Trivago listed several places that had nights for £50 there. It does get cheaper closer to the time as I've just booked a room there through Holiday Inn and it came down to £45.05 with brekky for 2. I suppose it will depend on the date you need but it does seem good value compared to a lot of hotels. http://www.trivago.co.uk/region.php?pagetype=hotels&path=38863&name=the-macdonald-new-blossoms&item=18947&geo_distance_item=18947&do_available_search=true&date_range::from=1343512800&date_range::to=1343599200

Not everyone is that bad BB and you did get a lift from New St. to save you the taxi fare in 2009. Chester has some good deals on. Holiday Inn at Chester Racecourse offer rooms for 2-3 at less than £50 with buffet breakfast in with that with good reviews. 10 mins. walk from the centre, free parking and wi-fi.

I was at my parents house when a young man knocked the door holding a stepladder. He said he was from EON and that through the government they had to check houses for insulation. My parents told him that they had already been sorted out and that the house hadn't long been insulated, both the roof and walls. He didn't see me, but he was insisting that he had to check the attic despite what they said and see it for himself. He was shortly sent packing complete with his ladder following him closely behind. The shocking thing is that my parents couldn't see the harm in it and they'd seen him going from door to door and that the government and companies do have such things. Well yes they do but you don't let a stranger into your home just because he has a badge and a stepladder! My Dad said he wasn't stupid and the lad wasn't trying to sell anything! Well not yet he hadn't but once in the attic he could have done anything as my parents are in no fit state to check what he would have said. He could have soaked the insulation, removed roof tiles and then comes along someone offering to put it right. They think I'm paranoid. I think I'm flamin' well cautious and that cold calling with a stepladder is a step too much. Literally. I'll be calling EON and Trading Standards tomorrow to see if there is such a campaign and complaining about tactics to gain entry to homes occupied by vulnerable people.

Don't call them. Get everything in writing and with proof of delivery. If they are saying you can't have a breakdown of legal costs then that's just rubbish. You have a right to see what you are being charged for. Don't give the keys back whatever you do! The debt will only increase and you'll be funding 2 homes and one of which you aren't living in. Back to basics..Can you afford to still stay in the house if you're cut some slack? Would the rent cover the costs of the house, plus pay off the arrears over time, and let you move away? You'd still need insurance and have other costs as a landlord. Is it a 1st mortgage, 2nd mortgage or a loan? Do you have any equity in the property? What have you been ordered to pay? It's a horrrible situation to be in, especially when you've had a child that has been ill and with circumstances beyond your control. There are things you can do and I'd start collecting as much as you can and lodge a complaint with the FOS to start with. You'll have to have exhausted everything with Acenden first but that doesn't take much. Despite arrears, it is unfair that they won't let you rent out your home to keep up the payments. The contract is completely biased towards the lender and, you'll find that even people that have kept up with payments are refused to let or charged a ludicrous price to do so. You can hold on and do something, so don't give up and think anyone doesn't care.

You need a CCL to deal with any debts, credit or just to give free advice. As long as the admin. holds one they can act on behalf of the company to a consumer. It may sound like a grand title having a Consumer Credit Licence but they were easy to get and I've had one. They used to last 5 years but the stakes have been upped and more proof is insisted upon as well as having to pay more, but it's a drop in the ocean to these companies. If you ever do come across a company that contacts you and doesn't have a CCL then pass it on to Trading Standards. I had a 009 process servor, he didn't make the 007 grade with his unstealthy tactics, but was brought to task when his licence to unthrill had lapsed.

The first thing you need to do is get all of your statements and SAR them, preferably a few times with a few days between, (even better if you have a joint account as you can cross-check them) and get a statement of arrears. Look at why they have charged you and for any mistakes. You will need a calculator, pen and paper and a couple of days to go through it all, and by days that will mean working hours and not just a couple of evenings. Request everything from them including receipts for 'legal' work and 'court costs'.

Your concern is only with the company you directly deal with when it comes to credit licences.

Thanks for that Applecart.

Did Lehmans ever submit to the LIBOR rate? Can anyone find historical listing of companies that have submitted?

