I was of the opinion that it would be a nominal payment of £5, if anything at all. There's a maintenance calculator here... https://secureonline.dwp.gov.uk/csa/v2/en/calculate-maintenance.asp

I hope so too Damsel. I'm unsure of the intricacies of the IUC process but feel that you should also draw attention to your health problems as a mitigating factor. My personal approach would be one of damage limitation. You've done something you clearly regret (which one of us hasn't at some point in our life??) and I think it would be best for you to put this behind you as quickly as you (and the DWP of course) possibly can and move forward. If the Housing Association remain intransigent about increasing their percentage of home ownership then I would be inclined to take in a lodger as you have previously touched upon. There are tax breaks for this and so long as your house is safe and clean then I wouldn't be overly concerned about any other costly modifications. Best wishes!!

My inclination is not to show your hand Mel until/unless you really have to and to keep the letter vague at first. What I'm trying to do is to stretch the correspondence process out until we know the outcome of PT's case in Cardiff as this should hopefully give us all an idea of where we stand legally with these Egg agreements. One other point that PT mentioned was to check out is whether or not you could only pay by direct debit as this may be considered an unfair term. I know it's in my t&c's but your agreement is much later. This would be another defect to add to your list if and when you disclose the information. Best of luck with this!! PS...they will inevitably come back and tell you that their lawyers say that the agreements are enforceable. What we all have to remember is that Egg (Apex) have a lot riding on this and are highly unlikely to say otherwise!!

I tend to ignore DCA's for as long as I possibly can DX. However, I think there reaches a point when you have to respond so that they know any action brought will be robustly defended and will not be ignored. Thus eliminating any notion that they will succeed by default....as I'm sure frequently happens with non-Caggers!!

Ok, tell your sister not to worry, especially if the agreement is unenforceable. Collect Direct have an M&S account of mine and I actually have a letter from M&S stating that my agreement is uneforceable in court. Nonethless, the account was sold to Collect Direct and in June last year I received a letter headed: which I suspect is the same one as your sister has received. I just sent them the standard "account in dispute" letter and told them I considered their letter to breach OFT guidance by falsely implying legal action can or will be taken when legally it cannot. My response crossed in the post with their next letter headed: advising me that someone was going to call at my home...yeah right!! I heard no more but they have passed the debt onto Philips and I have also told them to bog off. Just remember that these letters are designed to frighten you into paying up. Best of luck with this!!

Sounds as if Excel are managing the car parks for Netto. Trouble is, you don't really know what happened to spark the argument although, it sounds as if the lady was acting extremely unprofessionally, regardless of the cause. I would be inclined to write to the manager of the Netto store, explaining what you witnessed and how upset and disturbed you were by the whole incident, particularly as the gentleman concerned was accompanied by a young child. They may have CCTV so a time and date would be useful. You could try writing to Excel Parking also, but they may well not be overly sympathetic. It's their Client (Netto) you need to target. There is also a remote possibility that this may have been a domestic, but seems unlikely based on the information supplied. Best of luck!!

I watched an item on the tv about this last week. In their tests, jewellers paid circa 25% of the jewellery's value, pawnbrokers 17% and the postal gold companies 6%. Can't remember which postal company they used to be honest. I would check their rates online at their websites...most post them up I believe. I would then send off only broken jewellery to them and see if you can offload anything wearable in a jewellers that sells second hand items. Some companies also have shops you can walk into.

I'm disgusted by the response that your in-laws neighbour has been given Labrat. Such ignorance and apathy has lead to unnecessary deaths and injuries in the past and you would think that lessons would have been learned by now!! I agree with Skonk that it's irresponsible owners to blame here and not animals that are essentially doing what comes naturally to them. However, I would be distraught if anything similar happened to a pet of mine, particularly if it was in the supposed "security" of my own garden. I would also be inclined to advise your neighbour to complain in writing to the Chief Executive of your local council and also the Chief Constable of your local police force, expressing concern and dismay at the responses that have been received. A copy to the local ward councillor wouldn't go amiss either. In the mean time, a call to the Dog Warden/Animal Welfare section of the council would be my next immediate move, as suggested by Aviva.

The Egg agreements are pre-signed, to the best of my knowledge and I'm uncertain as to the implications of this...sorry!! I have heard of arguments against application forms which were pre-signed and were supposed to double up as agreements, as no application was sure of being accepted, and hence, could not be a legally binding agreement. However, in Egg's case, these agreements were issued post-acceptance.

Ok....pages 1 to 6 (inclusive) appear to be a copy of the terms and conditions that prevailed at the time you took out the card. On page 7, is where the agreement appears to be and this is where Citi Banks details are! That is followed by what appears to be a copy of current terms and conditions. However, this is not a standard Egg agreement....can you indicate where your signature was on this document exactly?

I don't understand why they sent you the document in post 24 Hacked off as what was supplied in post 23 would have sufficed, together with a copy of original and current terms and conditions???

I'm slightly confused by the document you've posted Flubber, especially if it is supposed to have been taken out in 1999. There's a set of t&c's which I'm presuming were the originals as they refer to approved limit. Then you have a document headed Credit Card Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which states that this is an agreement between : and you....with your current address inserted. That doument appears current as it refers to Credit Limit and therefore, cannot be an accurately reconstututed document. Furthermore, Egg were owned by the Prudential Group and not Citibank in 1999 and the official address on my agreement from circa 2000 was Basildon SS14 9AA. This is not right at all as far as I can tell!!

