I am no legal expert but I had a problem with an iron which was two years old. The guarantee of 1 year had expired but I was informed by the consumers Association that under the sales of goods Act a product should be suitable for the purpose it was made for and should last for a ' reasonable' period of time for the purpose for which it was sold. You have six years. However, the reasonable period should be taken into account. With my iron for example it was only used for 3 hours a week for two years, If it had been used in an ironing business 8 hours a day 5 days a week then two years would be reasonable. 3 hours a week not so. Go to the library on the forum and there is a copy of the Sales of Goods Act and the amendment. Its worth a read.

Tefal offered me an out of warranty ' repair ' for £84 - I complained using the above Act they offered me a new iron at cost £80 - half retail price. I said it didn't cost the retail price to them -so I complained again I eventually received a no charge brand new iron plus £50 for the inconvenience caused. If you can prove the kids have not been jumping up and down on the sofa's using them as bouncy castles for 2 years then you can claim for the poor quality. These sofa's are not noted for their quality but should last for a reasonable period of time certainly more than 2 years!

You know all this talk of ' courts ' and ' claims ' on this issue of Dixi60 is pretty heavy for the actual problem. This is a case of common sense and negotiation on the obvious, we are going to frighten the poor woman to death with all this legal talk. Nat West c...cked up. Camelot would take a dim veiw of what they have done in their name and if she just puts the situation to Camelot and ask them to sort it out it will be done believe me. So long as she knew that 'A' prize was coming not £1000 then she was not to know how much was coming whether it's £2000 or £5000 - it was an all expenses paid deal and it is not unreasonable for her to have done what she did. For Natwest to press for it back is crass to say the least given the circumstances. Maybe they don't know the details and why she did what she did so if Camelot didn't inform her how much she was going to receive they have, albeit done what they did in good faith, c...cked up too. Leave the two of them to sort it out and admit that the lack of definate concise communication about how much was being given has caused this as well as the inefficiency of someone in the NatWest. Forget all this legal stuff it will never get that far anyway - as said before Camelot wouldn't want the publicity. Let them sort it out - leave it to them!

Abbey do seem to be getting these out though so I wouldn't worry too much. I received all my statements about two weeks after the first batch of the first year. They sent the previous 5 years in 3 formats so they have obviously had to get them from microfiche and other screens or filing systems but they do come. I also asked for my mortgage deatils and recieved a box with about 3 tons of paper in !

One of the lads in my old office used to post things onto university and student notice boards on their individual university or college websites. I don't know how he did it but surely there's a student or two coming to this forum who knows how to wack on the link?

I'd send the letter to the Halifax and refer to your conversation. If you didn't know how much was coming to you it was not unreasonable for you to accept it as being your prize. Unless you knew it was supposed to be £1000 then you could be accused of spending money you knew not to be yours and reasonably asked to return it. If you didn't then I believe it should be paid by the Natwest and I'd also send a copy to the National Lottery and ask them to sort it out with their bankers as it is causing you stress in their name. Thank them for the prize but .....They don't like bad publicity and I'm sure they wouldn't want you to have suffered like this. I don't think all this estoppel stuff comes into it. Good luck

Abbey base their Overdraft limits on the amount each month you deposit. You have to have say £500 each month for six previous months going in and they will then grant you £500 od and the same upwards I guess. It's usually the fact that funds have not been going into an account that they refuse it, I don't think it's anything to do with these charges being requested back - I might be wrong but I've had this conversation numerous times with Abbey. Hope that helps.

The statements will come. I received my first batch of 13 months in the usual current statement format about a week ago and the rest came today in three different formats. Print outs from what looks like an old printer and printed sideways, some which are no doubt the photocopies of microfiche and another in another format I'd never seen before - so they do arrive. I just think they are swamped by applications. Got loads a money coming back!

Seminole, How does the term " fixed - sum credit " in you post above relate to say a floating and variable credit agreement such as a credit card? Or would the spending limit ie £1000 be the fixed sum?