I think Kirk is pretty obvious despite them taking off into orbit, but I get the point. This is the first hurdle.. just 3 people, 1 company and the so called regulators tying themselves in knots already. If Acenden give the same response as those, so far, before the committee then it would just be a waste of money. You really don't expect them to hold their hands up? And if they do will you be kicking yourself in the future for not holding out? It's not as though they can deny any wrong doing or you having to prove a case... It's cut and shut that the consumer relationship and the contract was compromised. Can we do an E-Petition to get everyone who has a mortgage linked directly to LIBOR to sign? Asking for a stay on any potential evictions or court action until this enquiry is concluded? Any thoughts on that?

http://www.mortgagestrategy.co.uk/spanish-sun-brings-securitisation-cheer/86613.article Is that a good enough arguement to say they were all in it together? I have a theory, and it's my opinion only, based on what has been revealed in the LIBOR scandal. When the sub-prime market came here it was heavily invested in as they knew times were good and just in 6 years, between 1997 and 2003 house prices had tripled and quadrupled. Credit was easily available and when it got too much to handle even the average person that had a ruined credit file could turn to sub-prime without it being unaffordable. After all the cost of living was down, low unemployment and you could always fall back on the value of the house if times got tough without ever thinking that negative equity could occur. Every person that understands econonomics knows the boom never lasts and we subsequently know these were no 'ordinary mortgages'. They were heavily backed by the likes of Barclays and we know they were intended to fail for investment reasons. We were never intended to last the distance and by crikey they sure made it difficult even if it was affordable. They threw in every, and any hurdle, that are still being ignored when complaints are made..all to do with Lehmanns. What better way to end a bust session by forcing the investment forward and upping the LIBOR rate fraudulantly to maximise the profits? I truly believe that went on well before 2005 and they went for the cream. They saw what had gone wrong and the best way forward was to sacrifice Lehmanns as a collective pool. The smaller investment companies such as Northern Rock didn't stand a chance but Barclays already had the heads up and ready to dive in along with the larger banks. Quick to lower the rate and minimise the damage whilst having an eye on what was could be profitable still and painting a picture of health amongst the turmoil. Diamond was all to eager to get his hands on the brokerage part of Lehmanns and in like a robbers dog. The market here was relatively small if you just count sub-prime, roughly 250,000 but in the USA it was huge and so the domino effect happened by upping the rates and creating a decline by foreclosuring to get back what they had securitised when they knew they had reached the end of the line. What happens next isn't their problem as long as the investments are secured and it's kept quiet within the industry long enough to keep the punters happy. The banking system or the rise and fall was of no concern as long as the bankers obtained their goal and are trying to get away from their part in the sub-prime failure. But it's not only them is it? The FSA, the government and the ratings agencies all knew it was get rich quick scheme that wouldn't last but why worry about that when you can make millions and not be held strictly accountable? It's global so no panel could ever touch them all so you end up with scapegoats and everyone connected all in denial. The CEO's didn't even attempt to cover up the traders emails as they knew they were just too stupid to get what was going on in the first place. A minority of young bloods driven by greed are easy to lay the blame on instead of saying you actually orchestrated the whole market and the market is not free. Just my theory..............

In that case I'll speak to the FOS and fire off a letter. Thanks as always dx your advice is much appreciated.

Everything we have has already been sent. Proof of self-employment, proof the mortgage changed, proof of the mortgage term, a copy of the original insurance T & C's they had recently sent to us and a list of payments made. Their letter says: 'We acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated XXXXX. We act as administrators for Aviva from whom policies under this scheme were transferred to us at the beginning of 2005 as notified to you at that time, but we do not hold any records of the policy in 1997. As you have alleged that your policy has been missold to you we must advise that all policies under this scheme were sold by Independent Financial Advisers. An Independent Financial Adviser (as the name implies) acts on behalf of his client and not the insurer, so any responsibility for the sale and for the advice/ explaination you may or may not have been given would therefore lie with the seller rather than the Insurer. As your complaint is about how the policy was sold you will need to address your complaint to the IFA who arranged the cover for you. You should be able to find details of this firm from your original mortgage documentation. ' The day before that letter arrived we had another letter telling us it's important to check the cover and update it. That's the first letter we've had telling us that cover may be inadequate in ALL the years we've had it! We've paid Aviva for something we don't need and, as you say, they have had the benefit of and if they took on the admin. then they should share that responsibility at the very least. It's not all about misselling it's also the fact the details have changed by mistake and it's a breach that has to be rectified. If a person pays you by mistake through not understanding the contract fully or by error then that does not entitle the other party to keep that money, or so I thought. Do you think it's just a fob off still and I should respond more agressively to them? Thanks dx.

