I need your help

Thanks Tiggy I'll have a look. Section 3 of the fraud act 2006 looks pretty usful too

Waffle wrote:

Tiggy wrote:

Waffle wrote:From the sale or transfer either to an investor or DCA I don't believe there is a novation at all. There will be a new agreement. A DCA only buys rights to the debt it appears to me that the notice of assignment is the new agreement, they never Novate the original the terms they need are already in it. Anyways once someone defaults what happens to the original agreement... isn't it terminated?

No, effectively, on assignment the debt purchaser replaces the original creditor in the agreement, otherwise the doctrine of privity would apply.

At the moment I can't see how they can.The agreement is terminated, they are not a named party to it and an assignment only allows a right to the debt s136 lop.

How did you come to that conclusion tiggy?

Perhaps I worded it badly, on assignment the rights (to collect the debt) are assigned, the agreement as such has already been terminated on default, but the right to collect the debt remains.

"An assignment (Latin cessio) is a term used with similar meanings in the law of contracts and in the law of real estate. In both instances, it encompasses the transfer of rights held by one party—the assignor—to another party—the assignee.[1] It can also be a transfer of a benefit, including an equitable interest, according to established rules (at Common Law or in Equity).[2] The rights may be vested or contingent.[3] The details of the assignment determines some additional rights and liabilities (or duties)."

Ok so I'm the LoP s136 it's an absolute assignment which is the full estate rights title and interests. That is a legal assignment not the passing of equitable interests which would be the time when a DCA is collecting on behalf of type thing.

So in an absolute assignment they have rights title and interests but no agreement, it has to be the notice of assignment that creates a new agreement, I can't see how else they would do it, unless ofcourse someone actually signs an agreement with them

Waffle wrote:Ok so I'm the LoP s136 it's an absolute assignment which is the full estate rights title and interests. That is a legal assignment not the passing of equitable interests  which would be the time when a DCA is collecting on behalf of type thing.

So in an absolute assignment they have rights title and interests but no agreement, it has to be the notice of assignment that creates a new agreement, I can't see how else they would do it, unless ofcourse someone actually signs an agreement with them

No, the notice of assignment is just that, a notice that the debt has been assigned.

There are debt collectors (such as Wescot, Fastcredit etc.) who work as agents for the original creditors.

Then there are debt purchasers who state they have Absolute Assignment of the debt and therefore, have the right to take you to Court for said debt. As a debtor you don't have to agree to this, in fact a debtor is not involved in the assignment process other then the fact they have to give you notice.

The Absolute Assignment (aka Deed of Assignment) has to be under the hand of the assignor and that's where Van Lynn Developments vs Pelias comes in, the right to sight of the assignment.

I agree with you on the most of it Tiggy......

A notice is much more than an assignment when they tell you in it there is an agreement and they tell you how they want to process your personal data and that they might change the terms and conditions of the agreement at any point.

The notice is the agreement if you don't rebut it, how else are they construing an agreement if you have not seen one or signed one with them as a party?

There is no deed of assignment. Its like the illusive CQV trust, I cannot find one anywhere, but what I have found is that land MUST be conveyed transferred or assigned by deed, property on the other hand...... Property can be conveyed, transferred assigned orally so we are asking for documents that don't exist when we are asking for a deed of assignment. As you said, s136 of the LoP (equitable interests and things in action) says that for an assignment to be legible there must be a notice, so where has this deed come from and where has this invisible agreement suddenly come from?

We also need to bear in mind what jurisprudence we are dealing with. If there is no agreement then there is no contract, no contract law.......

Notices are at the heart of ?????, what jurisprudence are notices at the heart of?

If the asignee is the new legal owner of title, rights and interests, then what would that make them, if there is no contract of course?

Waffle wrote:I agree with you on the most of it Tiggy......

A notice is much more than an assignment when they tell you in it there is an agreement and they tell you how they want to process your personal data and that they might change the terms and conditions of the agreement at any point.

The notice is the agreement if you don't rebut it, how else are they construing an agreement if you have not seen one or signed one with them as a party?

There is no deed of assignment. Its like the illusive CQV trust, I cannot find one anywhere, but what I have found is that land MUST be conveyed transferred or assigned by deed, property on the other hand...... Property can be conveyed, transferred assigned orally so we are asking for documents that don't exist when we are asking for a deed of assignment. As you said, s136 of the LoP (equitable interests and things in action) says that for an assignment to be legible there must be a notice, so where has this deed come from and where has this invisible agreement suddenly come from?

We also need to bear in mind what jurisprudence we are dealing with. If there is no agreement then there is no contract, no contract law.......

Notices are at the heart of ?????, what jurisprudence are notices at the heart of?

