Im so grateful to get a reply! Thank you! I spoke to the county court today and the clerk insisted to me that it was form N1. Now, I've heard plenty of stories that say she is wrong and I certainly believe you that N208 is the correct form. What I'm struggling to get my head around is on a landlords forum I was told this form/route is far more complicated, costs are higher but are recoverable. Obviously in the SCC, costs are not recoverable (beyond £90). That is why I approached a solicitor. If I understand you correctly, I fill out form N208 and then the court will (likely) allocate it to the SCC anyway and it will proceed as a small claims case? I would be happy to represent myself in such a case but was a bit worried that it would be allocated to the multi track instead.

Not sure why the formatting has gone to hell. Wasnt like that when I first posted it! Apologies!

My landlord protected my deposit incorrectly and did not issue all the PI. I believe this means I can bring a claim against him for non protection, but he has ignored my letter before action. However, I am struggling with which form to use - N208 or N1. Some landlord websites seem to suggest it must be N208/Part 8 (and CPR 56.1 certainly seems to suggest they are correct) a nd that is a more costly route (which they seem to take great delight in pointing out to deter tenants from claiming!). I am happy to pay a solicitor in the knowledge that it is likely it will be claimed back. Because of this I went to see a solicitor and have been quoted £750+VAT for him to act on the case. Whilst this is fine IF I can recover the costs, the solicitor seems to think this will be dealt with as a small claims case eventually and so I will only be able to claim a fraction of that back. Obviously, as its a fixed fee, if it is referred to the small claims track I would already be committed to paying it. There is no financial sense in agreeing to pay this amount (hearing representation is extra) as it means even if I am successful I may only end up with several hundred pounds. I've also heard plenty of anecdotal evidence suggesting that deposit non protection claims are routinely heard in the small claims track and that is what most solicitors go with. So whats the best option and why? Should I start with N208 and if it gets 'downgraded' represent my self and it it doesnt go back and ask the solicitor to represent me? Should I start with N1 and hope LL doesn't point out that its the wrong form? How hard is it to complete N208 as a LiP?

Thats a different company. The original vivus.co.uk was owned by a company named '4finance ltd' as they are named on my loan agreement. Then, when MMF contacted me I tried to visit vivus.co.uk and it had been replaced by a holding page saying that all the outstanding debts had been sold on and to contact receivers/administrators. The new vivus.co.uk website is now run by a company named 'V7 ltd.' I'm not sure whether any of the above matters though. Nothing on clearscore either. Im understanding the consensus is ignore but dont know why? What if they pass the debt on to a different company? What is it about the situation that means I can ignore them? I have paid more back than I borrowed but was of the impression there was still money outstanding for the debt/

Re: CCA, worried that I have no proof of doing it (other than some note on their system that the account was to be suspended for a month). Thought that by doing it again I could send it recorded or retain proof of posting? For clarity, all payments I made went to the account details vivus gave me, I havent paid a penny to MMF.

I took out a PDL of £300 around Oct 2013 with Vivus.co.uk. After I admitted I was in trouble, they froze the interest and we agreed to £5 monthly payments in Jan 2014. I kept paying until I had a letter from MMF in June/July 2015. It seems Vivus went bust and the debts were sold on. The data MMF have doesnt include my monthly payments so we disagree on how much is owed. They asked me to prove what I said (I can via bank statements) but don't see why I should have to pay a £10 SAR fee to get them and pass them on. I initially sent them a CCA request and heard nothing back. Last month they contacted me but I refused to provide them with my new address (wise?) and I 'failed' their security checks (I can't remember the address Vivus had for me) so they refused to discuss the account. I have since cancelled the monthly payments since vivus was/is bust. I am thinking of sending them another CCA since I did not retain any proof of the one I did 8 months ago. We agreed I would CCA on the phone, but I have since heard that they say anything on the phone. The outstanding debt is £100 (my version) or £180 (their version). There is nothing on my noddle credit history regarding this debt, indeed it has never appeared on there. I am intending to apply for a mortgage in 6 months time - should I simply pay it or offer a F&F? Should I provide the bank statements that prove I made the payments to vivus that they do not have on file?

PPP says it is 'Fonix Mobile Limited' although it appears as 'topikoo' in the text message. I have no idea what service they are providing.

Not sure what Oxygen 8 is but no, it isn't that.

I have a contract with EE. I was browsing facebook and clicked on a link. I immediately received a text telling me I was subscribed to a service costing £4.50 per week. Needless to say, I do not feel I consented to this. Certainly not enough to form a contract by simply clicking a link. I spoke to customer services at EE who assured me the charge was cancelled. However, they have let this company charge me for 6 weeks now and have now refused to refund the charges saying that it has nothing to do with them. EE have simply referred me to PhonePayPlus etc. I think we all know that the company in question are basically a [problem] company so I have no faith in them to refund me or cancel my subscription. My argument would be that my contract is with EE and so any charges I am charged by them should be justified by them. Im not saying they should be in possession of evidence to pass on, but there should certainly be more than an 'anyone can ask for money and we will just remove it from you and give it to them' approach. That said, this problem has been around for a while and I am not the first to suffer from it so there must be some reason why nobody has challenged a phone company via the courts. On what basis can they simply pass on this cost and deny contractual responsibility for it? I have a law degree and am considering pursuing this via the SCC. What legislation are they relying on that allows them to pass on third party charges unhindered? Surely any such clause in the contract allowing this would be an unfair clause as I am a consumer?