Aviva is being payed direct and everything has been done. They say they don't have any copies of the original paperwork and only go back 7 years with payments as they are not the original company and hold nothing more. They say they are not responsible and to go after the IFA. The advisor is still operating and I've tracked them down to a company they have worked for since '92 so well before we took the mortgage out in '97 and is still listed as an advisor to date. At the time we didn't know he worked for a company and assumed he was a lone advisor as his office was within a building society but he wasn't tied to them. Could he have been working for a financial company and be working freelance? I ask because, although I know where he is, do I address it to the company or to him personally? I don't have any original paperwork from him and neither Nationwide or Aviva have copies. I'm thinking I should address it to the company but name him in the complaint and see what they say from there otherwise if I address it to him it could end up being diverted into the bin. At least if it's sent to a company address it can be recorded and they would have to look into any responsibility they had at the time. What do you lot think? Thanks.

Yes 2 separate payments were made. The broker was told that any cover should be suitable for self-empkoyment and that my OH was usually only on short term contracts. We weren't told that the insurance was linked to the mortgage and so thought it was income protection and not MPPI. It only covers employment and that's only if you have worked at the same place for over a year before any claim can be made. It also doesn't cover the full term of the mortgage, as was, and ends at age 62. Amending the cover isn't/wasn't an option as nothing would cover us considering the circumstances and if it did it would be far too expensive. Thanks.

I've had a response telling me that the IFA that sold the product is purely responsible as they hold no original records for it. I can understand that but they have still had the benefit of the money and they have been taking it since the mortgage was changed in 2003 and the insurance is invalid due to self-employment from that date. It was taken out in 1997 and thought to be an income plan and not something directly linked to the mortgage we had at that time. Shouldn't they share responsibility as they paid him in the first place and it's only in the past few months we've been sent the info? For years Aviva have sent very little apart from trying to put the price up. I can't recall getting anything much since it was taken out but now they are sending out plenty of letters to make up for it. Why should the IFA pay up entirely when the company has been told that was has been paid to them is against the policy and it can't be claimed upon? 'We didn't know ' doesn't cut it. I've been paying you for something entirely useless, and you haven't kept on top of it, so how about refunding the money Aviva had the benefit of?

Short version. Took out a mortgage with Nationwide in 1997 using an IFA. Recommended to take out insuranceI with a company now owned by Aviva. It does not cover what we need and was linked to that mortgage in 1997. It was still being paid until last month and the mortgage was changed in 2003. At the time we had no idea it was linked to the mortgage and thought it was an income protection plan that would benefit us but it doesn't cover any self-employment and the broker was told that was the future plan and stability in work wasn't guarenteed.

It takes me a while to come up with exact wording but the trust in the relationship has clearly gone and any tampering with the LIBOR rate is a clear breach of the contract as it's a crucial part. Up or down, it doesn't matter as any changes were clearly in favour of the bank and in their interest regardless of anyone else. It's not just about the affect, it's the loss of trust over the whole term. If I lied to people and told them something that wasn't true in order to make money than I'd be obtaining that money by deception. If you subscribed to the sub-prime during that time then they lured you in at artificially lower rates than what should have been, and if you'd have known the truth, you probably would have walked away. Whatever you put just keep it simple and say that you have no confidence in the bank or the finance sector given the current findings by the FSA on the false accounting by Barclays to the BBA in the periods stipulated in their report. Keep it open and just prepare yourself as things reveal further.

The 3m charges were the ones hiked up and at it's peak was around 6.50 compared to the 0.99 now. put the rate on top of that and you have over 10%. Just one pushed up payment could have caused repossession as the likes of SPML didn't do well in the customer friendly approach and charge large fees. Fall short and they'd charge you as well as you also facing bank charges for returned DD's. It really doesn't take make to create a spiral of debt. For me personally it's not about money or chasing ambulances. They can stick their rotten cash where the sun don't shine for all I care as nothing can make up for the misery these companies have caused to ordinary families just scraping by and trying to their best. Paying their taxes, working and trusting that they aren't being manipulated by greedy bankers eager to open the champers at their expense through what only can be seen as FRAUD. I hope they enjoyed it, as through their actions families were made homeless and people have committed suicide. My thoughts are that it's too early to get a true figure on how the LIBOR was affected until all the other banks are looked at. It being fiddled with is enough to bring a case against your lender who then in turn has to go to Barclays and anyone else involved. Trust has been compromised and the contract beached even if they weren't aware of it, which they will have been as they have their fingers in all the pies. It's very tempting to act now but I think things will begin to unfold and regrets could be had.

As Barclays were behind a lot of the backing of Lehmans sub-prime then yes it would be VERY interesting. It's just the tip and they knew it was going on years before that and all of the ratings agencies knew it too. Sub-prime was set up to fail and make a lot of people very rich over a very short term. Forget a judicial review at the tax payers expense, they should be sitting in police cells just like anyone else that commits serious fraud. Whatever next? Are they going to tell us all our money is safely tied up in Nigerian banks and profits are on the horizon from an exiled Col. Zanamamumbo holding billions of dollars?