If the asignee is the new legal owner of title, rights and interests, then what would that make them, if there is no contract of course?

I'm not sure I'm explaining this very well, but they don't need a contract with you to be assigned the debt and to commence proceedings against you. All they have to do is prove to the Court they have a right to the debt through the absolute assignment of the debt.

Simply put, you neither have the right to accept or reject the assignment (there's nothing in the Law of Property Act that allows for it), all they have to do is give you notice.

No I understand you tiggy, but what I am saying is that the DCA's are claiming there is an agreement, some are even securitising debts, and transferring our data out of as far as europe.

I get that the assignment alone grants them a right to the debt, but you have clearly pointed out a valuable point "there is nothing in the law of property act that allows for it", so whats governing this stuff.

They have no contract, they have a right to the debt by an assignment, but what position are they in as legal owners of the dent. Statutory law doesn't cater for this, so what jurisprudence are you in if not statutory or common law.

"I am not a debtor, I have made a vow of poverty, I only enjoy the use of property, they are the legal owners".......

If you notice them of their rights they cannot defeat your rights, thats notices.....

Notice them of who they are and who you are. Just because they notice you... notice them back they are the legal owner.

LoP '25 Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice.

If you are not a debtor or other person, they are the legal owners who is left to be liable for the debt and who are the legal owners and who are you? What title do you hold and what title are they holding. If they have legal title and you have the other title what has been created?

sorry to play the guessing game, but there is more to this than what meets the eye, so I believe anyway......

the fundamentals.
by veronica chapman.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)
stay real..[smile]

Hi all

Crackin' stuff!

Most of this is a little above my level, but still enjoyable. i reckon the church is hiding in there again Waffle. Btw i suspect the CQV is a legal mechanism rather than a long-term trust, construed as-and-when (as we've seen) access to the 'estate' (Latin for funding) is required by those in the know. Would that be a Universal Constructive Contract (UCC)? Anyway, maybe that's why you haven't found one - because it's Legion?

....but don't let me distract you, please continue the debate, learning lots here...

Cheers!

Everyone bangs on about wet signatures and stuff to make a contract, but what's an oral contract then and how would that be enforced.

I think its a good post from Pitano1, its easy to forget that straight forward techniques such as the conditional acceptance have worked. There is no reason why something like that wouldn't put a halt to proceedings in some cases, its a good share Pitano1.

Im sure the church is hiding in there iamani, someones conscience needs to be clear for when they are presented to God before it decides whether they are welcome in heaven, thats the crux of what Im getting at anyways....

Maybe I haven't found a CQV because I've not looked in the right places yet, I know its there, I keep getting road blocked distracting me from the quest .

Tiggy wrote:

Waffle wrote:Ok so I'm the LoP s136 it's an absolute assignment which is the full estate rights title and interests. That is a legal assignment not the passing of equitable interests  which would be the time when a DCA is collecting on behalf of type thing.

So in an absolute assignment they have rights title and interests but no agreement, it has to be the notice of assignment that creates a new agreement, I can't see how else they would do it, unless ofcourse someone actually signs an agreement with them

No, the notice of assignment is just that, a notice that the debt has been assigned.

There are debt collectors (such as Wescot, Fastcredit etc.) who work as agents for the original creditors.  

Then there are debt purchasers who state they have Absolute Assignment of the debt and therefore, have the right to take you to Court for said debt.  As a debtor you don't have to agree to this, in fact a debtor is not involved in the assignment process other then the fact they have to give you notice.

The Absolute Assignment (aka Deed of Assignment) has to be under the hand of the assignor and that's where Van Lynn Developments vs Pelias comes in, the right to sight of the assignment.

Excellent point Tiggy

Lets remember that in an Agency relationship the Agent remains under the control of the principle, furthermore an agency does not vest title in the agent.

Notice is an equitable doctrine ..

Yes a valid transfer of title (legal, equitable or absolute must be by a valid transfer to vest title or confer rights - a Deed) if the purchase is absolute then any trust previously constituted collapses, however if their is a contingency or reversion aspect ... the Trust is still constituted.

This is why its important to know what type of relationship the DCA has with the OC when formulating a response

Jinxer wrote:Everyone bangs on about wet signatures and stuff to make a contract, but what's an oral contract then and how would that be enforced.

Oral or parol contracts have to be proven which is why very few use them and the same reason we use written contracts.

Candor wrote:

Tiggy wrote:

Waffle wrote:Ok so I'm the LoP s136 it's an absolute assignment which is the full estate rights title and interests. That is a legal assignment not the passing of equitable interests  which would be the time when a DCA is collecting on behalf of type thing.

