sophie, I thought the whole point of the thread was to try to do a deal to remove the default? That's all I'm saying. If you wish to contest liability the hard way then that would require a section 10 dpa approach, search the forums for surlybonds default removal if you want to do it that way. At the end of the day you only have two options to get rid of the default, do a deal if they will or go after them for unauthorized data processing. I cannot see what a sar would add to either approach

DG2007, have you had a default notice? Is this the first letter you have had from SCM? - who you should know are pet, tame and internal to the bank, ie the desk next to the one that send you the bank letters. If you do send a cca - and there's no harm in it - then I would not mention coutts at all, let them educate themselves, and it would be section 78 in theory.

yes that is correct. Although technically they are only exempt if the bank has registered with the oft. What I advise normally, esp with a dca and an od that shall we say lapsed a couple of years ago, is to send a cca initially. Their reply will give you an insight into the tack they will take. Some will say od's are not cca at all n which case you can simply ask them what laws cover them - that makes their heads spin:D. Others will state the exemption and you can then attack them on that. What is often missed is that the determination does not get rid of the need for an agreement, item 2 of the determination gives the timescale under which they must send a letter detailing the apr, terms, and contractual arrangement. The main thing to watch out for is the common practice 'con' of saying that current accounts are not covered by the cca - this is true because a current account under the banking code cannot offer any credit facilities, an overdraft is a separate arrangement and is section 10 running account credit. (I'm sure you know this sequenci, but it's worth stating for the benefit of the OP)

Depends where you are up to on the merry-go-round. HAve they had a prove it and/or cca request? If not start there

I think you need to say to the court that you offer of negotiation was based on the assumption that there was merit to the claim, since you did not think that such as (cough) reputible sols would bring unfounded action. To date you find the case totally without merit and that unless and until they provide the documents listed in their claim under your cpr request there is nothing to negotiate. And what should you do. It's not a situation I've come across before but it sounds like you are on the verge of admission if your are not careful about your next step. I would contact the court and see what they say

have you figured out the point of the sars? I only ask because I'm struggling to see what it will achieve at this point. Not saying its wrong just saying there's no point sending it for the sake of it

Having refreshed my memory a bit I'll refer you back to the details in post #5. To help much more I really need to see what's in these application/form agreements to be honest

The metion the determination - which was 1st feb 1990 if you want to get picky - does that mean they have provided letters compliant with item 2 of the determination? Does the application form / agreement say anything about being a regulated agreement? - I'll have a read back through the thread to refresh my memory and come back in a mo

kinda takes you back to the YES 'pond life' expose dont it.

define nasty? And to answer the original question, just send the standard cca request letter and see what reply you get.. The objective is to find out what they think covers an overdraft more than anything

hi peapod, This is what is known as a 'frightner'. They are trying to put pressure on to contact them. Very rare that they come and collect the doorstep, but make sure it's clean and get a receipt for it! Seriously though you have two options either ignore them or send a prove it/ dont come to my house letter. The choice is yours. And if anyone does turn up then tell them to sod off and write and if they dont go then ring the police!

The furthest I got with this is that it is a new postcode (for the purposes of RM delivery) added since sept 2006 and that it is an industrial estate. Hence why it's a field on google maps. No doubt a Bull field.

I would go with spamhead on this. Remember those adverts they used to have on the rental videos - bloke on a market stall selling doggy poor quality videos: 'verbal contract darlin', not wurf the paper it's wriiten on' sounds to me like this bloke is a right ..... Best shot of him .

Did you query the whole judgement or simply go for a redetermination of the payment?

As far as I am aware chapter 11 is a business debt solution in the states. The England and Wales equivalent would be an administration order under the Insolvency act. To get either of these you have to prove to a court that there is a resonable expectation that the business will return to profit and pay off the creditors else a winding up type order will be given. I would say that a forced sale order against an unsecured debt is still pretty rare really. As long as you are willing to pay then a court will usually give you some lattitude

It will be interesting to see the response. s'pose you could ask them if they have any cheap crimbo turkeys whilst you're at it!:lol:

I always suspected they would kill their grandma for a fiver but I kinda thought they needed their staff 'on message'

just e-mailed my wife a link to this post, so that she knows just who she's dealing with.

Ok chill. I'll dig out some links for you to a holding defence. Once you have a read through you will know what it means and why. The sols will try and play mind games with you, not withstanding the fact that they should have all the info to hand before they submit to the court. These mongs are old school they still hark back to ten years ago before the internet when they could get judgement by default or run rings round you. Now with cag etc we are fighting back. You need too do 2 things: 1)work out exactly when the defence has to be in 2)get a holding defense ready 3)chill out and enjoy crimbo. 4)get a calculator and work out that hungry bear cannot count 5)decide if you want to take advise from someone who cannot count:p I'll get back to you in a bit with some links here's a link to some: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/236555-howard-cohen-so-begins.html#post2626623 have a read come back with a draft / questions

I've never heard that argument before. The letter IS the agreement. Therefore if there is no letter compliant with item 2 of the determination a//b/c as appropriate then there is no agreement. The exemption from part V is an exemption from 'form and content'; ie prescribed terms etc BUT it's not an exemption from having any kind of agreement. But the letter is most definately an agreement because it contains the terms of the lending - so yes if they aint got the letter then there is no agreement compliant with part V or not For an older od the easiest way to fight it is often on the basis of no compliant DN. I had some real fun with 1st. They wrote and told me that an od is not covered by the CCA - those words 3 times in the same letter. So I wrote back and asked them what laws governed the alleged lending and on what legal basis were they requesting repayment. The response was 'that is for you (me) to determine for yourself, now ring reigate 1-800-swivel and arrange payment'. Havent heard from them since:D. It would be interesting to try though. Something like, you did not write within 3 months and take up the exemption to part v therfore part v applies. This may stand a good chance in the High Court etc but I'm not sure you could get a county court judge to be bothered to listen long enough to understand what you were saying. It is a win -win argument though. If the judge says no you cannot make part v apply you will have already established that there was no letter based agreement compliant with the determination so they are still screwed!

It all depends on the phase of the moon and ...... It's worth a try is all I can say. You want the default off without much fuss and they need some money. It may well be that Aktiv have just sold it to MH who are a total bunch of wimbledon bankers and would see an offer of £250 as an invite to try and bully £500 out of you. I would send the letter and see what happens.

'We offer a TOTAL MONEY SAVING SOLUTION for Lowell Financial Ltd and other debts.' Thats funny. THis is worse: Referral - Money Managers - If you get some poor sod to sign up for debt management you get 5%, so How much do they get and what exactly is left for the creditors? As regards 192,I suspect they are playing the middle towards both ends as well.

If the cpr letter is in then you need to get a holding defence together. Its quite common for them either to not reply or reply very late to a cpr letter - all designed to throw you off balance, dont let it. Prepare a holding defence

did you send the settlement offer yet or not? The fact is that involving MH and merit suggests they dont think they have much of a chance of getting the cash, you're at the bottom of the pile now! SAR would be a WOT in my view. I would personally ignore MH and merit - both are mostly hot air and bluster companies BUT it's up to you

Sorry, I was waiting for you to read the new bundle and come back with questions.