Have to presume that the loan is a Hire Purchase or Conditional Sale Agreement. Ordinary finance is unsecured and there would be no right to repossess the car. If it's some form of other secured loan where the car is held as collateral, the company would have to have a Bill of Sale lodged with the Royal Courts of Justice, and that's just too much hard work. If it's a Hire Purchase Agreement you have and have paid over a third of the repayments the car cannot be repossessed (which is also known as "snatching back") without a court order or your consent. As "wannabedebtfreesoon" advises, if you don't want to be in a world of hurt, don't give them your consent. But, sometimes, it might be advisable to do just that - only you can judge. If the car is snatched back without court order or your consent, you're entitled to get ALLyour money back. It may be worth pointing this out to the company. Don't be afraid of "their solicitors" - this is often a first stage threat and if you make an effort to know you're rights, solicitors become less effective, but if you are summoned to court GET A SOLICITOR. In fact, it may be best to get a solicitor now, but that will come at some cost to you. It may be, however, there are other remedies, but a solicitor will do at least one free consultation. If you go to court, the court should give you an opportunity to rectify the problem - so don't spend the £1,300 you have. Lenders have varying time periods under which they decide to default an agreement. Once an agreement falls into a default position, they ask for all the money back. But under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, default notices have to follow certain procedures - the first letter has to give you the opportunity to pay all arrears, that is, to allow you to bring the agreement back into terms and conditions - rectifying the defaukt or breach. If you can do this, all sins are forgiven. Doesn't sound like this has happened for you. Technically, therefore this means the lender is in breach or default of the agreement itself and you should be able to use this against them. You should check you're agreement for defualt periods and process. Also check this site for CCA 1974. If you're not intending to use a solicitor, in responding to you're lender: I would first write down everything, with dates and who you spoke to, so there's a full "contemporaneous" record of the events; keep hold of it and update it. I would then write a letter of compliant to the company, stating that I hadn't received a default notice (remember a notice, means just that: it gives you notice that something is about to happen and gives you an opportunity to respond) and stating that I'd tried to pay off the arrears over the telephone, but was refused (times, dates and who spoke to - the latter isn't necessary, but they record all calls and the complaints department has access to them). The reason why I state a letter of complaint is that there is no point trying to negotiate with someone, or some company, that doesn't want to negotiate. A complaint letter forces the finance company to investigate it's own internal procedures and if (I say if, but cross your fingers anyway) they uphold the complaint, they are duty bound to rectify everything, which in you're case would put you back to where you would have been had you never missed a few payments at all. This can take some time (up to 54 days, I think), so save up the money you're supposed to pay every month and keep it safe, so you can respond quickly. Also, for court puposes, it shows a person trying their best to behave properly in the face of a billigerent lender. Talking about belligerent, I'd put in the complaint, that I'm "surprised and dissappointed by the action of the lender, as I had expected "quiet possession" of the goods (car), as per the agreement, and the actions of lender's customer representatives does not bear this out". Again, this just helps in court, if it goes that far - hope it doesn't. But "Quiet Possession" is a legal term they'll understand, should be in your contract, and should worry them. All you're trying to do here, if I'm correct in my assumption, is get everything back to the way it was and this may be achieved more easily through a complaint, rather than letters and phone calls that may get you nowhere. Unfortuantely, lenders will always do what they please, which includes breaking the law. This means that you have to keep an eye on the potential for a County Court appearance. There is one other remedy - you can take them to court for breach of contract. But again, this option comes at a cost. Good luck.

I haven't read through the whole thread, so I don't know if I'm repeating something already provided by other eminent caggers. I've recently learnt some stuff on "no win - no fee" (NWNF). As I understand it, there are two types of NWNF fee arrangements: conditional fee agreements and the other one:D! The conditional fee agreement is one where there are no up front costs. If you win your case out of court the solicitor will take 25% of any monies recovered (which I believe can still be claimed from the other side - not sure:idea:). If you end up in court, you have to pay, on winning, all the basic costs of the solicitor. With the other one, you pay an up front base fee of around £300 for the solicitor to consider your case. Thereafter (again if you win), all costs are recovered from the other side. In both instances, solicitors are allowed to up their fee rates as they have to take some preliminary cost risks. If you lose, the losses are insured (insured by the solicitor). Ultimately, whichever way it goes, if a solicitor is willing to operate on a NWNF basis, chances are you have a good case. Now let's deal with the intermediaries. There are companies being set up in a business that is potentially worth £5 billion (or so I've read somewhere) that will "package" mis-selling claims and for a fee will "audit" CCA regulated agreements for enforceability or deal with PPI claims etc. There will be honest johns out there with panels of solicitors who will do what they say, as they state on their particular tin, but there are others that will no doubt set up, take the money (usually up to £300) and either, they'll do an "audit" and then tell you that you have no case, or you'll never hear from them again. Unfortunately, the distress of so many debtors is such that this is inevitable - where there's the smell of raw cash there are sharks - if there weren't this forum would not exist:(. I wouldn't hand a bean over to these people; you're better talking to recognised charitable organisations who might be in a position to put you in touch with solicitors they know and trust - or carry on doing it yourself. M1

Sorry, forgot to add. Ask lawanswers what the grounds are for constructive or wrongfull dismissal. Keep the question simple to add to your bank of knowledge. M!

