If you see a bargain online, you can post it on this website and receive a payment every time someone buys through your post. Payment isn't instant (the retailer has to be sure it was a real purchase) but you do get paid and whilst it might not make you a millionaire, you don't have to work for it either! http://www.teezal.com

Any comment from anyone? Are these the documents required? The rest is just pages of poorly photocopied standard Terms. Interestingly, they do mention an arrangement where a Car Loan can pay off part by selling the car at the end of the loan. However, whilst this was noted as a car loan on the document above, it was actually a cash amount (but with which I did buy a car).Even more confusingly, the payment history, whilst ending with about £4.5K left has written underneath, 'amount of arrears £0.00, amount outstanding £0,00'. I presume that refers to my payments being up to date as opposed to saying they consider it paid off! Any input greatly appreciated of course.

Whoops had to edit above try again

These are the first two pages, I have all the other 'standard' pages if you want them too. (Lord knows if I've done this right!)

Well I make it 12 working days today and bingo, the paperwork arrives! What I have is a single page 'Credit Agreement Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Signature Copy'. This has been signed by both sides. They have also sent a five page document 'Direct Line Personal Loans Terms and Conditions'. You spoke previously about putting them up on the site, but what exactly? All six pages? There is a 'Financials' page too, but that relates to the sum, the interest, the total and my income and expenditure -so not relevant? There is also a payment history, that doesn't accord with my recollection at times but I don't have bank statements going back to 2003. Also I will have to see if I can check on July 09, when a regular £150 payment shows as £1.50.

Clarification: I went for a free half hour with a solicitor and he said that I had signed as an individual, but my Nat West form clearly states that it is a loan to the Company and I am signing as a Director. The Form (NW1683) says 'Non CCA Regulated Business Development Loan (with Farm Development and Start Up Loan crossed out) stating the purpose of the loan as 'Start up costs'. At no point does it mention 'by deed'. The paperwork that does say this, is signed by only me.

Right, being completely ignorant I had no idea of the importance of the 'by deed' bit. I have now found the original document I signed to start the process and it was a Non-CCA Business Development Loan. The contract itself says 'by deed' and cites me as as the Guarantor. I am annoyed at this tactic by Nat West as they seem to have deliberately taken this route to minimise my rights whilst maximising theirs, for no good reason. I closed the company after about 2 years or so and at that time knew I had to take on the repayments privately. I couldn't afford the full amount so filled out an income/expenditure form and proposed £150 per month and enclosed a cheque. They cashed the cheque and then shortly after paid the amount back into my account. I received no explanation for this. The date was late 2004, early 2005. I heard nothing more until a solicitors letter arrived in June 2006 chasing the debt (I have found a box of old papers!) to which I replied within days asking what they wanted me to do (as they hadn't responded to my last attempt to pay). I heard nothing more until May 2010 when the latest action started. I have now written to the Bank's solicitor to say I realise my error and wish to enter dialogue(!) What I would like to know, if anyone can help with this, is can a Bank offer a loan of £12,000 to a company, but requiring me to sign as an individual and guarantee the amount as an individual? If I was signing as a Director, for a company loan, with a personal guarantee, does not a 'by deed' contract require two Directors or one plus Company Secretary to sign? If I was signing as an individual are they not legally obliged (as it is under £25K) to issue it under the Consumer Credit Act? Suffice to say it is somewhat galling to now 'owe' more than twice the outstanding capital sum because the Bank have refused to reply to our previous approaches.

I sent the letter (suitably altered as they are not a debt collection agency) on the 7th and haven't heard anything from them up to today, which is 14 days. What to do now? I haven't told Westcot anything more as yet, because they told me to go to DL, so I guess they know what is going on, but I do need to do so now. They are calling every day currently.