So in an absolute assignment they have rights title and interests but no agreement, it has to be the notice of assignment that creates a new agreement, I can't see how else they would do it, unless ofcourse someone actually signs an agreement with them

No, the notice of assignment is just that, a notice that the debt has been assigned.

There are debt collectors (such as Wescot, Fastcredit etc.) who work as agents for the original creditors.  

Then there are debt purchasers who state they have Absolute Assignment of the debt and therefore, have the right to take you to Court for said debt.  As a debtor you don't have to agree to this, in fact a debtor is not involved in the assignment process other then the fact they have to give you notice.

The Absolute Assignment (aka Deed of Assignment) has to be under the hand of the assignor and that's where Van Lynn Developments vs Pelias comes in, the right to sight of the assignment.

Excellent point Tiggy

Lets remember that in an Agency relationship the Agent remains under the control of the principle, furthermore an agency does not vest title in the agent.

Notice is an equitable doctrine ..

Yes a valid transfer of title (legal, equitable or absolute must be by a valid transfer to vest title or confer rights - a Deed) if the purchase is absolute then any trust previously constituted collapses, however if their is a contingency or reversion aspect ... the Trust is still constituted.

This is why its important to know what type of relationship the DCA has with the OC when formulating a response

This comes under "vicarious liability" or the master, servant relationship as it is sometimes called and basically it means the master is totally responsible for the actions of the servant and if the servant does wrong acting on the masters instructions then the master is totally liable and not the servant. Sue the master for giving the order and not the servant for committing the deed.

[quote="assassin"][quote="Candor"][quote="Tiggy"][quote="Waffle"]Ok so I'm the LoP s136 it's an absolute assignment which is the full estate rights title and interests. That is a legal assignment not the passing of equitable interests  which would be the time when a DCA is collecting on behalf of type thing.

So in an absolute assignment they have rights title and interests but no agreement, it has to be the notice of assignment that creates a new agreement, I can't see how else they would do it, unless ofcourse someone actually signs an agreement with them[/quote]
No, the notice of assignment is just that, a notice that the debt has been assigned.

There are debt collectors (such as Wescot, Fastcredit etc.) who work as agents for the original creditors.  

Then there are debt purchasers who state they have Absolute Assignment of the debt and therefore, have the right to take you to Court for said debt.  As a debtor you don't have to agree to this, in fact a debtor is not involved in the assignment process other then the fact they have to give you notice.

The Absolute Assignment (aka Deed of Assignment) has to be under the hand of the assignor and that's where Van Lynn Developments vs Pelias comes in, the right to sight of the assignment.[/quote]

Excellent point Tiggy

Lets remember that in an Agency relationship the Agent remains under the control of the principle, furthermore an agency does not vest title in the agent.

Notice is an equitable doctrine ..

Yes a valid transfer of title (legal, equitable or absolute must be by a valid transfer to vest title or confer rights - a Deed) if the purchase is absolute then any trust previously constituted collapses, however if their is a contingency or reversion aspect ... the Trust is still constituted.

This is why its important to know what type of relationship the DCA has with the OC when formulating a response[/quote]

This comes under "vicarious liability" or the master, servant relationship as it is sometimes called and basically it means the master is totally responsible for the actions of the servant and if the servant does wrong acting on the masters instructions then the master is totally liable and not the servant. Sue the master for giving the order and not the servant for committing the deed.[/quote]






That's for both types of assignment. Ones agent go for it's principle. And with an absolute assignment there is no reason why the claimant shouldn't make a claim against the assignor. Tiggy pointed out unfair relationships. It would be unfair for them to order the assignment if you have acted conscienably......

[quote="Candor"][quote="Tiggy"][quote="Waffle"]Ok so I'm the LoP s136 it's an absolute assignment which is the full estate rights title and interests. That is a legal assignment not the passing of equitable interests  which would be the time when a DCA is collecting on behalf of type thing.

So in an absolute assignment they have rights title and interests but no agreement, it has to be the notice of assignment that creates a new agreement, I can't see how else they would do it, unless ofcourse someone actually signs an agreement with them[/quote]
No, the notice of assignment is just that, a notice that the debt has been assigned.

There are debt collectors (such as Wescot, Fastcredit etc.) who work as agents for the original creditors.  

Then there are debt purchasers who state they have Absolute Assignment of the debt and therefore, have the right to take you to Court for said debt.  As a debtor you don't have to agree to this, in fact a debtor is not involved in the assignment process other then the fact they have to give you notice.

The Absolute Assignment (aka Deed of Assignment) has to be under the hand of the assignor and that's where Van Lynn Developments vs Pelias comes in, the right to sight of the assignment.[/quote]

Excellent point Tiggy

Lets remember that in an Agency relationship the Agent remains under the control of the principle, furthermore an agency does not vest title in the agent.

