All I can do is offer my own experience from a few years ago. I got right fed up with the amount of Virgin Media marketing mail address to "The Occupier" that was coming through the letterbox. My normal methods of trying to stop it did not work (ignore firstly, then "return to sender" suitably annotated to remove me in the post box, then actually in an envelope with a stamp as I wasn't convinced the RTS items were being returned), so eventually I wrote to the Chief Executive's Office (possibly at that PO Box address quoted above). And an apologetic letter from one of the Executive Assistants and it stopped! (And dennisjackie I do feel sorry for you that some people come along and can't be bothered to read the thread properly, and make suggestions that are patently not going to work with mail address to "The Occupier" and sent through the postal system.)

Well RBS is not LBG (Royal Bank of Scotland, not Bank of Scotland).

If you have ever received one it should be obvious by its heading "Default Notice served under Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974", or something very similar.

It seems strange you would have only Bank of Scotland, Halifax or Lloyds branches in your vicinity. No Barclays, Co-op, HSBC, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander, Yorkshire (or others) branches within striking distance?

This is the problem with the JD Williams Group, they work on a 4 week billing cycle rather than the more normal monthly cycle. Although what SF says is correct, and it is naughty of them to put their own interpretation on the agreement with CCCS, might not any easy way out of this be to pay them an extra £5 as a one-off payment so they no longer treat you as being in arrears? This would also avoid the potential of being sold to Lowell. I would also be asking CCCS to check carefully the wording of any agreement letters they have from JDW/AW/RC to verify whether 4 weeks or monthly is mentioned.

As far as I am aware UK bank account numbers have a form of encoding that would mean a single digit error would result in an invalid account number. Was this Nationwide account uniquely referenced by a sort code and account number, or did it also need a reference number as well? I ask this as some Nationwide savings accounts require all 3 in order to make funds transfers into them (my Dad's Nationwide account certainly did). Also I cannot understand why you would setup a new bank account in PayPal, not go through the verification process, and then send 3 separate payments totalling such a large amount, without first ensuring the setup was correct.

One that full conforms to the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and The Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 and subsequent amendments.

Actually I have realised later that I was wrong in what I typed. For the non-credit facility accounts they will (or at least they used to) do the identity check search. For an account with credit facilities (certainly for your first such account with them) they will do a full search. Either way you will have failed because of the Electoral Roll issue. I have no idea how closely entwined the Black Horse IT systems are with the rest of LBG, but if the connection exists it is quite possible they will refuse to have any more dealings with you. Just because the debt is statute barred doesn't mean the bank has to forget about it. They can still politely ask you for it, you just as politely tell them to go away. (Note the situation is different in Scotland where I believe the debt is legally extinguished after 5 years.)

For a new account that could have a credit facility (that is overdraft, so anything other than a Cardcash or Easycash account), they will run an identity check search at the CRAs. So it is your not being on the Electoral Roll at your current address that will have scuppered you.

I'm not really sure. It's somewhat c**p that they can't manage to design their forms to capture the information that they say they want from you. However it would seem that all the power is on their side since they can just dig their heels in and refuse the extension to the term. I guess if you have not already done so you could make a formal complaint out of it, then once you have their final response (or 8 weeks have elapsed) you could take it to FOS for them to adjudicate.

I presume Leah is referring to this statement in the covering letter: Of course, the means of providing this information is singularly missing from their form!

We found we had to stand very firm with them, refusing to speak on the phone and instead writing. Re-iterated the financial hardship situation and asked them to freeze interest and accept a payment plan. Eventually they did accede, froze interest and accepted monthly payments of around 60% of what would be the normal payment based on the amount outstanding. Good luck!

It's not so much a case of reporting them, more that they are not allowed to add interest while they are non-compliant (I think, I would need to look at the regulations closely). It seems to me that since you are in the legal process you need better help than I can give, I will flag your thread up to the site team to get you moved over to the appropriate forum and have the experts look at your case.

Presuming the loan was regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (and I see no reason why it should not have been), then from October 2008 onwards Blemain were obliged to send you statements at least annually. Their failure to do so has consequences for them as laid down in CCA2006. What was the original term of the loan? You say they are trying to repossess your house, have they actually started the legal process for that? If so then I would guess you need urgent help to fight them, and the guiding hand of some of CAG's legal brains.