If its any help, the overdraft limit with Abbey seems to change depending on how much each month you pay in. I had a £500 overdraft facility and they said they would remove it on 1st Jan. When I queried it they said that is was based upon the fact that I hadn't paid in enough during the preceding 6 months and the £500 was actually reduced from £1000 I had had before that so it seems reasonable enough. In fact I feel free now using the '0' balance as my overdraft facility! I think if you pay your salary/wages in the they can see movement and how much and I think this is just a control they have for making sure you don't spend too much ( am I defending the bank here? - apologies to all 17000 of you! )

Whilst I am encouraged by the bravado of the response, I would suggest that one of the Moderators take a look over this original posting. It's your £40, but it looks as though this company have been very careful in their wording and it really needs a legal eye over it before you go firing off willy nilly. No disrespect meant to the above response but as we have learned from all the other input from such a diverse range of experience coming to this site that you can actually construct a very vallied and sound response to these characters based on fact, experience and law. Can you be a little clearer as to the foundation of your answer. We may be able to learn from you too.

You also have to be certain the debt is being 'sold' to a DCA. Are you sure it is being sold or are they just threatening to pass it to a debt collection agency? Not all debts are automatically sold, its usually bad debts and aged debt. If the debt is sold you have to be advised it's being sold or has been bought. This usually happens after the event not during a dispute.

Sounds like you've got the measure of them. I got a book called - how to annoy bureaucrats - sounds like you wrote it!

The figures since this site started!

If you didn't get advice from Cabot that they purchased the debt don't pay them a penny! Ask them if they have the default notice there - they will never sue you anyway. Just make sure that Barclaycard actually sold it to them and they are not just ' collecting' as an agent of Barclaycard as some don't sell-on the debt. Egg are a bit like that - they don't /wont sell-on debt. Make sure of your facts first. And remember ( and please don't think I'm being mr rightious here) It is important to acknowledge that if we are in debt we owe it and should repay them. Advice we all gather here on this forum (me included) helps us get the injustices overturned and unlawful charges back, it might also empower us to be better negotiators in getting the debt down - that to me is just good plain business skills and I have negotiated some pretty hefty deals in my time ( got 60k knocked off a bank debt once( hard work but brilliant feeling!) and a £3500 card paid off for £650!) so I don't begrudge anyone getting debt down and clear, I just recall bankfodder killing someone previously for using the site to learn how to get away with debt and he's right.. ( spoilsport!)

Good luck anyway.

...."which is a shame because I just got a call from another one, Cabot financial services. Withheld number, the woman asked me to confirm my name and address. I refused to do so because, as I told her I had no way of proving she was from Cabot".

 

Cabot: There are a few threads re debt collection agencies and Cabot. Search on Cabot and you'll find them. JB are not like Cabot - they're worse! The Scottish DCA's have a particluarly aggressive way about them - nasty bu...ers, but the letters stop them as quoted in posts above. Read as much as you can about debt collection agencies because many people have had dire times with them and there are many people dealing with them. Candice has many threads, Seminole has answered many too. Once you know how to handle them from those who have had experience you'll find that you can keep them under control. There are also alot of technical areas which can help you negotiate outstanding amounts, ensure they have default notices, some have bought the debt from the original creditor ( bank/card co's) and the legal status re charges and interest is outlined. They buy the debt for about 12% of the value you owe, then they add interest on the whole lot - immoral! and you can get it back. Keep reading that's all I can say and you'll get justice.

Ignore the above Dave, I've just picked up on the Barristers Letter thread which explains all and worth following - sorry.

Well now, Halifax were taken for an amount of about 12k I think - way above the small claim limit - and they of course STILL paid up.

 

Also, I think that we've all had lots of letters by now claiming that the T&C's are legal and the charges are a fair reflection of costs etc...

 

This, I believe is a deliberate deception, and therefore as you were deceived from knowing the truth about their debt to you, then they have excluded themselves from the statute of limitations.

 

It's up to you, but if I had 'my time' again, then I would definitly pursue that angle.

Dave, surely this is a profound point you've made here or am I missing something? If they are saying their Terms & Conditions are fair - are you saying they are deceiving everyone as they know they have charged us more than is fair? thus excluding themselves from the Statute Of Limitation? If so, this could be the very foundation to everyones claim - put me right if I am out of sync.