In theory they can take you to court but without the correct documentation they shouldn't be able to enforce the debt so it would not be a wise move on their part to litigate. Also, you should be able to claim your costs back and/or wasted costs if they withdraw the case part way through.

Yes...providing the debtor doesn't make a payment or acknowledge the debt and the creditor (DCA or OC) has not commenced any court action within the 6 year period. It doesn't mean that you can't write to them telling them never to darken your doorstep but, as I understand it, an offer of payment would constitute an acknowledgment, even if no payment was subsequently received and the 6 years would re-commence from this point. It's governed by the Limitation Act 1980 if you want to look it up Chilli Bird

Same here Johnny...and after all, constructive debate is what this site is all about!! Have a good one.... PS...Just quickly, yes, Carey I believe reinforces that they can report to CRA's for unenforceable debts...Phillips are trying to charge me £2 for every payment I make on an M&S account, even though I have it in writing from them that they can't find my agreement and recognise that it is unenforceable in court!! PPS...the bit I was saying about an unenforceable debt remaining open to enforcement was if they happened to find the agreement in the intervening period or there was a change in case law precedents which seems to be happening quite a bit at the mo. With statute barred debts they cannot pursue the debt...end of!! Hope that helps clarify my thinking!!

I've been reading through and thought that also! There is reference to off street parking but can't make head nor tail of it to be honest. Also, since when did private companies become eligible to collect and keep fines on behalf of the crown??

Think this might be it... http://www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2009/pdf/asp_20090003_en.pdf

Just to add that some years ago, when I rang National Debtline to sort out a DMP they would not allow me to include any additional outgoings for my cat. Ok, I appreciate that a cat may not eat as much as the OP's dog but, having been injured twice, she has cost me a small fortune in vets bills...and that doesn't include routine vaccinations and stronghold etc. I got around this at the time by inserting a sum under laundry on the basis that I had to have my suits for work dry cleaned!! It's a sad state of affairs when being honest doesn't get you anywhere!!

You can still CCA for a loan....but one step at a time...let's see what happens in response to your first letter. Best of luck!!

I honestly don't see the logic in this Johnny and actually would be inclined to say the reverse....continuing to pay whilst you recognise the debt is allegedly unenforceable will go against you. I agree that the debt still exists but having a letter saying that it is not enforceable at the present time is sufficient not to pay...providing that the OP is unwilling and/or unable to pay. If he wants to pay, then he can specify his own terms although these may not necessarily be agreed by the creditor. The drawback of continuing to pay, even a nominal sum of £1 a month, will mean that the debt will never become statute barred and will remain open to enforcement. Additionally, the OP's credit file will continue to be adversely affected by late payments in perpetuity as the debt will probably never get repaid via nominal sums. Also, some DCA's apply a collection charge which means that whatever you are paying could be swallowed up in covering these charges and not reducing the debt at all. Just to reiterate, a letter to DLC stating that the OP will only communicate in writing and they should not phone or turn up on his doorstep should suffice. You will occassionally receive letters demanding payment but so what? Until such time as the creditor is in a position to take legal action there is no need for the OP to pay a penny. I would be more inclined to deposit the money in a dedicated savings account, just incase the position did change.

First off, just send the letter that Sea Side Lady has kindly provided the link to above...that will stall them for a while. Secondly, if it does turn out to be the Halifax card, can you remember if you took it out before April 2007?? Whilst the debt may exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that the creditor has an agreement that they can enforce in court. The next step, if they don't provide one in response to the prove it letter, would be to send off a CCA request....you will then be in a better position to know where you stand. Also, can you recall when you last made a payment on this card?

Normally, they would hold a hearing after receipt of the OHA report but they should also investigate the possibility of an alternative post, although, in my experience, most companies just go through the motions with this. His employment can be terminated on health grounds, even if it's not a permanent but temporary illness/disability. My previous employer dismissed someone who had a hip replacement operation because her job involved lifting and that was an activity she would be unable to do for some 2 years or so. Most companies are becoming much tougher in respect of sickness absence these days. I suspect if the OHA states that your boyfriend is unable to return to work in the forseeable future then they will terminate his employment and are able to do so, providing they follow due process.

You need to send them the "deny debt prove it" letter which is in the templates and also add the standard paragraphs about only communicating in writing and not visiting you at home. Out of interest, haven't you received any notification of a visit from this company previously?? If not, then I'd take a look at the OFT guidance and lodge a formal complaint. Best of luck with this!

Personally, I wouldn't pay them a penny...and I don't with the MBNA account they have of mine so am speaking from experience! They clearly don't have the agreement (yet...but it's been an awful long time) and hence, are unlikely to proceed to court. All the letter is saying is that they are going to refer to collections...they have (correctly) not threatened court as they know to do so would breach OFT guidance. All you have to do, in my opinion, is send them a letter stating that you will only communicate with them in writing and also repeal any rights to visit you at home...there are standard paragraphs in the template letters for this.

Can't believe they're still playing these silly games...you'd think OFT would have sorted them out by now!!