lol Diddy...you are so wicked!!

Of course CitB!! But I'm sure I've seen some threads where access has been restricted/denied along the way? One that springs to mind fairly recently was where CAGGERS made donations towards a case that was eventually settled prior to the hearing. Can't recall the exact details but vaguely recollect PT being involved somehow. I'm also a member of a computer related forum which utilises the same software. They have a VIP section where only members who have attained a certain level have access to those posts. Therefore, I'm sure it can be done with this software, I'm just not sure how practical it would be for the webmaster to implement!! It is a difficult balance to achieve because on the one hand you want constructive input and yet on the other you potentially risk jeopardising your case.

Best if you read Tricky's post here Stebiz... http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/200110-case-management-conference-mbna.html#post2179083 As I understand it several cases (4 re-reading Tricky's post) have been selected from circa 52, each covering different issues. Also, browsing through the web it appears that it is normally the Mercantile Court that hears test cases...all on the same court listings page that I gave earlier though. One case listed tomorrow against Welcome Finance...but it's a bit like looking for a needle in a haystack. Think we could do with an update from someone working within the legal profession.

I could be wrong but I think you can request that a thread becomes private and hence, is only viewable by those existing subscribers. I would contact a Mod/Web Master and ask them for advice.

It does sound as if this response has been given out with little regard paid to the specific circumstances Spartathisis. ICO appear to have come down on the side of the creditors/CRA's when it comes to processing date and seem unwilling to change that stance. This is why the test case in London is going to be critcal regarding the recording of defaults on accounts in cases where there is no/unenforceable CCA. Under statute of limitations I believe companies have to retain information for 6 years after a relationship/contract has ended. So presuming that the relationship is deemed officially ended after 6 years (statute barred status) it is possible that the DCA would retain info for a further 6 years making 12 in total. (Obviously depends on date of last payment/acknowledgement of debt). However, they definitely shouldn't be processing information after the initial 6 year period in my opinion. I think the ICO need a few rockets fired up their rear ends to be honest and I'm disgusted by the response you've received.

Sounds promising!! Saw nothing listed for him today. This is for tomorrow and does not appear consumer credit related but is to do with bribery and contract rescission from what I can gather from the Times archives...

SORRY - HAVE MIXED UP OP AND LATER POSTER... JANE1960, believe me Girl, if I was in your shoes I would be filing for bankruptcy. This is the official insolvency site for you to take a look at... The Insolvency Service Website I'm pretty sure that if you need your vehicle for work then the Official Receiver will let you retain it, providing that it's a reasonable value and not a Ferrari or the likes. Given the shortfall in the house repossession, I feel it's the only way you're going to get a fresh start, otherwise you are going to be harangued for years to come. As Phat has said, best start your own thread for specific advice. REDSHOCKER - Personally am not a fan of IVA's but at the very least, I would be pursuing the company concerned for a refund of my £500. I agree with Bank Fodder that you should investigate bankruptcy...see link above for the Insolvency website. Regarding harassment...take a look at this link and, if you do happen to speak to them, tell them that you are only willing to communicate in writing....oh, and don't get fobbed off the with the line "...but we're a telephone bank!!" http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/resources/templates-library/52-harassment Best of luck both!!

You'd be surprised!! I think it would depend upon whether or not a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance could be proven. Think of the expression "where there's blame there's a claim"...there has to be an element of negligence. Loss on it's own is insufficient as I understand it. Nonetheless, I would not be taking no for an answer as they are just fobbing you off Bill. Think about a rear ended shunt involving 3 cars...the front driver claims off the middle driver who in turn claims off the rear (last) driver. Your first port of call is the sewerage company and if they then want to claim their losses off someone else then so be it. Four hours appears to be a standard response time. With the danger of internal flooding, this call out should have been elevated to a much higher status and priority given. I would refute their statement, advise them that you consider them liable for the damage and also ask for details of the call outs at that time and how each was prioritised....this may be where the negligence comes in. Best of luck

I agree with Zamzara, suspension is a "without prejudice" action and your pay should not be affected at all. However, I note that you work via an agency and I'm honestly unsure as to what rights you have by virtue of your contract. Are you in a Union? If not, I would contact ACAS or CAB for advice asap. Best of luck!!

