If they are Debt Collectors and not bailiffs, then the car has clearly been "stolen" which could prompt this being brought to the attention of the Police. If the company then say the car was taken as a lien, the Police would then issue a form to them saying they could not sell it if they do not return it. Look up "lien" in law. As there was no court order then the whole event was unlawful, the assault in Common Law, the repo as "demanding monies with menace" (loose description). Certainly is a Police matter. Contact the Chief Constable's Office.

Something for nothing....... Banks want something for nothing. When you go to the bank for a loan, what they give you? Nothing. The loan is created by your signature on a document. The account is created on a computer screen and credited with the amount of the loan. The borrower agrees to pay a sum in installments plus interest but does the money exist? NO It is merely a credit and the ££££££ are created from nothing. It is called the FRACTIOAL RESERVE SYSTEM where banks can lend NINE TIMES the amount of money they have on deposit in the bank. Go into your bank and ask the Manager "does this bank create money from nothing?" and they will say oh no. I was chucked off Radio Lincolnshire for saying this about the Fractional Reserve System and money creation.Coming back to the FOS, they are only there to protect the banks. If they didn't the whole system would be changed and the FOS would be finished!

Article 6;On pre written contract it can be that some terms in the contract does give an unfair balance to one party so are not therefore legally binding. A pre written contract with terms not individually negociated can give that unfair balance. It was entered into law in the UK under the UTTCC Act 1977............ If you put in the search from anything about the above paragraph you can probably see examples. Just looking at this act where I see examples of contract between business and affects all contracts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfair_Contract_Terms_Act_1977Look at tort, contract, UTTCC. Case law as in "like for like".

Will post all information. I have a problem of my own involving Lloyds but I have friends who have a serious problem but the FOS has disregarded the law and evidence in both cases. It would be nice to sink the FOS as they are bias and serve no good purpose apart from PPIs which keep the figures going. Consumers need justice as if shouldn't be the preserve of the rich.

I was reading the other day, and I will find it again, where there was an MP asking a Minister in a Parliamentary debate about the FOS and there being no form of appeal where decisions are inherently wrong with no basis. Amongst other things. Looking what we have on this thread, could I suggest we get together and approach this MP and try and get the support of the woman who was reported in the Times where she opened up to the reporter about what realy happens.

I have read and written for a friend about a mortgage case which the FOS has taken 2 1/2 years to complete. I have proved the law has been broken, the financial consequenses of the lenders/solicitors actions, all backed up with evidence and the FOS said the bank had done nothing wrong. The FOS refuse to state what evidence and law they relied upon and refuse to state how they reached their decision. I also questioned what standards they use and if it is less than that of the judiciary and they refuse to answer. Looking at statistics I see that they find in favor of the comsumer 94% of the time in PPIs and only 38% in mortgages and other cases. PPIs are easy and can be cleared quickly and the FOS get £555 per case to decide it. More complex cases get the same money so to cut down costs, standard letters are used and for £555 an adjudicator cannot possibly look at evidence so side with their employers, the banks! It is a total conspiracy to stitch up the comsumer in the knowledge that most consumers cannot afford to go to court.

I see this is some time ago, is the case still going on? Try this.... Send a CCA 1974 s78 (credit card) or s77 (loan). Capital One sold my debt to Lowell Group. I sent a s78 and Lowell Group wrote to Cap1 and they could not find the agreement so Lowell reduced the £3000 to NIL. It only took two letters. In most cases, credit card agreements before April 2007 are not signed, they are just credit card application forms so not valid agreements and so unenforceable. But remember this. The money does not exist, it had been created by Capital 1 out of nothing so you owe them nothing.Ask them for 3 things (which they cannot provide: 1. Copy of the lawfully binding contract signed by both parties.2. A validation of the debt. (the money does not exist so they gave you nothing-just a credit)3. Consideration of the contract. If they gave you nothing the contract is unenforceable at law.I did this with Lloyds TSB. I do have dispute with them but in this case, a £9500 credit card debt was reduced to NIL instantly!

