If they are rear calipers on drum brakes then the NEW parts would only be about £25 - £50 each side for a mainstream car. They are not difficult to fit - yes the shoes are a bit of a fiddle to get back in but the caliper itself is just bolted on to the drum and connected to the brake pipe. The £100 she paid the second time was more the mark, 200 quid for a 'vehicle technician' (usually the only mechanic at a kwik fit garage if the manager who 'oversees' the work) to do it at kwik fit is I think a rip off. when the car failed the mot it would have been issued an unsafe failure notice. At that point it is illegal to drive on the public road under any circumstances - so the kwik fit guy - who should know that - is talking out of his bum, she would breach the Road Traffic Act if she drove after the unsafe failure. Write to KF, send copy of their bill and g'tee and the unsafe failure notice and the bill from the garage. Tell them that they can either pay up or explain what happened to VOSA and trading standards and the district judge. And that you also reserve the right to issue a press release to every motoring magazine and national paper after the matter is concluded. ie. Take the gloves off and hit them with both barrels. And next time find a 'real' garage. The one the MOT was done at sound like it's prices are about right and an MOT garage will usually be good because they get regular vosa inspections. Oh and one other thing. As far as I am aware you cannot get recondition kits for rear calipers, infact it's hard to get them for most front calipers now. For a start the recon kit would be as much as a new caliper nearly!

only if they sell the debt to the dca. if the dca is collecting on behalf of the oc then no.

In that case, it sounds to me like cabot just found a CD in a drawer with a load of statements on it! When they 'buy' a job lot of debt basically all they get is a few cd's / dvd's with all the info on it for each account.

as pompey says, give us a laugh - I mean look! Let me guess it's unsigned and ends something like yours sincerely a bank plc? I doubt its the oc's letterhead, its more likely using the logo off their website.

done

Of course if you are a complete twit (hello brian) you split the claim and sue for £300 on a £4000 debt with the threat that they will sue 13 times to get the whole lot - muppet. They can sue for what they want - less than the total but it's the one and only time they can!

I have had this approach from 1st (Lloyds loan) and capquest (overdraft). I believe it is a common tactic. 1st even sent the statements recorded delivery, about 50 pages all printed off their infamous CD's and about as legally relevant as Bart Simpson's skateboard. My reply has been quite simple. I do not have a clue what you are talking about please send relevant agreements with the same account numbers on. My view would be that you dont recall opening the account and you still dispute it just the same - so there's no need to contact them .

well NEITHER case they refer to backs up their waffle. Any comment on my post above posty? The only reference to a true copy in that context in the rankine case is the 'true copy' that is sent with the card which has certain items missing for security. This is the THIRD copy of the agreement - the lender and the debtor have the first two which naturally contain all prescribed terms. The burchill reference actually confirms the opposite of their assertion and they Rankine case does not refer to it. Also Rankine does not refer to Burchill as far as I am aware. what did they actually send?

Right you need to get a holding defense together in anticipation of them not complying with your cpr request in time. Have a look at this post I did this afty and the links in to the defences: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/236555-howard-cohen-so-begins.html#post2626623 thats your starter for 10 once you've read all that THEN re-read my post above. HOPEFULLY it will make more sense then!

If they do not supply documents under a cca request then they remain in default and may not carry out collection activities until the default under 78(6) is rectified. so the simple answer is YES

Is this in the thread ? - I cannot find it but I'll comment without it's context. It is well known that the Rankine case quoted was brought from a prospective of greed on their part, the sort publicity for their % based 'we'll get rid of all your debts company. Also they case was about dodging what were basically enforceable agreement from what I have read. In the rankine case ONLY section 78 is referred to. Also the rankines are taking the institutions to court. The rankines sort to use 78(6) to prevent enforcement by the commencement of court action and then went on to argue MOSTLY about DN's. They claimed that they never got documents requested under 78(1) and the judge found them to be shall we say disingenuous. The issue of true copies is addressed in para's29/30 of the judgment and concerns the 3 copies of the agreement generated at the time the agreement is entered into. In paragraph 30 - issue 5 - of the judgment it specifies that the issue of true copies was not pleaded and no evidence was entered in support of the issue I can find nothing in the judgment to even tenuously support the assertion. as for the 1920 case which is clearly NOT CCA, it relates to omission of the term 'per annum' in the filed copy of the agreement: In Burchill v. Thompson (1920) 2 KB 80, it was held that the omission of the words "per annum" after the statement of the rate of the interest to be paid, prevents the copy from being a true copy Perhaps they are implying a negative assertion that because apr is included then it is enforceable. So, I can find nothing in either case to support your assertions and statements and put it to you that this passage of 'text' constitutes TOTAL BOL&*CKS so where did you trawl that up from posty?