Thanks Vint!! Ok, now back on my pc and these are the extracts from quotes that I have kept for reference, so apologies to anyone who recognises their scribe but I didn't retain posters details!! Now if you re-read s136 (which I've just realised I've misunderstood!!) it says... What I think that means is that the deed of assignment has to come from the assignor but there appears to be no such restriction on the express notice in writing (NOA) to the debtor, only that it must occur. Hope this helps explain where I was coming from Vint and sincere apologies to Rainbow for hijacking the thread!! :oops:

I'm sure your solicitor will advise but make sure you get a decent reference for your hubby as well as any compensation...it's important that he is able to find another job. Also, if you're in receipt of benefits (don't know if you are of course) any compensation may well affect these. Having received substantial compensation from my ex employer myself (different circumstances as I felt my position had become untenable and wanted to leave) it does not last for ever and is only a bonus if your normal income is maintained.

I agree...that's the way it should be Vint...otherwise anyone could send out bogus demands. I've just got this nagging doubt in the back of my mind that I've read differently somewhere...there again, I am rather tired!!

Well you'd think so wouldn't you?!! I'm pretty sure that there is case law to the contrary even though I thought the Property Act stated that it should be the assignor (not the assignee). Please excuse the vagueness of this post but I'm not on my pc and hence, can't refer back to my documentation.

I still can't see any relevant cases listed for the Commercial Court on 30th September...link here if anyone wants to check;

Like Ida, I'm not familiar with these matters but earlier posters have said, she does have an obligation as the promotor. Do you have a copy of the promo material confirming that the boutique was organising the charity event? I think this will be important and it is still available online at a local website. Also, I would take a look at the site that BSC has suggested. Best of luck!! PS...I was genuinely shocked by the workmanship in the photo's you posted!

The other thing to bear in mind, if it is the battery, is that these are considered "consumables" and it is reasonable to expect that these would need replacing as a consequence of normal wear and tear.

There's nothing ordinary about you SF!!

She's just a silly little girl who clearly has no concept of the ramifications of a CCJ. Perhaps her mother will have more sense. Glad to hear the address was correct.

Didn't know that!!

I don't believe they do as the account has been terminated and there is no "live" running credit agreement. Naturally they will need some type of licence for debt collection activities. You can check the reister on the link below. Public Register

You won't want to hear this but 3 years is pretty good going for a laptop in my experience. 18 months to 2 years seems pretty much the norm (depending on usage of course). I take it you can still use the laptop when connected to the mains but not as a portable appliance? Found this online re: SOGA if it helps...

Varde Partners licence expires on 2 October 2009...no doubt will be renewed...but if you want to check them out then their licence number is 0560425 Public Register I'm sure that Varde Partners is connected to Varde Investments...

It will either be an equitable or absolute assignment. In an absolute they have the interest and obligations as I understand it and hence, would sue in their own name. With equitable they have an interest but cannot bring an action in their own right. Re-reading the letter, it could probably be taken to be a notice of assignment except that it should really have been sent by registered post. It only seems as if Varde have bought the interest and not obligations but it isn't clear. There seem to be a number of Caggers who have also had their debts sold to Varde this summer...all seem equally as bemused as you Rainbow!!

Normally I ignore the first DCA letter and once they send a second I reply with the account in dispute now bog off letter!! However, what I find interesting with yours Rainbow is that Experto Credite Ltd state to have been appointed by Varde Investments (Ireland). I think it's fairly common knowledge that MBNA have an arm in Ireland but am not sure of the implications regarding jurisdiction / securitisation etc. Also, did you receive a notice of assignment from MBNA or Varde for this account? Now maybe the time to send off the SAR to find out what's been going on behind the scenes.

This just goes to show how they rely on obtaining judgements by default because many consumers are unaware of their rights. One fabulous win to you this time AJ