Far be it for me to argue with those with so much more experience than me, however from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1974/39/section/77 (my emphasis added): And from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1983/1569/contents/made, the prescribed period is defined as 12 working days. So as the Brigadier says, it's 12 working days, plus 2 for postage (as long as you used 1st class). Alternatively you could use recorded delivery and know when the creditor received it. The point I was making is that it's 12 working days for a CCA request, whereas it's 40 calendar days for a DPA request, a distinction that seems to get lost most of the time.

Why do you say that when the OP has stated: However, as you say, hopefully the OP will be back and post that original offer letter from the Britannia.

Though I can't quite understand why they weren't banked at the time, what I would do is take good photocopies of them (in case you need to proved their existence once you have let go of them) and bank them using an automated paying in machine (like the Halifax have). My feeling about bank and cheque clearing systems these days is that so much is automated that as long as you can get them into your account without passing the scrutiny of an eagle-eyed teller you should get the money into your account. The most likely point where anything would be spotted is, I feel, the counsel's bean counter when they reconcile that bank accounts.

In fact, and obviously dependent on the settings, you may find that even the contacts are not stored on the SIM, but in the phone's memory. As far as I am aware SIM storage only allows name (possibly even capitalised) and one phone number, whereas in phone storage allows far more detail (multiple numbers per person, address, email, etc). The only things I think will be lost at the SIM swap are the call history/logs, and that is not because they are stored on the SIM, but I believe it is a security feature implemented in the phone. However, I would advise taking a backup of the phone before SIM swapping, just in case in chooses that moment to throw a wobbly.

Actually it's 12 working days from their receipt of your request.

Personally I would think that is a piece of lowlife bluff designed to scare people into coughing up.

Except they haven't turned the OP down, they have decided to impose conditions that were not there in their original offer. If they have decided to do this and the OP does not wish to satisfy the conditions then the least the Britannia should do is refund the £50 that has already been paid.

But if your friend started these in 2006/2007, and made some/a number of payments before falling behind, then these were not due to become statute barred until this year, 2013, at the earliest. Plus, don't forget, it is 6 years from the last payment made or acknowledgement of the debt. Thus when she set up the plan with Stepchange in 2012 they were almost certainly not statute barred, so Stepchange have done nothing wrong. Also, as Sequenci says, Stepchange's approach would be to pay off the debt liability in full, at an affordable reduced monthly rate to the original contracted amount, hopefully having got the creditor to agree to freeze interest and not add any further charges.

Thanks for the advice Brigadier, and for confirming my feelings regarding the I&E statements. The last time I asked, which was over 4 years ago, both of these were able to produce what looked to me like an enforceable agreement. Since then they have both been off to DCAs, who did their usual ineffectual huffing and puffing, though as I said they are both now back with the OCs. I have even been offered reduced F&Fs on both of them, though at between 30% to 60%, unfortunately at the time I was unable to take advantage of the offers. I will try writing back to both of them as you have suggested.

Hello Brigadier, thanks for the response. One is Tesco Bank, the other is NRAM, both unsecured loans, both still with (back with would be more correct), the original creditors. The offers made were between 20% and 30%. I am of course aware that NRAM are in the process of selling their "non-performing" unsecured loan portfolio to Marlin, and thought they might like to receive more money from me than Marlin are probably going to be giving them.

Hello everyone, At long last my first new thread on CAG! I am after some advice please about the creditors' responses to F&F offers I made to them recently. I won't go into the full detail of the back story, but I have a couple of debts where no payments have been made for at least the last couple of years. Recently I found myself in the position of having a lump sum of money available, so I wrote to the creditors with full and final offers, using the sort of wording as suggested by Brigadier2JCS here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?393565-Full-and-Final-Without-Prejudice(-)&p=4254734&viewfull=1#post4254734. Both of the creditors have responded with Income and Expenditure Forms, asking me to complete them so that they can "consider my offer". I am disinclined to do this as I am reluctant to provide such information to companies that I have not been making payments to for some time. I feel they should assess the F&F offer on its own merits and either accept or decline it. What do people think? How would you respond?