If there are seperate contracts as it seems there is, then one company is not liable for the debts of the other. How much did you owe for materials to your supplier. If it was less than £10,000 and this would clear your supply line problem then if the second company goes down it will be because of this. If there are two seperate guarantees then you could demand return of that £10,000 on the basis of the two seperate contracts. If it was actually returned and you ask would HSBC persue you for the guarantee, from experience, this would take years for them to do it and it would give you a very good lever.I see you have found a letter saying there is a gruarantee form wants signing,DO NOT SIGN THIS if it is not already signed. Also be aware that banks do forge signatures. If you sing anything, do something to your signature, eg, put a line through it so you know if you see it again you know the signature has been lifted.Whilst the matter is in dispute HSBC cannot pass it on to a third party.

I have just received an e-mail from the isitfair group. "The 1992 Local Government Finance Act allows council tax to be paid yearly, bi yearly, over ten months, twelve months or even 52 weeks, but the councils were given the right to decide which of these they would use. Most opted for 10 months but many, if you ask before the first payment is due to pay over twelve months they will accept........ It was for many year 15th of the month, but now that seems to be the privilege of those paying by direct debit. Many councils are now demanding payment by any other method must now be on 1st month. You could, of course demand from your council exactly where this legislation appears in the 1992 act. I should think they would have to tell you"We started our 2011-2012 years payments before this tax year started and they still are not satified.

Seems irregular the gurantee is signed on one document for two seperate entities. This seems like mis selling of the factor service and the guarantee done in a way that if one business goes down it seriously impeads the other. Try looking at Article 6 just in case it applies. It makes contracts not legally binding where a term in a pre written contract gives an unfair balance to one party to the detriment of the other. Factors should release funds within 24 hours of invoice, to an arranged degree and so if the factor was with holding funds in a way not prearranged or under a term of contract giving an unfair balance then it may contravene Article 6. A barrister told me a contract is not lawfully binding unless it fairly protects both parties. This does not seen that it has.

I see you have most things where you say are for "BOTH" companies but are the documents seperately for BOTH compainies or are the documents mentioning both companies one the same documents. First thing I would be doing is seeing if you can seperate the companies, ie two contracts, two guarantees, two sets of floating charge, dis associate one company lawfully from the other. So, for example, discharging one company paying £10,000 on behalf of the other, proving there is no liability. If you can do that, as the HSBC / Factor has that money, then I would look at getting it returned.

Thank you, outlawla. This is similar to what I have seen. I went on the link and went to Part 2, under Part 1, which says (5) (5) The scheme shall provide—(a)for the aggregate amount to be payable in instalments;.(b)subject to sub-paragraph ©, for the number of instalments to be not less than 10 nor more than 52;.©for the first instalment to be required to be paid no earlier than 14 days after on the day on which the demand notice was issued and for the last instalment to be required to be paid before the end of the relevant year but, subject to that, for instalments to be payable on such day in each interval as is specified in the scheme;But in this section it does mention "rent" where the statute is entitled "The Council Tax (Administration and Enforcement) Regulations 1992.I note that most councils in the Country make provision for 12 installments (monthly) per year which I don't think they would if they did not have to. Notwithstanding what the judge said in the case of this issue.

I have seen legislation in a Statutory Instrument where it say the following (but I cant find it again);"Council tax should be paid in one installment, or two instalments or not less then 10 and not more than 52 installments. If the instalments are paid monthly then the payment cannot be demanded before the 15th of the month"This was used in a case where a pensioner was taken to court as his council said he was behind with the payments, paying 1/12th each time and not 1/10th. He said to the judge he got his pension over 12 months so he should be able to pay his council tax over 12 months.The judge (not magistrate) agreed and the council lost and was ordered to pay all costs. South of the Country. We had an agreement with South Holland District Council to pay over 12 months and this years council tax (1st installment) was paid in March for year April 2011-2012 so on this basis it can never be behind. We have now had two reminders and threatening letters which the council are good at and say they have never heard of this.Does anyone have any information on this?

Seems like a lot of evasion here. If they have nothing to defend then they should show what they have. It is the internal paperwork which may bring something up.

