None at all other than your name and address.

Have they broken down this figure or have they simply come up with this sum?

Age of Legal Capacity (Scotland) Act 1991 1 Age of legal capacity (1) As from the commencement of this Act— (a) a person under the age of 16 years shall, subject to section 2 below, have no legal capacity to enter into any transaction; (b) a person of or over the age of 16 years shall have legal capacity to enter into any transaction.

I doubt if anything would get through to them left to their own devices. An example of how bankers attitude and arrogance has not changed despite all the recent events is that on Thursday (19 March 2009) the Royal Bank of Scotland's Deputy CEO admitted to MPs that bank charges were immoral and then went onto say 'however, morality doesn't come into it'.

The effect on your sister and brother in law should be fairly minimal. For instance it would have no effect on their property. What they probably would have to do though is financially disassociate themselves from your nephew so that they are not linked in any way with the CRA's. Obviously if they were financially linked it may adversely effect their credit rating, so they want to avoid that. They can disassociate themselves by simply writing a letter to that effect to the CRA's. If he was to consider bankruptcy he does really need to first talk it through with a qualified debt advisor or

You should complain to Trading Standards and the OFT under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

Well done Robert

I would just enclose a copy of your letter of discharge and write to them informing them that you are a discharge bankrupt and as such you have no liability for this account. Also inform them that any further actions on their behalf to attempt to collect this 'debt' will be reported to Trading Standards and the OFT.

Do you still have a copy of the bankruptcy order?

How was the claim served on you?

Okay I think the first thing to do is to get in touch with National Debtline and discuss your options with them. You'll speak to a qualified debt advisor who'll be able to go through things with you. Their contact details are here National Debtline Scotland | Debt Advice There's also lots of useful fact sheets on their website. I think your best option from what you have said is probably bankruptcy under the Low Income Low Assets (LILA) scheme. You qualify for this if: - your income is less than £229.20 per week before deductions for tax and national insurance contributions (ignor

Okay. There are a number of options open to you. Going bankrupt is one (not a scary thing in your position, so don't think it is - you're not going to lose any possessions or have less to live on and it only lasts for one year). A DAS is another option but I don't think this option is open to you due to being on benefits which basically means you have no disposable income. Another one would be a trust deed but again I'm fairly sure you wouldn't qualify. I'll post some links tomorrow for insolvency practioners and qualified debt advisors for you to talk to about your situation. To me

You are unlikely to receive anything new from MBNA as this is all they keep. The agreement as it stands is unenforceable. Hope you get your new flat sorted out soon You can certainly offer a full and final if you so wish but get advice from the forum first on putting the letter together. If MBNA were to pass your account on it would not be to bailiffs, it would simply be to debt collectors who are bottom feeding **** with no legal powers at all and certainly nothing that you should be getting stressed about.

Because the charge is already registered. This puts you in the position whereby you have to prove that the charge is not applied correctly e.g. securitisation of the debt with another company who has not registered the charge so the company taking you to court has no legal right to do that. If the charge is with the same company then you would have had to agreed to the charge and I think in all probability the court would see that the company were entitled to enforce the charge if need be.

No. It simply means that you have paid £1345.00. It does not mean that you owe them a damn thing nor does it mean that you express any further liability to them. Once you have details of the charges they may in fact owe you money. If you receive any more of this rubbish from them simply report them to the OFT, who they are already in deep doo doo with.

The problem is that the loan is secured e.g. it is registered with the Registery Trust as being a charge against the property. To challenge a secured loan is very difficult and frought with danger e.g. they don't necessarily need an enforceable agreement to enforce it and repossess the property. There would appear to be securitisation of the contract from what you state (the true sale of the asset) but the court may not be interested in this simply because they don't understand or choose to ignore the legal implication of this.

The credit card debt is likely to be lacking one of the prescribed terms because of how it is worded. Technically this means that the account is unenforceable but please be aware that the sheriff may not agree with this opinion. As the loan is from 2005 it is likely that the paperwork can be found and will comply with the Act. Are you a homeowner? Do you think it is likely that you will be able to return to work and if so how long do you realistically think this might take? There are several ways to go in your situation and to a degree these will depend on whether you own

Scott & Co probably have the worst reputation of any sheriff officers amongst people who have had to deal with these issues, no great suprise in their actions (unfortunately) Erika from what I have heard about them.

It's not a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement as such but as of Nov 2008 you get payment protection at no additional cost which works in the same way as s75 for credit cards.

Yes it is but the bank could apply to combine your two overdraft claims, so you might want to submit one overdraft account and see how that claim gets on before submitting the second one.

Hi roselee, You need to start your own thread to get the appropriate help and advice on your situation. If you don't know how to do that have a read here http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

In which case you have joint and several liability. What that means is that they can either go after one of you for the money or both of you. Obviously it's not worth them attempting to pursue your girlfriend as she doesn't work. No but if you don't they may just arrest your bank account instead which may result in the funds held in your account being frozen.

When offering payment it's useful to know how much they would be able to deduct if they managed to obtain an earnings arrestment (you wouldn't want to offer too much). As previously stated the amount they can deduct is governed by statute. You'll find the amounts that they can deduct in the following link http://www.aib.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/4/0000460.pdf Schedule 2 is about 3/4's of the way down or you can just click on the link in the contents table.

Were you living with your girlfriend for the period of the arrears? It shouldn't but it might. They could of course correct the name on the earnings arrestment if you are indeed liable. The amount of any arrestment would depend the amount of money that you earn and is set out in The Statutory Deductions Tables in Schedule 2 of the Debtors (Scotland) Act 1987. With the introduction of the Bankruptcy and Diligence etc. (Scotland) Act 2007 it is compulsory for the employer to tell the sheriff officers if the employee leaves their employment and the name and address of the new e

Another slap on the back PR exercise, no doubt to try and promote 'changes' in the industry ahead of possible forced changes in the industry. No prizes for guessing who would win the OFT kick in the teeth award.