found the bit about funding face to face debt help in the mp letter interesting does this mean meeting the person from CLAC who was helping me re mortgage Rescue face to face walking his dog in the park because they have been made redundant as there is no funding?

A thing to consider is that the bank may immediately decide to reduce the overdraft limit so they have 3k drop limit to 3k and while your overall debt is down the position with going over all the time remains the same, sorry I took cab advice and advised my bank about problems and they promptly grabbed every penny I had in any of their accounts so I am a bit careful about putting money into an account that in debt agreed or not It may be possible to sell the endowment rather than surrender it i would hope that you get a bit more advice from more knowledgeable caggers before doing anything Good Luck

The normal mortgage rather than buy to let seem a fair possibility, often there is a clause so that if a notice regarding repair etc is served the landlord will get it . I have often served notices which because there will be a charge put on the property if non complience go to the mortgage company as well to get a swift call what tenants?

I nearly got caught out by the local supply companies next trick a letter that looked like junk mail and nearly got ignored that basically said they were going to terminate the supply as they beleived the property was unoccupied. Car in drive dogs in house that bark if people come to door, but if it slips past you they can cut it off as there is no one resident. I sent a letter recorded sayng when I moved in and that I was resident and was already paying them from that date. Note that was the supply company itself not a DCA and my stop cock is in road.

one thought all the time you are payimg the 6 year period for it to become statute barred is not starting, I wish one of my creditors would make me bankrupt though it seems you have to have quite a bit of money to be poor enough to go bankrupt

No response from building society so it looks like it may well be able to be rolled into a bankruptcy I would have thought if not they would be very quick to say no?

Got a response? today from Atlas exactly the same letter as the first one with a newer date on it from the lack of posts I assume atlas is a new welcome finance production?

sorry I just posted the by law re comment by dx100k who seemed to suggest that there is no issue with them at all In this case I would imagine that this is as stated a speculative invoice and that the paperwork will not mention the by law at all. I just wanted to ensure that people are aware of the need to be more careful when using Railway land to park on and not have the impression that there can be no consequences and I was concerned at the dismisive "railway by laws" comment. They exist are used and can lead to prosecution unlike the normal private car park notices.

Ncp may well be the authorised person: (4) In England and Wales The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area. (ii) Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person. (iii) The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that (i) 12 the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle’s owner. (iv) The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person. (4) In England and Wales The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area. (ii) Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person. (iii) The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that (i) 12 the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle’s owner. (iv) The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person. (4) In England and Wales The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area. (ii) Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person. (iii) The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that (i) 12 the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle’s owner. (iv) The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person. (4) In England and Wales The owner of any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be liable to pay a penalty as displayed in that area. (ii) Without prejudice to Byelaw 14(4)(i), any motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance used, left or placed in breach of Byelaw 14(1) to 14(3) may be clamped, removed, and stored, by or under the direction of an Operator or authorised person. (iii) The owner of the motor vehicle, bicycle or other conveyance shall be liable to an Operator or an authorised person for the costs incurred in clamping, removing and storing it provided that there is in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped, removed and stored by an Operator or an authorised person and that (i) 12 the costs incurred by an Operator or an authorised person for this may be recovered from the vehicle’s owner. (iv) The power of clamping and removal provided in Byelaw 14(4)(ii) above shall not be exercisable in any area where passenger parking is permitted unless there is on display in that area a notice advising that any vehicle parked contrary to these Byelaws may be clamped and/or removed by an Operator or an authorised person.

I dont think I said dca would as the OP was conerned about just clamp the vehicle I said no and went briefly through the steps needed to be able to do this and then said they never do this So can they just come and get car no, can they(though its almost unheard of) go to court get judgement and if its not continue process and have the vehicle levied yes Yes the Private land markings have no legal entity but the point I was making was that there are clamping firms that dont give a hoot about this and will crawl out of the undegrowth and clamp. While its nice to know they are behaving unlawfully if you are unwell clamped and the car is going to removed the Police will not intervene and its small comfort to have the option of going to court to get your money back. I was warning against this possibility. Regarding Railway land there are some considerable differences in law regarding this, the fact they have their own Police Force might be a pointer to this and it is possible to stray from a managed car parking area into land covered by other legislation. Byelaw 14 s 4 ? I was raising the issue. After 15 years of L.A. Enforcement including being part of a team bringing in De crim Parking many years ago and still in LA enforcement I wish I didnt still get the why have you clamped my car (we dont as am matter of policy) contacts and hopefully when the new legislation goes through it will finally stop.

