a termination notice from Egg would help your case in this regard. As your agreement appears compliant, then all that would happen is that the default would be removed, a new DN issued by Moorcroft (Egg) and another default added. At least the first default will expire before the second. Have all interest and other charges been frozen on this account? If so, then a payment plan, at a rate you can afford, may well be the best solution. I don't really know much about the PPI and multiple agreement aspects but this is something you may wish to check out just to be 100% certain that the agreement is enforceable!! Best of luck!

It's too risky not to report this incident to your Insurers and I'm glad to see you're being sensible about this. All Insurers have a shared database and this incident will be recorded, regardless of the outcome. The third party is clearly familiar with this process and is not keen to get their name logged, especially when no pay out is likely.

You're extremely lucky to have this witness. I would ensure that you alert your insurance company to this lady's statement as they are all too aware of this [problem]. It is not the damage to the cars that is the issue but the third party claims for personal injury compensation.

I'm sure someone with litigation experience will be able to help but you need to post more details as to the case and where you're at exactly.

Well said Asmodeus!

I think the problem with 0844 numbers is that different rates apply depending upon the numbers that follow. In this case it is 0844 824 which, appears to be a g6 tarriff of approx 5p per min at all times. It is possible for companies to benefit from these calls but I don't know if that's the case here. You can check out the BT specialised numbers tarriffs here... http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumer/consumerProducts/pdf/SpecialisedNos.pdf