So the LIBOR rate has been tampered with.. What about the BBA? Why do they just accept the rates given without checks? A whole load of passing the buck and not doing the right thing for the people that have had to pay for the fraud created by the banks. £290m is a drop in the ocean while they enjoyed the champagne lifestyle and still will. What about the people that were squeezed until they took their last breath or made homeless and shattered? I, for one, want my money back as this is just beyond belief and we all know SPML/ Lehmans were in the thick of it and the LIBOR rate cannot be trusted. The contract made was on a reliable rate and not a manufactured one to suit the greed of the banks or coerse borrowers. Any opinions?

I would go so far as to to suggest that at last something could be done for those with LIBOR linked mortgages. All 250,000 of us, unless that doesn't take into account the ones repo'd already. You make a contract on the basis the LIBOR rate is correct and not subject to fraud as has been revealed. Up, down, win or lose, as a consumer you want honesty and fair treatment, not a greed based free for all. It's another arrow to add to many that the industry has NOT been regulated, it's been swept under the carpet and the last people to know are the people that are supposed to be educated in these matters and supervising! Move over...we've known about it since 2003 and the grubby goings on of the ratings agencies. Did they listen when it was reported? Hell no! They were just interested in the next election and bank bonuses to get the champagne in with.

42man has helped me in the past and thanks to him I did a lot of research, just as he has suggested to you. I found that the server was unlicenced and reported him as such. He too made an appointment, failed to knock the door and just did a runner after posting the SD. An SD is the last line to be used and this is a clear abuse of the system so don't be afraid at all. None of my ex-creditors have ever actually lodged anything with the court despite using its name on the form. It's a free download they use just to frighten you and anyone can use it for bankruptcy and it's just a desperate measure on their behalf. There is absolutely no proof of any service of the SD. No signature, no proof of posting and even a photograph taken by the server would have shown it half in the letterbox. All the signs of a company grasping at straws and personally I just would just ignore them as acknowledging it and contacting the court or the company is not in your interest. This is an old thread that helped me see SD's for what they are when I was in the same situation as you. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?162131-Statutory-Demands-and-Service-By-Post

It turns out to be a pretty good and simple method of fraud. Companies lend money to people that have a guarantor, and the money loaned goes to the guarantors account and not the person taking out the debt. All the guarantor needs is an identitity that links to a bought property and a couple of phone numbers and hey presto they get the money leaving both the guarantor, real or fake, and the debtor with a sum of money to repay that they have no idea about until the letters arrive. All the information is done online, with no credit scoring. They say checks are made but obviously they aren't ....In this case it's Amigo and they being less then helpful with both the police and my OH. Although it's identity theft it takes Amigo to report the fraud as they would have been at loss. They have their own fraud team but seem reluctant to speak to the police. The police and criminal courts should deal with fraud and not some inhouse overpaid numpties that have no powers! A strange way to do business and a company to steer well clear of if that's the attitude they take and don't do checks on who is taking out the loans and they just accept anyone with a guarantor.

Check out the person serving the SD on the CCL register to make sure they are a licensed process server. You need the name of the person trying to deliver the notice and not the company that's sent it. Service through a letterbox should be the last resort and, as already pointed out, not a means for debt collection. IMHO don't answer the door and obstruct the letterbox if needed so service can't be done. Don't let them bully, frighten or threaten you. If I'd have been paid everytime we were under threat from SD's I'd be rich by now and fortunately none of them ever went to court as you can almost always find fault with them and they are just a very cheap and easy way of trying to scare debtors into paying. In reality even if they do take you to court they have no idea of what full debts you have and they are still going to have to sit in the pecking order to get the crumbs and also foot the bill for making you bankrupt. If it's a debt collection company they will have purchased the debt for a fraction of the cost. So let's say they paid £1000 for a 5k debt, unlikely as it's more like pence in the pound but let's go with that. To serve, go to court and follow up it would cost more than that and they then have to rely on the funds being available after all the other priority debts are paid and that's if bankruptcy is even granted. Do you own your own home? If the answer is no then they have no realistic way of getting the money as it doesn't sound like you have a luxury life and also have a family to support. If you do then it just shows how stupid they are as if they had any real chance of getting the money, and were serious, they would have gone down the CCJ route and secured the debt ages ago. It's getting close the SB point so the value of the debt has decreased as it's been sold on again and again so it's all or nothing and a last chance to scare you into contact. Don't let it worry you.