I was under the impression that what the banks are doing is illegal - plain and simple. Whether we are starving and have six unclad kids or have considerable debt through our ineptitude should have nothing to do with our claims. If it's illegal - its illegal and the monies repaid. Some people are in debt through no fault of their own, others have been totally irresponsible, SImon P is one of those fortunate and clever enough to have stayed on the right side of his cashflow, no doubt held his job and been a responsible citizen throughout, but if someone broke into his house and stole his goodies he would say that person had done something illegal, he would not consider the fact that the burglar might have had children who had not eaten nor should he. So maybe he should not be so judgemental about our circumstances but recognise the law and allow those who have been wronged thier justice. To call him a name would be judgemental and me? a hypocrite? never!

Thank you, made my day!

Last paragraph above I take it you mean " It isn't legal " regardless of what the DCA tries to convince you?

There's a thread similar going on here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=3987&page=4 regarding DCA's and discounts. I had an offer of 40% and it is quite common if the DCA has paid up to 12% of the debt from the card firm anything above that is a profit for them and a negotiating tool for you.

Okay, I have set the 12% benchmark, but... I also mentioned that these people are a business and if it wasn't for people getting into debt they wouldn't exist and we have to take a degree of responsibility for that. They need to see a profit whether you like it or not. I have previously mentioned that your negotiating skills are a key to dealing with these people and there has to be a win-win situation. If you only try to pay them 12% you'll get short shrift from them and win nothing. You owe more than 12%, set a responsible limit to what you'll pay and can afford and acknowledge you owe what you owe. Anything less that you negotiate is a bonus. Lets be sensible here, if the debt was not sold - on you would have had to repay the original company, the fact we know the DCA pays less is a bonus for us in the negotiating stance. I have on my desk a table tennis ball, one half painted black, the other white. It's a reminder to me constantly of what life is about. From one side it looks black if you hold it in front of you - to the person you show it to it's white, but it's the same ball you are looking at, (same set of circumstances you are arguing about, same debt you are negotiating). Move slightly to the side and you begin to see that from the other persons point of view the colour/vision/their take on the situation is different - that my friends is the beginning to negotiating skills - begin to see things as the other person sees it then you know what you are up against if you see things from their position. You can apply it to anything - arguments with the missis, talking to a bank manager - try to see their point of view, respect them their right to have their opinion, beg to differ, whatever, but use what you observe wisely by knowing the opponants position set yourself a benchmark to aim for in what you might pay, will pay, can get away with and then negotiate - it's amazing the power it gives you so do the same with the DCA's.. you have been warned!

26? my god - you have had a colourful life! I'd be quite interested in following your progress because I have had a lot of dealings with DCA's in my business which I don't want to publically announce because I am reasonably well known in the industry, but I have not only done business with them I too have had alot of trouble on the end of their antics through personal misdemenours, some I would gladly put out of business if I could.

Remember what I said about the interest charges Cabot take from you. The interest it COSTS them is only what they originally paid for the debt not what you owed them. They are taking this interest as a profit not a cost. Maybe someone else can advise on how best to tackle this in legal argument but it is immoral what they are doing. Finding out what it cost them to buy the debt could be more useful than you imagine although they are not obliged to tell you. I know what they pay because I work on the fringes of the credit industry and doing some work for a Debt Collection Agency Director who works in competition to Cabot and knows all about them - 12% max! I was told they rarely ever take anyone to court and rarely have the proper documentation to authenticate the original default notices. His final word to me " don't bother paying them! " ( I am not advocating not paying your debts, just ????..........!

I have a joint account with Abbey and they have sent a request back to me for my wife to sign the DPA request:

.... " The Data Protection Act relates to people as individuals and while your accounts may give within the Terms & Conditions the authority for either individual to operate the accounts you hold, under the Data Protection Act and a Subject Access Request we must receive a signed consent from each party to enable us to disclose individuals' data "

My wife is not into all this claiming lark and I tend to do all these sort of things myself and haven't involved her too much in this forum, but I thought I'd seen in another thread somewhere ( can't find it - too many threads?) that we don't need both signatures for a joint account where either of us can sign. Any comments on this please?

I sent my £10 but it hasn't gone through the account yet and received one year of statements from the infamous Sheena Small ( busy lady these days!)