Yes, I have only just realised the importance of that word and now I am not just trying to defend a point of law but an actual principle. All I wanted was £15K to start up a company. I didn't care who it came from, but the advice was, try your Bank first. So that is what I did. The document submitted with the N1 Claim Form only has my signature on it. Absolutely furious now that Nat West sold me a 'company' loan as a 'personal' loan. I have just written this summary of how it went. Changes what I am defending a bit. I asked for a loan from National Westminster Bank, Milton Keynes, to enable me to set up a business in 2001. I was told that this would not be a loan to the business, but to me, so that if the company failed I would still be liable. I understood and accepted that and I would point out that I was not looking for anything other than a loan for seed capital to start a business. Whilst I was asked to produce a business plan, the Manager only gave it a cursory glance and I interpreted that as going through the motions, as the risk on the loan was no more than any other unsecured loan. Had I any idea that this was not just a ‘normal’ loan but rather a contract more usually used in complex contracts, such as the Construction industry I would have looked elsewhere. I was in the Bank’s offices and was given a document to sign there, which I did I thought, as an individual as it had been stressed it was not a company loan. The Bank Manager made me comfortable that signing there and then would get things moving quickly. Further, as you can see the document says above my signature, that I should seek legal advice as I may become liable. It was said to me that I could do that, but that the contract was ‘standard’ and I understood that the whole point was that I accepted liability, outside of the health of the business. All of this confirmed to me that I was not receiving a ‘business loan’. In 2003 the company was no longer viable and I closed it down. Nat West contacted me regarding the loan and I completed a form regarding income and expenditure. I suggested that at that time, with my finances in a mess, I could afford £150 a month and I enclosed a cheque. This was cashed and then the amount paid back into my account, I do not know why. I heard no more from Nat West from that date. I find it unfair and contrary to natural justice that I had been sold what I thought was a simple loan, but was in fact something else and that Nat West have then stood off and allowed six plus years of interest to accrue, to then pick up and pursue me. I have not sought to avoid my obligation, though Nat West has failed to contact me. I have always had the same phone number, lived at the same address and maintained a current Nat West account throughout this time. Not least do I find it odd that Nat West made no attempt to contact me, preferring instead to go to law first, with a spurious claim that they were having trouble contacting me. This is plainly a lie. The Law Commission has commented on the anomaly of the Limitation Act and I believe I have been duped by Nat West into signing a ‘Company’ loan when all the emphasis at the time was that it was not. Furthermore, the Solicitors acting for the Claimant were aware that I was of the belief that the loan was a simple contract and chose not to draw my attention to the nature of the document as a Deed. Indeed, they have not taken any action to resolve this matter away from Court, which I presume is a fee based decision. Lastly, I would note that the N1 Claim Form states that I am the Guarantor of a company called Francois Michel Limited, which is manifestly not the case.

Yes, I have only just realised the importance of that word and now I am not just trying to defend a point of law but an actual principle. All I wanted was £15K to start up a company. I didn't care who it came from, but the advice was, try your Bank first. So that is what I did. The document submitted with the N1 Claim Form only has my signature on it. Absolutely furious now that Nat West sold me a 'company' loan as a 'personal' loan. I have just written this summary of how it went. Changes what I am defending a bit. I asked for a loan from National Westminster Bank, Milton Keynes, to enable me to set up a business in 2001. I was told that this would not be a loan to the business, but to me, so that if the company failed I would still be liable. I understood and accepted that and I would point out that I was not looking for anything other than a loan for seed capital to start a business. Whilst I was asked to produce a business plan, the Manager only gave it a cursory glance and I interpreted that as going through the motions, as the risk on the loan was no more than any other unsecured loan. Had I any idea that this was not just a ‘normal’ loan but rather a contract more usually used in complex contracts, such as the Construction industry I would have looked elsewhere. I was in the Bank’s offices and was given a document to sign there, which I did I thought, as an individual as it had been stressed it was not a company loan. The Bank Manager made me comfortable that signing there and then would get things moving quickly. Further, as you can see the document says above my signature, that I should seek legal advice as I may become liable. It was said to me that I could do that, but that the contract was ‘standard’ and I understood that the whole point was that I accepted liability, outside of the health of the business. All of this confirmed to me that I was not receiving a ‘business loan’. In 2003 the company was no longer viable and I closed it down. Nat West contacted me regarding the loan and I completed a form regarding income and expenditure. I suggested that at that time, with my finances in a mess, I could afford £150 a month and I enclosed a cheque. This was cashed and then the amount paid back into my account, I do not know why. I heard no more from Nat West from that date. I find it unfair and contrary to natural justice that I had been sold what I thought was a simple loan, but was in fact something else and that Nat West have then stood off and allowed six plus years of interest to accrue, to then pick up and pursue me. I have not sought to avoid my obligation, though Nat West has failed to contact me. I have always had the same phone number, lived at the same address and maintained a current Nat West account throughout this time. Not least do I find it odd that Nat West made no attempt to contact me, preferring instead to go to law first, with a spurious claim that they were having trouble contacting me. This is plainly a lie. The Law Commission has commented on the anomaly of the Limitation Act and I believe I have been duped by Nat West into signing a ‘Company’ loan when all the emphasis at the time was that it was not. Furthermore, the Solicitors acting for the Claimant were aware that I was of the belief that the loan was a simple contract and chose not to draw my attention to the nature of the document as a Deed. Indeed, they have not taken any action to resolve this matter away from Court, which I presume is a fee based decision. Lastly, I would note that the N1 Claim Form states that I am the Guarantor of a company called Francois Michel Limited, which is manifestly not the case.

