Well for a start, I'm sure that you have a right to cancel in the first 7 days without penalty. Would cancel, insisting at no cost (check their T&Cs) and redo it. I'm sure someone else can advise on the legality of the 7 day bit.

DVLA should have no leg to stand on then.

Send an LBA in the first instance (do a quick search of this forum for details). Would post up an example but as the formatting is broken on here itll look hideous. Give them 7 days to repay, or you will take them to court. That should at least get the matter firmly within his eyesight.

What surprises me these days is the persistence. It ruins the good name some of them have fought to build up. Also, I would imagine most people who WANT to contribute to charity already do so by direct debit to get Gift Aid - surprised there are still so many collectors kicking about.

Is this a fitted item, or freestanding?

My opinion on this is that you simply left it too late. 1 day is insufficient to request a PAC code, and subsequently port the number. To my knowledge, the account would have had to be kept open until such a point that the number port completed, hence why you request at the time of cancellation. Thats not to say that they acted correctly, but realistically you left it to the point where you couldnt really have sorted this out anyway. Of course, I await to be corrected

I believe that succession is only going to kick on upon the death of the tenant. Moreover. Yes, this is a moral standpoint as opposed to legal, which I generally dont do, but as I work in the sector I have strong feelings on it. It would be inappropriate to my mind to allocate social housing to a party or parties for whom the property is not ideally suited. By this I mean, clearly the fact that there are currently 4 of you in the property means that the property is "OTT" for simply 2 people. You need to bear in mind (IMHO) that there will be people out there much more suited for the property than simply your two daughters, who are probably sat on a waiting list for such a property. This is not judging btw, and sorry if it comes across that way - in your position I would be asking the exact same question. But seeing people day in day out in genuine need of such a property means I do feel the need to voice my opinion as to the unequitable nature of a decision that would allow only your two daughters to stay.

My first thought would be, almost certainly not. A council property isnt a "family home" and shouldnt be treated as such - it is social housing for those most in need of it. Due to the start date of your current tenancy, I am not aware of any rights of succession - certainly not when the property is being voluntarily vacated. I presume the tenancy is in either just your own name, or yours and your husbands? However, I need to add to this - I am not an expert on council tenancies, at all.

Personally, I feel you should chase them for full disclosure of the details of the alleged claim. If they keep sending you back fob off letters like the above, send the same letter again with the date changed

OK but (and yes I appreciate that this is a common thought on these forums) arent you assuming that the relevant companies are therefore behaving in a way that is over and above economic viability? In fact, you are going one further and implying that there is some form of cartel (official or unofficial) setting interest rates higher than is economically viable for this type of loan. I would dispute that this is the case, and would state that if the interest rates are genuinely set at an "economically viable" level, then the change to the current situation will be zero. Ultimately, there is a lot of competition in that market, and it is an open market, which by definition will drive interest rates down to an economical viable level in any event.

I would have to say that I am surprised (but pleased for you) at the full refund - the SOGA does entitle you to redress, but not neccessarily a full refund - especially in this scenario where you did in fact have extended use of the item.

I doubt it matters who called the DVLA, even if it was the property owner?

OK, sounds like everything above board to me.

Looks correct to me. Was the deposit protected with a scheme? Does the AST have the landlords contact address on it?

The important thing to note here is that the inclusion or otherwise of that clause doesnt affect a thing.

Thats the short answer, yes. The long answer that there are other grounds for taking possession under Section 8, none of which are particularly likely to affect you.

The clause, in any event, cannot override your statutory rights. You can be evicted with an S21 with 2 months notice, after the fixed term ends, or using a discretionary ground of Section 8. The clause doesnt make a blind bit of difference to those rights.

I take your points Aequitas - I can only assume it was typed up a little bit "layman-esque". although, I certainly wasnt aware that a notice cannot be withdrawn if it is agreed to be withdrawn. Any case law on that one? Not saying you are wrong, just curious.

I think this is more to do with mortgage arrears. In the situation that they wanted to sell, they still cant evict any quicker than they could anyway. They are morelikely to just sell with you remaining resident.

Oh btw I'm a moron. The S20 notice I mentioned above is rubbish, it is actually S48. Read this thread for a bit more info, in particular the first response by Paul F. http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/archive/index.php/t-3199.html It is clear that until the landlord provides you with his correct contact details, that eviction must fail, and rent is not lawfully due.

I think your email is very fair, succinct, and to the point. Keep us posted.

I would be tempted to cancel your card and request a new one to stop them taking further payments.

Way outside of my comfort zone, but I believe that there is some rule that means that assets transferred out of your name in a certain period of time before bankruptcy will still be taken into accoubnt. Something like that anyway.

The simple answer is no. He would have to serve a formal notice (under Section 8, if for breach of tenancy) and get a court order to evict. If you dont reside there for 28 days however, the landlord would have good cause to believe you had abandoned the property, so this one is slightly less clear cut.

I think it is going to be very difficult to comment as to whether there is a strong case, you need a specialist on this. I must admit that my first thought when I read the thread was that you dont - this was clearly a fast changing situation, and although at times the doctors appear to have not quite behaved properly, there is a big difference between that and negligence. But that is simply my personal opinion, with no medical knowledge, hence why you need to see a specialist. Bear in mind that from what I have heard, NHS negligence cases are incredibly fraught drawn out affairs, so you need to weigh up the impact this will have on your life, and your enjoyment of your life with your new addition.