You can't, but you can (and really should) bring up the point that the lender isn't meeting their legal obligations in selling the property for fair market value. You'll have to do this in court, though. A receiver is bought in by the lender, not you. If they're a registered insolvency practitioner, you may be able to raise a complaint to the insolvency service but there are no guarantees here. Many receivers are also registered with the RICS and self-regulate so if you know the name of the receiver you can check there, again no guarantees. https://www.rics.org/surveyor-careers/career-development/accreditations/registered-property-receivership-scheme

It's genuinely amazing how you managed to rebuke pretty much all of my points without giving a single shred of evidence to prove it. When asked for evidence all you claim is that "it's clear cut" but how is anyone here meant to know if you won't show it? I agree with this. If you can't convince us, how are you going to convince the judges when this inevitably goes to court?

Please see my comments in orange within your post.

I've had a quick (well, quick for a thread of this length), read of this thread and to be honest I'm struggling to make heads nor tails of the actual crux of the issue here. You seem awfully convinced that whatever is going on is worth the fight and the odds are in your favour but with how the thread has gone it seems that one trail goes cold so you simply move on to another in an attempt to delay the inevitable. All it does is end up digging holes and confusing others and yourself which means any advice given to you is completely pointless. I note that for the life of this thread there has not been any documentation or correspondence uploaded for people to have a look. Have you got any that you'd be willing to redact and upload for members to assist you? Right now, it seems people are shooting out advice while being in the dark because it's starting to become very difficult for people who weren't here at the start of this (including myself) to follow along. Right now, this whole thread is just hypothetical "He said, she said" and is going nowhere fast. Nothing more than basic advice can be given which, as you've sought out some legal advice, is likely not sufficient to actually come to any sort of conclusion. I, personally, am starting to agree with others that it may be best to consider bankruptcy and put the matter behind you.

have you responded to the letter of claim?

Quote removed, just type please. Quotes make it harder to read Correct to ignore. Only thing that matters is a letter of claim (and a harmless DCA can't do that). In the 10+ years of threads from Soccersixes, we've NEVER seen a letter of claim from them. They'll go away eventually.

Because running a country via soundbite politics is a far better use of everyone's time, naturally.

Bogroll.

For NI it depends on how you pay. Pension Contributions come out via your gross pay as a deduction = You pay NI. Pension contributions come out via salary sacrifice = You don't pay NI. You wouldn't pay income tax on it either way.

So to clear up, you think you've paid this £1200 as part of the £4000, leaving a net overpayment of £2800 (which you don't want back?) Can you provide proof of payment (bank statements for the standing order) showing that you've paid this £4k over? Do you still have to pay for the child currently? In regards to your second query re: PiP it's only a press release right now, nothing has been confirmed. Just remember it's election year so there's no guarantee that the current or any future governments will follow through with it.

No, but all you'd do is blindly run the statute barred date for another 18 months. Just sit on your hands until you get a letter of claim, then send a CCA request.

Personally I would say yes, you can submit a CPR 31.14 request. The wording just mentions "A party", it doesn't mention that the defendant only specifically. Submit a request to the other party and see what happens.

scan and redact all but the statements please and upload. IF there's no names or signatures it's bogroll but best to confirm this.

I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though

Topic open @Reds123 please post any updates here