just thinking aloud The no responsibility for damage notices howsoever caused are illegal [no unlawful - its not a criminal offence] Employers are responsible for the actions of their staff while at work The action of damageing another vehicle could be regarded as Criminal Damage The DPA requires release of information for the purposes of the prevention and detection of crime I get lots of letters back to me at work quoting the HRA and DPA but they do not stop prevent details being obtained as above. A visitor could be assumed to have driven there legally and is not an employee, I have seen untaxed, uninsured vehicles non sorn being "stored" in firms car parks. Moved round from time to time to avoid abandonment action. I still think that if you want to use a car park provided presumably at favourable terms by your employer they can ask you to comply with reasonable requests.

The difference is in charge whilst unfit while you can get up to 10 points and or driving ban or a prison sentence these are not mandatory defence is more possible particularly if you can satisfy court no intention to drive Driving whilst unfit has the mandatory ban

I was being serious about the pressure cooker though! Origionally Papins Bone Digester invented to help feed starving French peasants it really does let you make use of cheap and tough cuts of meat and is magic for soups,steam puddings christmas puds etc If the French, who have recipies for anything that walks crawls swims or flies found it useful thats an endorsement.

To be able to legally clamp for non payment of a debt they have to have gone to court and got judgement and that has then not to be paid and then they can levy on goods though they should call to see if payment can be made or agreed before doing so. As they almost never go anywhere near court thats a non starter. You would get real court notices with an opportunity to defend and they would be only able to go for the loss sustained which would either be nothing or possibly the processing costs for the ticket issue. Most proper firms and as far as I am aware all local Authorities ( though bits of London have a different scheme) would not clamp a vehicle legally displaying a Blue Badge. It is always nice to see the word fine in any private firms letter as it is the one thing that there is absolutely no doubt about private companies not contracted to a Local Authority eg De Crim parking can't issue fines FPN PCN etc they just issue speculative invoices . There are still "firms" in the parking undergrowth that will clamp anything anywhere any time so even with a badge in some private car parks there is a need for caution, Fortunately the days of private land clamping firms are drawing to a well deserved end. I would also be cautious with land covered by railway byl-aws. I am sure someone on site will know more...but dont worry about the DCA suddenly clamping your car

The key word was "consider" they will spend one nano second considering how unpleasant for them to have to be at the receiving end of a judgement against them. When you go through these splendid letters deleting every action modified by a may might could possible etc you are left with Dear xxx We want you to give us huge amounts of money otherwise we will scream and scream till we are sick. They are not fines and if the document put on the vehicle pretends to be a statutory notice or they claim to have any powers to fine ape the appearance of a real PCN then they are breaking he law.

Usually during the stop the question is asked as to the vehicle insured by by the driver and a check can be followed thru to see if it covers driver for other vehicles

grandmothers aren't unloaded they alight, It used to be that the contravention was "parking" in a loading bay not "waiting to allow a person to board or alight a vehicle and load or unload any personal luggage" which was an exemption unlike a marked bus stop which would be "no stopping except....." if this still the wording of the TRO then if the vehicle was not left "parked" relying on the blue badge then there may be grounds for appeal, As for getting a letter saying you were delivering I assume you mean to confirm that this was the case, if you were not then you could end up having moved from the de crim into the criminal by knowingly making a false declaration.

There is a chance that by mistakenly seeming to remember they had an incident with the vehicle that they for some strange moment in time made them think they could lawfully use the MIB website to check if the vehicle was insured they could obtain this information it would not say who else would be covered by their own third party insurance to drive the car so it still is no proof who may have been the driver. But this is indeed taking matters seriously that are really the province of Python humour. "I have a completely unfounded sum of money I want you to pay me" "Ok Gov its a fair Cop" The key to the way the whole thing works is in the OP statement "I am very frightened " As every one else says its irrelevant threats there is no such animal as as private penalty charge or fine its just a speculative invoice.any time the temptation is to contact them at all immediately take a swift dose of medicine from the forums. They sound very intimidating they have to as they know they cant win so fear of all the dreadful things that they MAY , MIGHT,COULD do is their way forward.

They would no doubt point out that as its their land they would be liable if they did not take reasonable care to ensure that permits were issued to vehicles that had third party cover, if you wanted to set up a hot dog stand most land owners require proof of public liability so as its their land and they are giving parking presumably as part of the persons employment I would say its not an unreasonable request. The real issue would be I would think that even if they proved a contract they can only go for the loss sustained not issue a "fine" and the loss would appear to be Nil?