JigaloJim No one is obliged to work for any organisation, and particularly if the treatment they receive is poor, if down right illigal. What is clear, is that if they want to dismiss you, they'd better dot the "i's" and cross the "t's". Bringing any action for wrongfull dismissal is, I was told by a Union specialist, a complex and difficult endeavour and however angry and dismayed you might feel now, it may be best to hold onto the job you have rather than potentially shoot yourself in the foot. You can always attempt to find a new employer elsewhere and leave with continuity of employment and, most important, wages. Get all the HR policies on the disiplinary process. Read and understand them. You can delay if they haven't followed their own policies - it seems slightly odd to me that on the one hand they've given you a final warning (where were the previous ones (verbal/written)), yet will hold a disciplinary?? I suggest you talk to a legal professional - an introductory conversation with an employment solicitor will cost nothing. Or ask your question at lawanswers (www.lawanswers.co.uk), they'll respond for free within 24 hours and they might provide, utlimately a no win no fee service.

I don't know enough to help, but it's not clear whether you have left your job. As, I understand it "constructive dismissal" alludes to the fact you have left your employ under intolerable circumstances, such as sexual or racial discrimination, or harrassment of one form or another. if you're sacked wrongfully, then that's wronglful dismissal (I think). So if you've not left your employment voluntary or otherwise you have no "dismissal" case.

I have, in my spare time, produced a constitution for Great Britain and Northern Ireland entitled (slightly tongue in cheek) a New Model Constitution. I've presented it to the leaders of our main parties and received some polite responses. I've given it to a great liberal and published thinker and got no real response. I've given it to a well known journalist with only a promise some time a go, "to look into it". He may still be doing so . Left with little articulate response, I wondered where I could get an opinion... ...the subscribers and contriubuters to this site (you), I have come to know, are a rather argumentative lot! So, I give it to you to read and comment as you might. It's not very long, but I believe that unless we get a new fundamental constitutional settlement we will never enjoy full democratic freedoms. And whilst elites will always exist and hold some sway, if there is one thing the election of Barak Obama has taught me, in the right environment the Will of the People cannot be ignored. We need a written constitution, such as this; everything else is a variation on the current theme - a sticking plaster on a wound that refuses to heal. We will have to say good bye to some beloved tradition, but beloved tradition cannot protect us from wayward, oppressive and decietful governments that do not work in the interests of the People. Only through a constitution, can we force a governement to adhere to the Will of the People. If you like what you see, pass it on to others and other forums. Maybe, quietly, we can create a ground swell that self-serving politicians, ineffectual media and a stagnant academia cannot ignore. If you have a question about this constitution, here's the place to put your question; if you disagree or have a contrary view hit me with it 8-)(and, of course, your view if you like it ). If nothing else, I'll lknow whether I should pursue this further or stop hitting my head against a brick wall. This is not party political, it's about our freedom, our nation, our people and relationship with ourselves and the world. M1 The British Constitution (sd).doc

djc Of course, I'm not going in there head first. There is a polite letter out to test the waters and get some clarification from Santander first. You can't rush these things. M1

Hi djc I see what you mean. The S78 request was made to GE money: that is the address on the credit card statement and any previous communication was to, and from, 'GE Money'. Something has clearly happened, the letter that accompanied the S78 return was headed "Santander Cards". The statement of account was for GE Money and "Signed on behalf of GE Money". It may be that Santander has an outsource agreement to administer GE Money accounts - my wife (it's her account) has had no correspondence to suggest Santander has aquired GE Money - but then GE Money has had significant credit crunch problems in the US with some of the biggest exposures in the mortgage securitisation market. Also, I know that many senior GE managers were let go last year and this year in the UK. So, maybe Santander, the great mopper upper, has mopped up GE Money in the UK. Anyway, your previous thoughts have turned on the lights! So thank you. I reflected on my statement, "purpose and scope" and suddenly remembered that that credit account allows for cash transactions and has a separate interest rate that is shown ("Cash Transactions") on all the card statements. But as the original account was a store card, this was not included on the agreement:rolleyes:. Store cards don't have a cash withdrawal facility. In addition, as the change over occured there was a small debit on the old account, which my wife paid with the new card on the advice of a GE representative - this would suggest that the two accounts ARE mutually exclusive as you can't pay to an account with that account's own money (how good would that be:D?). This will require a SAR request to confirm. Is this case closed?

