Hi Yourbank, Thanks for your help. The first letter to Lloyds was made as an official complaint and that all communication should be in writing, they ignored this and called. The second letter also insisted on a written reply which again they ignored and denied it said that (see post #6). I can't help thinking they are giving out a bit of bull by trying to talk their way out of it and saying it's a 'new policy' to call all customers to resolve complaints. I personally think it's a bit of bullying on their part to student account holders that probably wouldn't understand what they are saying and who'd just agree with whatever is said. What they don't think about is that some parents are on hand to help and that they'll lose a customer that could have stayed with them for years to come.

Hi Mr Lex, They haven't put any charges on the account. But you have reminded me that she had the same thing happen in Easter and they sent a letter to say she was overdrawn but removed the charges withour prompting. She wasn't 'overdrawn', just that the same thing had happened and sent her £5 in the red. In reality she still had funds which should have been available. If she has £30 in the account and uses her debit card with Tesco Mobile it shows as £15 debited and the balance as £15 but it shows the available balance as £0. The lady on the telephone said that usually it would be 2-3 days if it was earmarked and she couldn't understand either why it was anywhere between a few hours and a day that the money was vanishing for. If they don't know then how on earth do they expect us to understand and have any sort of faith in them.

You'd be surprised what it takes to qualify for T.S. and some are lawyers and legal execs. past exams and reports - Trading Standards Institute

I forgot to mention before that the caller laughed at my daughter when she said she was passing the call over to me, her Mother. They weren't laughing when the call ended and I said I objected to being called a liar when I pointed out that all communication should be in writing only and I drafted the letter. It's their loss as all the money has now been taken out apart from a few quid across 3 accounts. Or should that be our loss considering the position Lloyds are in?

They have sent a written response and contrary to what was said on the telephone (the first conversation) they admit that the card was used and rejected but still can't explain why. They are blaming Tesco Mobile. Daughter makes payments via computer for £15 using a debit card. The payments are being marked as DD and although Tesco are taking the money, for some reason the same amount is also being earmarked even though it's already been deducted and paid. Again they can't explain why this is happening or do anything about it. IMHO if it's their card and they have to manage the account they should be dealing with any problems. Surely if Lloyds are having a problem with what Tesco are submitting it's up to them to sort out? All is fine this end and the top-up is going through and it shows a debit card transaction on Tescos site, not a DD, and it's credited quickly. On the brighter side Lloyds have given her £25, with no conditions or anything to sign, because they admit they were wrong when they initially said she had not used the card to pay in the restaurant.

My own view is that it would be enforceable for the amount initially borrowed but as there are no valid documents with t & c's the rest of it would be out of the window. Then that leads to the question of what rights they would have had to securitise the debt and if the original paperwork is not available, how and when could it be enforced? The courts would aim to put us back in the position we were in but that seems almost impossible without us suffering a loss. The mortgage was around £60,000 but over half has already been paid if you include the interest and charges.

Don't forget that part of the Consumer Credit Licence gives the option for credit reference and holding said data. You can see which ones have them on: FSA Register

Well..Insurance neither agreed or asked for was applied, the term is wrong and they have lost all the paperwork. All that exists is a signed deed and a copy of a mortgage offer on their side. Nothing from the solicitors, broker or SPML. Just letters and account history which shows this has been disputed for years.

I changed my number a couple of times and the new one I have is constantly ringing for the person who had it previously. I've swopped my number for someone more in debt than I am and the callers don't take no for an answer or go through the DPA requirements. All duly noted and passed on to the person who did own the number previously.

Most of the people I know in debt are middle or low income earners that can't afford, and don't have a, safety net to fall back on. It's not luxuries, it's day to day living but it only takes one break in the chain for the debts to spiral to the bankers advantage. Natwest started it for us by paying out well beyond what our authorised overdraft was instead of following instructions. A day or so later we would have been fine but their charges mounted up and they bounced payments in favour of their own loans. We had written a cheque months previously and the money was kept in the account but moved it back to our savings when they didn't cash it. Over 6 months later it was cashed and we moved quickly to cover it but by then the charges were becoming more than we could pay. We did the right thing and changed banks but it took time to set everything up and they made errors resulting in charges from credit cards and loans. This was pre-dating CAG. Yes we should have been more careful, but we could have afforded the debts we had if the bank had managed the account properly. The knock on effect is tremendous particularly with the CRA's who hold us to randsom. If we were rich and living a life of luxury on credit then yes but for most of us that's not true. We work hard and have nothing to fall back on, unless we have earned and paid for it, unlike the dole dossers that have nothing to lose and let the state pay for all their needs. I'm an easy target with my own house but it's nothing like some of the shows on TV that feature families of 6+ with all the expensive mod-cons, newly decorated rooms and with drink and fags on tap but they claim not to be working and how hard life is on DSS! Ranting bit over... CAG does not advocate non-payment of debt and in all circumstances it is advised that contact is maintained with creditors. What it does do is look at the rights of the consumer as a party in a contract and their legal position. At least what is said here is open which is more than the OFT and FSA are doing.

