Hi Scania, They may, but it might be to your advantage if they do if they're pulling the wool over your eyes re the VAT. Which is why they are doing exactly what they claim not to be doing: litigating by post. I notice it says on the agreement that the trailer never becomes your property and must not be sold. I wonder if someone at Lombard has dropped a huge one in the first place by OK'ing the sale. I would send a Data Subject Access Request to Lombard to try and get to the bottom of this. Failing all else, if it was me I'd just keep steadfastly paying until the amount I believed I was liable for was paid, but not the VAT. I doubt they'd risk litigating purely on the VAT element. Elsa x

Now I'm blushing!!!

No problem I detest these leeches who harrass grieving families!

Hello Rosa, So sorry to hear of your bereavements, and I feel Link are well out of order in contacting you asking for the Death Certificate without even giving you details of the debt or proof of any right to demand information from relatives. As shadow points out above, they can get a copy directly if required...why should you pay for it? My gut reaction is to write back stating something on the lines of: Dear Sirs, I am concerned that you have seen fit to write to me 2 years after my mother's death, demanding personal documents and information without providing details or proof of what interest you have in my late mother's affairs. As far as I am aware any creditors at the time of her death were supplied with Death Certificates and I have no knowledge that she had any involvement with your company. In any event, there was no significant "estate" as such to administer. As I'm sure you are aware, Death Certificates are available directly from the Register Office upon payment of the Statutory Fee. yours faithfully Elsa x

Reading the transcript, it's also good that the judge also reinforced the fact that failing to enclose an OFT info sheet with the DN is NOT de minimis. More about it on CAGs Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/groups/236931403038408/

It was only happening on CAG, Dx..stopped after a day. Related to the google adserver methinks. My PC is totally clean. I'm very keen (obsessive LOL) on security and indeed any sensitive transactions I do are done in a "safe zone" provided by my AV (Avast) which is completely isolated with its' own browser. I highly recommended it for online banking, Paypal logon etc. Sounds like a similar system to the Sandboxie..

Depends exactly how the letter was worded and whether it was signed too. If it was stating that the account is in dispute it's hardly an acknowledgement. Elsa x

Good luck for today Wonky, fingers crossed for you! Elsa xx

Hi, This is a standard generic phishing letter. TBH I think it would be best to wait and do nothing until/unless they write again and identify the debt they're chasing. How would you know it was SB if they haven't said what debt it is? Elsa x

Me? I'm fine thanks BB. Glad you're stabilised at least, you can only look forward now and, with time and healing, you never know things may get better. xxx

Up & down, here and there, Vint! Glad to see you back..your pithy wit has been missed!! BB- how's it going..are you any better?

:lol: Well it's supposed to be a week for every year of your age... Oh..OK then as long as you promise to be good!!!

Good luck old2072, looks like you're getting excellent help here Elsa x

Hi afw, Just to pick up on your first post...you say the DN is invalid? Can you expand on that Obviously if that's the case then they cannot currently enforce, and would be another reason for a set aside. kind regards, Elsa x

Hopefully in writing, Newman?

This morning while on CAG my Avast firewall/AV has thrown up several malicious URL alerts and blocked the affected site, which I think must be loading via the adserver. Happens when first logging on, opening threads from Control Panel, when editing a post, or using the back button etc. the blocked URL is: indikatorl.in/z/nukgb I've had adserver URLs stopping me using my "back button" for a while on CAG, but this malware is a different matter and quite concerning. Hope webby will check it out, pretty please? regards, Elsa x

Hi Ickle Pickle, Just checking in I know it's difficult when you've been through so much and are on an emotional roller coaster with your Bipolar disorder, but you are in very good hands now. Try to put emotions aside and just keep to the facts when you answer the questions (and keep checking back in case any more responses are needed). Take care, Elsa x

Hi Ickle Pickle, Good grief, Santander's behaviour beggars belief. I'm so sorry you and your family have been put through this nightmare. As above, it is very complex and I'm not clear on exactly what stage you are at here...is a court case still progressing or has everything been cancelled while you negotiate/wait for the FOS? One thing I will say pending further info, and that is under no circumstances must you discuss this or make payment arrangements over the phone. They've amply demonstrated that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The scenario changes with each different person you speak to and they've clearly got at cross purposes. Sad but true, you cannot trust what they say on the phone, and need a firm agreement IN WRITING for there to be any hope of sorting this out. Let us know the state of play re court, and we'll help you decide the next best step based on that, plus help with any correspondence etc if you wish. As Dx says, I wonder whether any of the money advice columnists would take this on. It's amazing how the banks back down if the press are involved. All the very best, Elsa xx

I'm a bit concerned that he's gone so quiet. You ok Newman?

Any update on your situation Kingdoz?

Maybe send them something on the lines of this next time: Dear Sir, With regard to your claims of being able to produce an agreement, and threats of court action, I do not see how you as a debt purchaser will be able to achieve this when the original company have categorically stated in writing that they cannot supply either an original agreement nor even a reconstructed one for this account. As I'm sure you are aware this failure to comply with a s 77-79 request means that a court is not at liberty to enforce this account, hence your threats are misleading and amount to harrassment. I would therefore be most grateful if you would put this account on hold and cease communication unless and until my legal CCA request is complied with, or return the account to Halifax. If your harrassment continues I will have no alternative but to report the behaviour of your company to Trading Standards / The OFT as contravening debt collection guidelines and CPUTR 2008.

Some judges may accept recons, but they shouldn't. If Halifax could have sent you a recon instead of the original they would have done. 1st Credit are bullying you.

Firstship, Can you just clarify whether they have failed to supply you with ANY agreement, not even a recon? Elsa x

Hi, Just answering the call Dear me, Hampton's are being vicious aren't they? The first thing I would do is get a letter of authority from your father to deal with this on his behalf. Have a look here for pointers on reasons to set aside: http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=36_dealing_with_a_statutory_demand Quick thoughts/questions: Your father may be able to counterclaim on the basis of charges/PPI Would your father's Doctor/Consultant be able to write a "to whom it may concern" letter regarding his condition? Is his home adapted to his needs, and does anyone else who is elderly/disabled live there? Hopefully Andy will have more specific advice. Maybe pm 42man too? Elsa x

Hi Firstship, The fact that you don't own property should make a stat demand pretty pointless...except as a debt threat tool which of course they've been censured for previously. If they pester you again just remind them that Hx are still in default of a CCA Request and you have written confirmation that they cannot produce an agreement. Mention that you don't own any property if they start threatening Stat Demands, CCJ's or Charging Orders, and suggest that as Hx were fully aware that this was a seriously disputed debt they should either return it to them or stop making spurious threats and close the account. Elsa x