If the contracts signed for both companies are seperate, then you need the £10k back that the running company paid for the liquidated company. Also, the Invoice Factor may be trying a trick here. The line of any conversation would be "if you tell us what you are looking for we may be able to help...." meaning they will have more information than you want them to have. Do not talk to them, write if you have to saying you want all information as requested on the SAR

Invoice financing is not an insurance scheme, it allows the supplier to get 80% of the invoiced amounts within 24 hours, interest is charged on what money is drawn down from when it is used to when the customer pays. There is also a fee for the service. The get an understanding of this look at http://www.bibby.com. They are a shipping firm but they are also the biggest factor service in the country.I think what you were wondering is was the product missold? Yes, it probably was as the bank would have a cut so there is a bias there. The key to saving the sister company is to seperate the factoring contract from the liquidated company if they are connected but if the factor contract is with the two companies seperately, then the £10,000 payment on behalf of the liqudated company should be reclaimed as I see it.Also beware, liquidation is big business these days. Not always in the companies best interest. I would look to back charge it to the bank.

I am not confident in the FOS, they are a waste of time, do not consider all information and take ages as well. Was the sister company in the loop as well? Did it have to pay the factor £10,000 for the liqudated company? Was the factor contract a seperate contract because if it was, the sister company should not be liable for the payment to the factor on behalf of the liquidated company.

As is see, the Tomlin order is by a Court Officer and judgement had not been made at the time of the order(2009?), it was stayed. If there was no judgement, just an agreement albeit serious, the debtor has a valid claim for a s77 CCA 1974 because it hadn't been dealt with by a court as in judgement (technically). So not having received the CCA s77 within the prescribed period, a default exists and CL Finance is in default. Whilst the default exists, he may not enforce the debt. Below is the part which precludes enforcement but the technical standing of the Tomlin order has to be established. Is the Tomlin order deemed to have been issued in a court of law (chamber) or by a Court Officer?CCA s77(4) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement;and(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence. (the offence part is repealed)

Send two, one SAR to HSBC and the other SAR to the factor. Have you changed banks? From my understanding of factoring the invoice is raised, sent to the factor for 80% draw down in 24 hours (65% in construction) so the factor should only retain 35% until payment by client, handing over 35% less fee's. What percentage were they withholding? Look at the date on every transaction, invoice, do full accounting, then look at "chain of consequence". Look at a side issue........what is the connection between HSBC Business banking and the factors and what are the commissions..what drove this when a company has traded satisfactorily to years then HSBC prompted the change.

From what you say,you have a sister company, I would be of a mind to ask your "legal helpline" with your insurance attached to your sister company but if the two companies were insured on the same policy, as the incident had happened whilst covered it may be worth a call. However, I am a member of the FSB for £140 per year and I am covered by this advice line as well. Perhaps an option. You could say the factors being too heavy handed was diminishing repeat business, withholding fund being another. Factoring should be an improvement to cash flow but not if they allienate customers, can't get money in then backcharge your drawdowns.

You should have cover for legal advice in your Public Liability insurance. It is only telephone advice but when I was with AXA, they used "Capita" advisers and they were good. I don't think the two companies can be linked.

I know that if you serve a CCA s77 and it is not complied with, send a demand for one as a reminder, and further down the line you go to I think it is the FSA but anyway, it is the licencing authority and if you get this right, you can actually get the lenders lisence revoked. A lender who can't lend? But it is not something I am expert at.

This is a suggestion..... there are "Rules of Disclosure". This is because you cannot defend what you cannot see. Also, had 14 days elapsed between the service of your s77 CCA 1974 and the alleged Tomlin Order? Certainly if the answer is yes, then enforcement cannot take place whilst the s77 has not been complied with and could make the Tomlin Order void. It seems in doubt that the Tomlin Order is valid seeing the posts by Chipmeister.

You have served a CCA 1974 s 77/78 and the lender or CL Finance have not provided it? If they have not provided the true copy of the agreement and all related documents within 14 days, after 30 days they cannot enforce the debt whilst they are in default. They must not enter a negative statement on a credit reference agency credit file either.If they do produce the copy before Friday, make sure the agreement is signed by BOTH parties. Section 60 says an agreement is not properly executed if it does not comply with the "prescribed terms". A court cannot enforce an agreement if section 60 prescribed terms have not been complied with. Section 127 stops a court enforcing it.

My adjudicator was Roger Clarke who then said "I had cost the bank £495 in writing to complain" and after some research came up with the figures as posted. In my situation, all 8 issues were interconnected and consequential of each other. My loss was £70,000 which, whilst I accept there are some spurrious claims, some trivial, Lloyds actions cost credibility and jobs. The banks are doing tremendous damage and the FOS seams to condone it, even ignoring law breaking.