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

Id start by submitting a formal Subject Access Request to the local authority. State that you want all data including telephone recordings. They'll have a month to provide you with the data and recordings then

If you're unsure, I would suggest calling Saga tomorrow and asking them. I would lean toward it being an option, not a modification.

I would lean towards no, you don't have to declare it. There's no harm but I doubt the insurance would care and personally, I wouldn't bother. The general rule for most insurers (I don't know if this covers Saga but I imagine it's similar) is that they only log modifications if they either: Increase performance (Brakes, engine mapping, turbo kits etc) Increase the perceived/actual value (Bodykits/colour changes) Change the security of the vehicle (alarms, hardwired dashcams) The likelihood your insurance gets invalidated for a head restraint, I believe, is basically zero.

Post 160, Andy.

your witness statement will be your detailed defence. Similar points to what you said in your defence but you'll need to reference evidence (exhibits) and go in to A LOT more detail. Start drafting one up and we can help you tweak it etc. You've got plenty time yet

That changes things. You'll likely have to write to the court objecting to the application. You'll have to start drafting a Witness Statement. We'll need to make sure it shows that the issues are complex enough that it's obvious that it can't be decided in a summary judgment hearing. The courts will be able to confirm this, obviously don't respond to the solicitor. @AndyOrch will likely be able to advise on nitty gritty details for the courts.

Topic Title Updated.

Get in touch with the credit card company as they're equally liable under Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act. Let them know that you wish to make a claim for a full refund under Section 75 bla bla bla. Explain the response you've had from the retailer and provide the independent report you've had in their claim. Be best to do this before doing any court action (it also gives you time to read up on the court processes) because if you were to make a claim you would claim against both the retailer and the credit card company.

There'll still be a court hearing for a summary judgment, it'll just be a lot simpler. You'll also both have to put your positions to the court which may be an advantage if summary judgment is denied. However they're yet to send an N244 form and actually make the application (which will need to include the named exhibits) so nothing more than bluster to throw you off at this stage. Is that all that was in the bundle, was there no court application forms etc?

Of course they want your defence struck out, you're causing them a problem and making them do actual work! These solicitors (across the industry) don't actually expect you to defend and their entire timescales sold to their clients don't even mention if someone defends a claim. It's why they think they don't have to abide by the Pre Action Protocols etc I agree with dx that you don't respond. Your arguments in mediation and witness statements will be that you offered a reasonable and costed payment plan to clear the arrears and it was refused. You're also not sure that the correct procedure (re: Section 20 notices) were correctly followed and that the claimants solicitors refused to provide any details of this.