No it is for you to state in the defence, towards the bottom, that if it is proven by the claimant that there was an enforceable agreement, compliant DN, Notice of assignment etc then the defendant will rely on the provisions of one or more of sections 2,5 and 9 of the limitations act 1980 and puts the claimant to strict proof of an acknowledgment or payment within the timeframes therein. Or words to that effect. You now need to get a cpr 31.14 request off for documents referred to in the POC and a cpr 18 off for other information. I would include in the cpr 18 a request for proof of last payment with full audited tracking from the banks involved. - if the last payment was in the last 6 years then that information is available. It would be unwise at this stage IMO to just rely on saying it's SB, you need to hit them between the eyes on all fronts

council employees - how could you miss them! AND the 'Im too fick to be a copper' PCSO's! The staff in DCA call centres are mostly young and niave and brainwashed into believing that what they are doing is good and proper and that the people they deal with are the **** of the earth 'lying cheating debtors who will do and say anything to avoid paying'. Exploitation now there's a word

Right this is standard crappy tactics. YOu need to apply to have the SD set aside. YOu have 18 days from service.

Isnt that the whole problem with BC and his fraggle rock team?

You need to tell them that you dispute that whole amount and that I&E is not appropriate until the dispute is resolved. Ask for the rules etc yes under which they made the ruling. My take is that the tax / t/o clearly show that this was a going concern in that you made a taxable profit year on year. At the point of sale you should have been eligible for 5 years business taper relief on the CGT which is 75% - ie you would have only been liable for 25% of the calculated CGT. Did you pay this amount of CGT - THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE ROLLOVER - it's a common myth BUT if you realize an asset you are liable for the applicable CGT at that time regardless of what you do next with the money. I made that roughly £7.5k - did you pay that amount of cgt? The caravans then become a separate issue. However you should have the right to offset a loss. If the caravan business folded in 2005/6 why are the accounts still with the tax man - surely the latest they should have been due is jan 2008 if after 5 april 2006. I am beginning to think that you have been too nice with them about this you need to start getting nasty back. Getting angry will do no good that's what everyone does - they know how to deal with that. you need to write and get then to explain EXACTLY what laws and rules they are relying on. At this stage all you've got is a 'we are the hmrc what we say goes so pay up'. That is wrong.

if they own it they have to prove it - notice of assignment compliant with thelaw of property act 1925 AND there must be a compliant DN before the sale. - keep all that in reserve. I suggest you attack the pile of 'stuff they sent like you said. See what they come back with. I've not seen all of it but from what you've put up it is not an enforceable agreement

gaz what is you thinking about what you want to do next. the options being along the lines of post #110 or asking for proof of ownership by CQ or...... paying them:eek: - well the choices are yours. All I or anyone on here can do is give you the options and let you take responsibility for the next move. My personal choice would be stick with the matter in hand, go with the post #110 type approach and keep the assignment and default in reserve. From what you've said / shown they are trying it on IMHO.

I just read this which is relevant: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/236641-oft-lenders-must-not-3.html#post2626801

Do crappy own this. or are they on behalf of hx? what do their letters say - are hx the original creditor or the client? a dn = a default notice under 87(1)

RING THEM FIRST THING ON MONDAY AND CONFIRM BY E-MAIL

yes they would.... if they are linked to your agreement I think they need to decide if post 95 or 97 is the agrement. #95 refers to 'credit card conditions' half way down on the left. Clearly this is not them. The post #111 is an 'agreement' - regulated by what? OK, MY opinion is that this is an application form plus a load of unrelated verbiage. It is typically crappy from my experience - if it weighs enough it must be enforceable. You have an application, some 'random' agreement which swops in and out of regulated and agreement - is it paged 1 to 6 even? and a load of irrelevant statements. THIS IS MY OPINION - NOT MY ADVICE. can you confirm are crappy just collecting or do they own? Have you got ANY of -Notice of assignment - DN -Termination notice?

first of all in your witness statement. I assume you contacted untility companies for final / new accounts so they should be able to help and yes he is well known for this. As are one or two others

exactly they arnt worth worrying about

have a look at this http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/229212-6-cca-letters-ready-6.html#post2626692 then come back with questions i believe they may be confusing legally enforceable and their right to request payment. you may also wish to ask them what authority they have to hold and process your data if they dont have anything signed by you to say they can!