The orignal agreement was under GE money.

Hi djc Thanks for your input. It would seem to me to be common sense that if the account number is assigned to the agreement it needs to be unique and if changed would require a new agreement. But whoever said the law makes any sense! This change was from a store card to a credit card and I know the two things to be materially different in purpose and scope (Ooo! I seem to be forming an additional argument:rolleyes:!) I have written a polite note asking for clarification and I will have to wait for a response just to see what happens. I get the impression the more legally strident the response, usually the smaller leg they have to stand on - I'll post with results.

Thanks Bankfodder. I'll drop them a very polite line or two with your comment in mind and see what the response is.

Think I might have posted this orignally to the wrong issue group. Or, really, no one is able to answer... But, I'll try again here (with some additional detail) if I may: Received a s78 response for a credit card in the prescribed time limit, which is OK. The account number, however, does not match the credit card number or the account number under which the request was made. The original agreement was for a store card (Debenhams). In 2006 received a letter stating the store card would be replaced by a credit card and that unless a refusal for the card was put in writing, the card would be sent. No refusal was offered, the card was duly sent. Does the agreement for the original store card automatically constitute an enforceable agreement for the new credit card account even if the account numbers do not match? My thinking is: account numbers identify uniquely a person within a lender's system and it is probable that changing an account number is a referencing exrecise within that system. If it's not then and personal details are transported and the old account "closed"? As stated above, the letter of response from Santander (the account administrator) refers to a different account number than that on the Credit Agreement (and if on the agreement forms part of the contract?). I can find nothing in the CCA (not that I've looked at everything) which refers to account numbers and whether these are unique to the ACCOUNT and therefore represent for contract purposes unique executibale agreements. If the account number is unique to the account does that mean that a signed executable agreement for one account (number) cannot constitute an executable agreement under another account (number). Anyone, any ideas or previous examples of this? M1:-)

Just had one more thought. If they're charging you for the services of a debt cousellor that you don't want and have stated that you don't want, to do so successfully requires that you must have signed a contract that permits this activity (and at the time of signing this was made clear to you)? Does your contract contain such a clause... are your mortgage company insisting that this is policy - and THEREFORE CONTRACTUAL??? Trudy B this is a bit of a punt, but forget regulators, go back to common a goodness contract law, it's much firmer and that's either way (that's what this site is all about isn't it?). You might want to cehck your contract before considering anything below I've put together an example letter below, you might one to use. I have no idea if it has any force of law behind it - it sounds good, but 'sounding' and 'being' are two different things. But I cannot see why you should be charged for anything that is not within the known terms of a contract - after all this is what your mortgage company is trying to enforce. Clearly you have to make you're own decision here as it's your risk and I'm not a lawyer or other legally bound professional advisor. Account No: XXXXXXXXX Debt Counselling Despite my previous telephone calls and correspondence requiring you to stop doing so, you insist on sending to my door “debt counsellors”. Moreover, you are applying charges to my account for these unwelcome and unwanted visits to, and on, my property. In order to be charged for goods and services by a third party a party must enter into a CONTRACT with that third party. I have not entered into a contract, implied or otherwise, to receive from you debt counselling services. Indeed, I have made it plain that I do not wish to receive such services. Whilst you may offer debt counselling services, I am not obliged to receive them and reserve my right to refuse such services, and I do. You may contend that, as part of your ‘arrears’ or other such policy, I am to receive debt counselling services from you at my cost. Your internal policies, however, are for you and cannot be imposed on me. Even if you further contend that there are clauses in the contract which permit these activities on your account and my cost, you are not the party to which I originally contracted and therefore I could not have been made aware at the time of signing my contract of any such underlying policy. Your policies are therefore unenforceable. Your continued instance that I receive debt counselling services charged to me at [a cost] per visit despite my non-consent is breach of contract and I hold you in such breach. You have 14 days from receipt of this letter [sEND RECORDED DELIVERY!!!] in which to write to me that you have withdrawn your offer of debt counselling services and I will be harassed no further from visits by debt counsellors (or any other advisor sent or sponsored by you) and confirming to me that all charges for debt counselling services have been reversed, together with a statement of account showing this. [This last bit is probably wishing on a star, and you'll need professional opinion to use it!] If you do not reply within 14 days or a debt counsellor visits my premises following your receipt of this letter, for which I have record, I will hold you in breach of the mortgage contract and such contract will be unenforceable by you.

similer just enter the URL goodmanderrick.co.uk/news/documents/personal_guarantees.pdf. Dont forget the 'www.' I've not included it so you can see the URL properly:) M1

No... it's definitely Welshmen, but only those found within the city walls after midnight on a Saturday night. They can party on down and get bladdered right up to and including midnight... after that it's the gibbet!