Yes Nat West is the Claimant. All I have done is fill in the form that came with the N1 Claim Form. This asked for details on which I based my defence and I merely noted that I had said it was Statute Barred and that no-one had been in touch for over 6 years, asking for proof if they disagreed. I attached my letter to the solicitor saying this. I have done nothing else. The AQ is asking questions that saying No to seems wrong, like have I tried to agree a settlement. Have I followed pre-trial procedure (didn't know there was any), which track do I want (why would I know or care?), have I paid the fee(?), Proposed Directions, whatever they are. What do I learn if i get their AQ and who do I request it from? I haven't requested any documents from them as I didn't think they were allowed to ignore my request for proof and then drag me into court only to magically produce something there. I have just noticed though, that the original contract says 'signed under deed'.

The loan was to me for the purpose of financing a business. As far as I can see, it is a simple contract with me rather than the Limited Company. Naturally this protects them if the business failed as the debt didn't die with the business. So that makes me the Guarantor. I paid the loan for a couple of years; I don't remember specific dates now, but I would think it was 2003 that I stopped paying.After filling out the form we suggested a payment of £150 a month and sent a cheque as the first payment. They cashed it, but paid it back into the account a little later. We received no communication about that or anything else. So the last contact was Nat West sending us the form to fill in. The next contact was a solicitors letter, out of the blue in May this year, not even an initial contact from Nat West. I replied to that with the CAG letter that I believed the amount to be Statute Barred and if I was wrong to provide evidence. They acknowledged 'the content of my letter' and said merely that I should seek legal advice, pay up or be taken to court. In the information they sent with the N1 Claim was pages of flowery notes confirming I had agreed the loan in 2001 (attaching loan documents, but not the full document it seems as it just suddenly starts with no heading) and that they could recover a sum not exceeding twenty thousand pounds (the claim is for more) and mentioning a Limited company I have never heard of. They made no reference to my letter, nor any mention of when I was last contacted by Nat West. The loan was for £15,000. I paid for perhaps two years, so with the 'amount owing' now being over £20,000 you can see I haven't been paying anything for a while!

Yes, I got the N1 form and replied that I was defending the claim, whole sum. I attached the letter I had sent to the solicitor and I did that by the date required. The next contact I have had was notification of transfer to my local court and this Allocation Questionnaire asking me things like, which track do I wish to take and have I followed pre-trial procedures (of which I know nothing!).

Wow! Do I not know anything about 'justice' in this country! I received an 'Allocation Questionnaire' which blows me away. Most of it doesn't seem to apply to me, or any judgement that can be made. The 'Notes' then refer you on to other notes not supplied (but on the website thankfully) and then I find I have to pay at least £35 to defend a claim! Now I've read a bit more, I gather I should have been advised about the Practice Directive by Nat West's solicitors, but wasn't, so haven't had a chance to comply there. But comply with what? As I understand it, if they haven't been in touch for over 6 years, it is Statute Barred and if they have, the solicitors should have provided the evidence as I requested. Please tell me if I'm wrong on this! If I am (as I am convinced) that I am right, then surely this amounts to nothing more than vexatious litigation? And why on Earth does anyone have to pay, to be dragged to court in such a case?

Form filled and sent back challenging whole amount on the basis that I haven't heard in over six years. The papers submitted by the Claimant do not suggest they have, or make any mention of when. The only dates they quote are taking out the loan, 2001 and the solicitors letter, 2010. I attached my letter to the solicitor saying I believed it to be Statute Barred and challenging them to prove someone had been in contact within the last 6 years. They haven't so proved, because no-one has been in touch. They didn't even suggest why their client was having trouble contacting me -as I included in the form to the court I still live at the same address. In fact I have the same phone number and even the same current account at Nat West. So, not too hard to find! I wait with baited thingies.

Latest update. After contacting Consumer Direct, local Trading Standards have just called. Their advice was that, should it go to court a judge would take a dim view on my having not contacted Direct Line myself, rather than relying on Westcot. As an aside, during the conversation I said this all arose when I was having difficulty paying the loan and I was told that Direct Line have no obligation to help me, or negotiate repayments as I have a legally binding agreement. Not what I thought! Also, he felt that the fact that Westcot have never sent a statement in all the years they having been taking payments was 'not very good'. Overall then, I am to contact Direct Line.

Westcot sent the Postal Order back a second time saying they merely collect on the loan and to contact Direct Line, direct for the original documents.

Ha! Well I didn't own a Beauty Salon and if you saw me you'd know I don't use one either. The debt was a guarantee for a Ltd Co loan but not that one. So we assume it is ****e lawyers again hooking money out of their client while paying someone on minimum wage to do the work. They even state they can't ask for more than £20K then go on repeatedly quoting a claim for more. Truly the English language is foreign to them.