Lloyds are still blaming everyone and no one. Despite asking for everything to be put in writing they still called. Then they denied being told to put it in writing and insisted the letter they received did not say that..until they started reading it aloud in a condescending voice which altered to a grunt when they read the last few lines and had to apologise. What they said is money is being taken from the account but the same amount is also being ear-marked for 2-3 days because that's what happens and they have no idea why but it's not their fault. It's all part of the usual banking process!!!!! So you spend £100, it's immediately debited from your account, but they still keep back a further £100 just in case? I don't think so and I've never heard so much tosh. On to stage 3 when they get around to putting it in writing.

Shoosmiths have taken their usual amount again so I just have to wait and see what they do in the next few days.

EIE, Can't you see the bigger picture? If you had posted on other forums you may well have been ripped apart and told to pay what you owe regardless of your circumstances. It doesn't take too much time, or legal knowledge, to understand the basics that we must start with. If you can get your teeth into the later arguement then you are capable of rewinding and looking at the mechanics that got you there. And that's you in your case, and not being a sheep to follow what may seem an easy answer put across by someone else. Question everything.

It may also be amusing to send them a warning 28 day copy S.D. if we can claim more than £750 between us in amounts owed. All above board from a very official DCA:D. I wouldn't expect them to do a darn thing but just the thought of it ..

Must be just me then:p! My suggestion is to sort out the men from the boys and see who brokered what and find a common ground for misrepresentation and mis-selling. I named my broker who took the money and ran (Berwood Park Associates, Hilton, Derbyshire). SPML have lost all the submissions made by him, the solicitors lost their paperwork and SPML/Capstone have just the signed deed from us and a copy of an offer. So then we go on from there after brokers, fees, insurance and then to arrears and repo'. Look at each step and walk before we run.

Now you'd really be losing the plot if you though that could possibly work. Each contract is different and so far removed from the poll tax it's just unreasonable to suggest it when homes are at risk. If you haven't already then go through the right channels. It worked for me and the charges were refunded but I still have a whole new fight and have to do the same again for new charges. The law is clear that charges should be to cover only costs and not be used for profit and a clear explaination given why they have been applied in accordance to the contract.

Now you tell me! 1) Does touching your toes using wrists and above count, whilst standing and legs kept straight? 2) You got me on that one.

I already did..hence ..and..

1st credit are in there;). Don't get so edgy Mr. Ton, not all DCA's are the same and some can even help to bring others down and not for commercial reasons I hasten to add as I just don't have any interest in that area or in renewing my licence when it expires. I couldn't act the way they do and never have. I have had a few kicks from DCAs' turning up on the doorstep and pushing their luck with what they can do. Telling them to hang fire for a moment and producing all the guidelines and my licence has a certain effect on them. I can't think why?

I thought you'd come back with that Sue, but any thoughts on the insurance aspect? Sedit qui timuit ne non succederet. Aut viam inveniam aut faciam.

The sensible side of me says to address your debts first and not rely on the CCA arguements. On the plus side, the longer the debt is outstanding the less chance it has of being collected or enforced and once it's gone off to the DCA much is lost in the transaction.

The legal framework they're using is sound and as Sue says, whatever the companies contract to between themselves wouldn't override Law of Property. What is clear, is that it's the underhand tactics which are disguised within the securitisation which are questionable as being unfair to the consumer. If even part of the role taken by the lender is outsourced then how can complaints be fairly addressed when you can only talk to the puppet and not the invisible master? Shouldn't the equitable 3rd party be involved in any court proceedings merely on their interest in the property or some mention of it made by the administrators that they have been informed? I'm still pondering the insurance aspect. As the only named party, other then ourselves, on the building insurance is the supposed 3rd party,(they aren't but should be named), then if the house were to be destroyed they would then be entitled to claim their loss. A loss that they don't have legal title of, only equitable. In my original mortgage contract it stipulates that the lender must always be named on any buildings insurance. If they are asking me to name someone other than the lender then where would that leave us in the event a major claim and what effect would/does it have on the legal status of the property and mortgage? Any opinions?

EIE, It's worth sticking in there. I think the key is the insurance on all levels.

This whole mortgage situation is worse than having children. They tell that you should bang your head against a brick wall just to see what being a parent is like. Children grow up but Capstone don't let go of their dummies. Uneverdid, There is no cap on the fees that can be charged but you must have been advised of them prior to signing. You could either chase up the broker or put this to your lender as they are ultimately responsible for the selling of their products. Don't be put off by any Capstone response. They will happily say black is white if you let them. Keep hammering away. If you want to capitalise you will have to supply them with the info. they want. If there are fees in there then that's the last thing you should do. Sort the mess out you are in already with them and get the fees taken off first and all your complaints addressed. Be strong and very bold.. write to them and don't accept their ignorance when they answer.

I can't wait until Dispatches 'Undercover Debt Collector' to be shown on Monday C4. 1st aren't likely to be in the party mood:)