I use them mainly for the 100m broad band but the tivo whuich in my case clearly was not as sold a better product than the v+ box but a different type of product that seemed to be still in Beta. I was told yes as I was in trial period I could go back but I would still have to pay the 50 odd set up fee help desk most unhelpful. As usual waited to ccol down checked price of BT who had just run fibre to our patch. Then my anual call to say that I am leaving and as every time so far someone who was helpful understood the concept of customer pay customer get and arranged to sort it all out as requested, what a business model you only get customer service if you are about to leave..I wonder how many dont go away and count all the fleas on the dog but just go straight to end of contract?

A quick troll round the police police websites will show that most work to the driver has committed offence the car is being seized for this persons uninsured use of car. I suspect that there is an element of making the owner be more careful with the use of the car. These decisions are made by the officer at the time and they are going to be within the forces guidelines, they may not always be seemingly fair but unless you are on site it is difficult to comment. I have seen cases where the car has been Borrowed by partner/son/daughter without knowledge where owner has been allowed to come and collect but then the driver is also up for TWOC and I have seen owner with ins and uninsured driver both given "Ticket" and owner drives away same "facts" and vehicle seized. As with all holders of authority some stick to the letter some apply the law to fit the circumstances but that can happen in both directions and some seemingly similar cases are different in reality. The purpose of the regs was to cut down on the driving of vehicles while uninsured and the consequences of this the new cont insurance is more targeting getting uninsured vehicles off the road. While a vehicle parked up might have a third party incident its really the moving traffic offences that are targeted

Amongst other issues dispute with Welcome Finance, initially attempting to repossess car "forthwith no court order needed" as it was "linked" to a joint personal loan the hp in my name only and not in default +over1/3 paid Dealt with that one sharpish. When over 1/2 paid finances tight with divorce very carefully enquired regarding re negotiating payments advised not possible so again very carefully said that I wished to exercise my right as sufficient sums had been paid to return the vehicle in full settlement, after some time I had to sorn it and put it into secure storage. Then it was removed. Then the you owe thousands letters started eventually told to put up or go away ...long silence now after sending a notice they are terminating agreement and will recover car( been gone a year) calls and finally a letter asking for £2,064.19 from Atlas who are "a trading name of Welcome Finance" I have replied: 17/11/2011 Dear RE: Notification of Instruction Your ref: Thank you for your letter 14/11/11 advising me that you have instructed yourselves to deal with this matter. As you have already no doubt carefully noted the letters and faxes sent regarding this issue you will be aware that there is no outstanding liability to yourselves for yourselves to pass to yourselves trading under any name and I am therefore surprised that you have instructed yourselves in this manner. I assume that the turmoil caused by the recent financial difficulties of the group may have introduced some lack of clarity within your procedures. This matter has been discussed with yourselves in detail before your cessation of loan activity and restructure and I see little point in resending the letters etc. to you acting for yourselves under a different name. I would make clear to you that I will not accept any dealings with yourselves trading under any name or by agents acting on your behalf, by means of phone calls, texts or any other means of communication to any phone number or other electronic account that you now hold or may obtain. I will take appropriate and proportionate action should any such contacts re-commence. It is your responsibility to ensure that any such agents comply. As you have drawn my attention to this matter I had considered closed I will of course undertake a review and I will contact you as soon as is practicable should I find any miss-selling, over or unlawful charging or practices which would give grounds for my making a claim against yourselves. Yours faithfully Anyone had any dealings with Atlas Collections? I suppose a SAR is next and settle in for a long haul

so if i am driving a car in portsmouth and get stopped for ino insurance but the owner in glascow has cover the minute I get out the car its insured and no offence? Sorry no even if the passenger is the owner and insured but the driver in not its still been driven a moving traffic offence has been committed and the car owner can be reported for prosecution for permitting and the driver has driven while uninsured. It may be that some officers might chose not to go this route but if they want to they can.

there are quite a few changes creeping in to insurance policies many don,t give the 3rd party other vehicle cover now also it used to be possible to get a person with third party policy cover to get a seized vehicle back most policies specifically exclude recovery from pound now The thinking on the first change may be that while you insure your punto or whatever comp and the other vehicle would be third party only the amount of damage possible say driving an m series could be far greater than you could do in a punto

Thanks for the reassurance I suppose I am just worried that for the next 180 years or so every penny I earn over the basic needs will be taken and I really dont see a way out.