Some time ago (well over a year), my Youngest was caught by a mobile speed gun equipped police officer. (Amusingly, he said that his attention was drawn to my son's vehicle's speed, because of how rapidly it was catching up with the van in front. The van was parked, with no one in it). Anyway, he was given the option of attending a course to avoid the fine and penalties. So he paid the fee (more than the fine) attended the course and did the online element. Then a demand for fine plus 50% arrived as he hadn't completed the course. He contacted the police who said 'nuffink to do wiv us Guv'. He contacted the company that ran the course and they said 'ah, you want the people who run the website'. So he called them and they said they had a record of him logging on 5 times, but only completing 3 modules. He denied this was true and they asked what happens when the last module is completed. As he knew they agreed he must have done it and to tell the police. They still didn't want to know. We have now also written to the Manager of the enforcement office and he just replied that he had looked into it and none of his staff had made a mistake. Which wasn't what we had said! How the hell do you get through this level of bureaucracy and lack of care? Who actually is responsible and can sort it out?

Many years ago I had a loan from Nat West for a business, with a personal guarantee. The business didn't work out and the bank asked me to fill in a form about income/expenditure and how much we proposed to pay monthly. I sent it back with a cheque for £150 (which was what we proposed). This was cashed and then paid back into our account. I heard no more until May this year when a letter from solicitors arrived. I wrote back that I hadn't heard for 6 years and considered it Statue Barred. (I used your letter). They replied that they acknowledged the content of the letter and that I should seek legal advice and that they would take me to court for recovery. They made no attempt to prove I was contacted within the last 6 years. I have now received a 'Claim Form' In the Birmingham County Court. It says on the first page 'Repayment of sums due from the Defendant as the Guarantor of the liabilities due to the Claimant of Francois Michel Limited in the sum of £21, 405.27 pursuant to a guarantee executed by the Defendant dated 16th May 2001.' I have no idea who or what Francois Michel Ltd is. The figure is the outstanding amount plus interest of many years. I have 14 days to respond. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as you may be able to guess! Incidentally, the contract says they will recover an amount not exceeding Twenty Thousand Pounds, including interest!

Yes, I noticed that when I re-read the letter. Doesn't seem any more work for them to pass my request on than to write back to me. I think I'll go with your suggestion. It seemed a bit nuclear, but they do p*ss me about! It was just a simple request that they chose to ignore. Thanks for your help, it is greatly appreciated.

Silverfox. I like the strength of the letter, but also feel it might be missing their point, so (without feeling sorry for Westcot) would it not be more appropriate to ask again first? What I am saying is that, whilst it is not unreasonable to suggest they pass on the request, it is also not unreasonable for them to point me towards Direct Line? If so though, what is the legal position of Westcot? I don't understand why DL, who wouldn't negotiate reduced payments with me, engaged Westcot, who then agreed reduced payments!. So, is Westcot actually in default of the request, by dint of time limit? The letter suggests a direct relationship and as the Clots point out, it isn't a direct link. How can I now refuse payment when they haven't 'refused' they claim it doesn't involve them and so the request is misdirected. As I say, I don't understand the Clots role. I get the impression that Westcot are rattled though, as their not-so-veiled threat (that we 'make arrangements to pay the amount') was received by me as unnecessarily aggressive for a company who claim not to be involved!

I now have a reply from Westcot (it took me ages to find the last communication, for a reference number, from 2005!). They say they they are not the creditor for this account but are instructed on behalf of Direct Line. The postal order was returned and they suggest we contact them direct. They did end the letter with something about putting the account on hold for 14 days while we 'make arrangements to pay the account'. We are continuing to make the payments we have for years. Unless someone advises otherwise, I'll send off to Direct Line Financial Services.

The loan was taken out (in 2000) over the phone with Direct Line for £21500 at £500 per month. Later we started a business which didn't worki out so we had a number of issues not least the bank and its charges! We never noticed that the repayments were not being taken (this would have been probably 2002) and Direct Line didn't represent their Direct Debits or contact us, until 6 months had passed. We had a few telephone conversations in which we said we needed to reschedule the loan repayments and they asked for £650 or more a month. The next we knew was when Westcott phoned to say they had taken on the loan. They wanted large repayments, I said £150 a month and stuck to it, they said it would have to go up each month, but I ignored them and since then we have paid the same, but no contact from them. No statements, nothing. They did offer a couple of times a discounted settlement figure, which if we could have afforded it, we wouldn't be paying them every month. We are still paying and I haven't contacted Westcott, but I wanted to know my legal position as I anticipate trouble from any contact with these people. Hopefully this is sufficient background?