Thanks for your reply Tomtubby. I've tried to PM you but don't have a high enough post count.. would you be able to PM me and then I reply?

Greetings to the CAG membership, I will keep this as basic and brief as possible, as due to a busy and stressful work schedule, I have limited time and mental effort to put into diarising my dealings with these crooks! I can go into more detail, including some humorous correspondence, privately if anyone is interested! I live in Wales. Around 11 months ago I inadvertently entered a bus only route in Oxford. I was unaware of the bus lane until I had entered it, by which point I was stuck and had to continue along its entire length. After a little research on this particular bus lane online it appears that enormous numbers of drivers have and continue to fall victim to this little money spinner. It's no doubt too late to contest this with the council and thus I digress... Feeling rather annoyed about the matter and it being my first bus lane conravention I stupidly ignored the Notices I received that informed me of the contravention and prompted payment and of course the matter was eventually passed to bailiffs, in this case Collect Services Ltd based in Middlesex whom hereinafter will be referred to as 'CS'. It’s worth noting here that I believe all the documentation I had received was full and correct, picture of my vehicle etc, so no grounds to get off on a technicality I fear! The first I heard of CS' involvement was after a hand delivered notice was put through my letterbox, on which an un-quantified and grossly enlarged balance was scribbled. Whilst not mandatory by law but certainly common industry practice and courtesy - No 'First Letter' was received prior to this. After contacting CS via email and questioning the matter in some detail I was able to obtain a copy of the Warrant Of Execution, a Statement of Account and a copy of the allegedly sent 'First Letter'. The statement of account lists, 1st Levy fee, 1st Letter Fee, an Attending to Remove Fee 'ATR' (£99.58 ex VAT) and of course the original PCN & Court Fee + applicable VAT. A very interesting thing to note was after inspecting the file properties of the Warrant and Statement of Account PDF files, that the created & modified timestamps matched, and each document had been created&modified within a few minutes of each other. HOWEVER strangely the PDF file CS generated of the allegedly sent '1st Letter' was created and modified at DIFFERENT TIMES, and was done so much EARLIER IN THE DAY to the Warrant and Account PDF's. I don't know how much this should be looked into but I am convinced that this document was fabricated (and amended at least once) earlier that morning, by a no doubt more able employee, in order for it to be later presented to me by the employee who sent me the email who simply exported the other 2 legit PDF’s from the system. At this point I asked CS to explain this discrepancy surrounding the 1st Letter and to substantiate the ATR on ‘reasonable costs’ grounds. I also stated I believed the ATR wholly unlawful as no prior levy had been made and that there could not have been, and was not, any real intention or ability to remove goods and asked why my vehicle was not seized if the intention to remove was real. All three questions went pretty much unanswered except for a bold statement from CS that the ATR fee was lawful and applied in accordance with the statute. I then told CS’ anonymous ‘Administration Team (and it’s directorship directly via email!) exactly what I thought of them (nothing rude, though fairly humorous!) and informed them I would ( by cheque so as to avoid their extortionate debit card processing fees) be paying them only the legitimate fees. This included the Penalty Charge & court fee along with a correctly calculated first levy fee (ie based on legitimate balance being sub £100) + VAT. I stated I would not be paying the ATR or 1st Letter fee. I also quoted some case law trying to prove my case regarding the ATR and that they in any event must disclose the calculation of the ATR to show they were ‘reasonable costs’. The cheque was soon cashed and things went quiet for some time. I grew frustrated at being left ‘in limbo’ worrying if an attendance was to be made to remove my vehicle, ANPR etc… and contacted them several times in writing and via telephone asking for them to confirm their position. Eventually I received a reply which stated they would continue with enforcement of the alleged remaining balance, that I should seek proper legal advice as opposed to ‘reading websites’ and that the ATR is lawful and they have successfully defended such action in court. They at this point finally responded to the question surrounding reasonable costs of the ATR and gave this as being ‘fuel costs’!. I’m sure any reasonable person would assume that their bailiff would not travel from Middlesex to South Wales to levy on solely one debtor and would surely attended many properties on one trip. Since the above correspondence was received from I did not make further contact with CS and around month later a hand delivered Notice Of Intended Seizure was left at my property. Another resident of the house saw the currier of this notice simply walk up the drive and pop it through the letterbox without knocking the door. A handwritten balance was scribbled on this notice which indicated some further fairly small fees had been calculated and added to the balance at this point. I have now received a 'Warning of Intended seizure of vehicle ANPR in use' letter delivered via post stating that 'due to your failure to settle this unpaid PCN your vehicle has now been included on our outstanding PCN ANPR database'. It goes on to state that if they locate my vehicle it will be removed and taken to auction without further notice and that ‘Additional costs of £164 minimum will be incurred plus auctioneers costs'. The 'total due balance' on this letter has now risen by approximately £50. So - my main questions are as follows: 1: What IS the definitive answer as to whether a certified bailiff can lawfully apply an 'Attending To Remove' Fee on a first visit. And, in any event could 'Fuel Costs' be given as 'Reasonable Costs' when clearly those fuel costs would surely have been incurred in relation to many debtors not just in attending my residence? 2: Can CS claim to be enforcing, and take action on the basis of, an unpaid PCN when said PCN has in reality been paid in full, along with their their legitimate fee's with only their unlawful fee’s remaining? 3: If either of the above points are in my favour what legal action do I take to stop them in their tracks? I understand I can write to the CIVEA (which I have threatened several times to CS) OR lodge a court order, the latter being risky. I look forward to hearing peoples thoughts.

Appolgise mod's for the careless posting! Thank you for your advice Silverfox... I have various debts from my younger more wreckless and poor days and re: one of these debts my situation is this: I have a Natwest Credit Card that defaulted mid 2007 (I probaby did recieve a notice I cant remeber - worth asking for proof?). The balance is approx £1100. I started the charge reclaim process back in 2007 with SAR. I got the statements and I calculted the balance to comprise of 52% charges (many above the £12 advisory) not taking into account interest (if interest was even charged on the charges?).. I *think* I then requested a refund of the charges in writing (this count as formal dispute?) and this was refused. I have since lost the paperwork and I have ignored the debt until now. I am prepared to pay what I owe in full, but not the charges. My real aim is to get the default removed. (A long shot maybe but I have read a few success stories on here) What I intend to do is issue a notice of dispute to the CRA's stating that the account was in dispute and that issuing Default was against Banking Code Of Practice and Data Protection Act. I then will contact NatWest by PHONE only (not writing so to not 'reset the clock') and try to batter with them. If they will not refund the charges, accept the default was caused by their charges and remove the default, what chances do I have in having a small claims court imposing this?

Hi all, Would making a Subject Access Request to a credit card company, in order to establish the charges levied on an account, constitute as acknowledgment of a debt and 'reset the clock' regarding the 6 years statutue of limitations? Furthermore if not, would seeking to remove charges from the balance drop ones self in it? Thanks in advance

Unfortunately defaults will remain on your credit file for six years from the date of default, whether settled or not. They will however be marked as settled and the balance deducted from your total current debt. The question I in fact am looking to be answered is what improvement, if any, a settled default will make to a credit file as opposed to unsettled... any info anyone?