Notice is an equitable doctrine ..

Yes a valid transfer of title (legal, equitable or absolute must be by a valid transfer to vest title or confer rights - a Deed) if the purchase is absolute then any trust previously constituted collapses, however if their is a contingency or reversion aspect ... the Trust is still constituted.

This is why its important to know what type of relationship the DCA has with the OC when formulating a response[/quote]










That really in a foudational principle, understanding the relationship.

I'm not intending to stress the point here, but I believe it's important to address it. When we are asking for the deed of assignment or title deeds, it's very unlikely there is a deed for the property, we should be asking for documents of title, pull out the stops you need to acquire or show you have done everything to acquire them.

The choose in action is what's known as an agreement to create a trust, it's an imperfect gift, in order to perfect the gift perfecting the trust one needs to prove valuable consideration was given under the Milroy v Lord rule. That's your trust. Now if you invoke a trust and they have the legal title they are the trustees and you are the beneficary. Put them in a position or prove they are doing something they shouldn't be or are not doing something they should be then choose the most applicable equitable remedy for those circumstances.

From the property law act in my jurisdiction: Relevant bits only)

PROPERTY LAW ACT 1969 - SECT 20
20 . Assignment of debts and choses in action
Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal chose in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee, or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive or claim that debt or chose in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee), to pass and transfer from the date of the notice —
(a) the legal right to that debt or chose in action;
(b) all legal and other remedies for the debt or chose in action; and
(c) the power to give a good discharge for the debt or chose in action, without the concurrence of the assignor.
(2) Where the debtor, trustee, or other person liable in respect of the debt or chose in action referred to in subsection (1) has notice —
(a) that the assignment so referred to is disputed by the assignor, or any person claiming under him; or
(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims, to the debt or chose in action,
he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the debt or chose in action, or pay the debt or other chose in action into court, under the provisions of the Trustees Act 1962 .
(3) For the purposes of this section any debt or other legal chose in action includes a part of any debt or other legal chose in action.

The DC has a legal right to the debt or the right to sue and can use all legal remedies to collect the debt. However:

The DC pays money to the creditor for the assignment debt or the right to sue so therefore the debt is extinguished.

Some may argue that the DC is only paying for the RIGHT to collect the debt and therefore the debt is not extinguished. this is likely what govt intended when they made this law.

I and many others take the view even if govt did not intend the debt to be extinguished, it nevertheless is extinguished because that is its effect of the payment to OC. Part of the T&C of the assignment contract requires the OC to surrender all right and title to the debt.

(c) the power to give a good discharge for the debt or chose in action, without the concurrence of the assignor.

Debtors have the RIGHT to demand proof the DC can give good discharge of the debt or the right to sue. If there is no DOA, what documentation could or should a DC be required to delver to the debtor to prove they can give the debtor good and proper discharge of the debt?

What documentation proves the DC can give good discharge?

An important point is that the DC does not have a contract with the debtor so what right do they to collect anything from the debtor?

Moreover, how does assignment of a debt override privity of contract?

Perhaps we can agree that the DC has the legal right to collect the debt but because not one single cent will ever go back to the OC, the the debtor has the right to fight the collector and

pitano1 wrote:the fundamentals.
by veronica chapman.

14) Contractual obligation. For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

   A) FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.

   B) A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.

   C) LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.

   D) 'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.

Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed. (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!). Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you. (See No. 16, below)

15. Agreement to pay. Consequent to (14) above, all 'payment demands', that could result in court actions against you, can be stopped by 'conditionally agreeing to pay the sum demanded', subject to proofs that the 4 rules were followed in the first place. (Make sure you send this letter by registered post, heading it 'Notice of Conditional Agreement' and including 'Without Prejudice' in a suitable place). In almost all cases no proofs are possible (because the rules were never followed lawfully). However, by 'agreeing to pay' you have removed all CONTROVERSY. Thus a court action, which is only there to adjudicate on CONTROVERSY, cannot take place. If you receive a Summons, you can write back (registered!) with a copy of your agreement to pay, subject to the proofs being presented. The court will consider that any further action is 'frivolous', i.e. a complete waste of its time, since there is no CONTROVERSY on which it can adjudicate. (The court may even consider whoever applied to the court to be in contempt). (See No. 16, below)

16. "I feel 'guilty', because I owe the money". No, you don't owe a damn thing! When taking out the loan, you were 'loaned' back what was yours in the first place. You created the 'money' when you signed the Loan or Credit Application. By doing so, YOU gave THEM a Negotiable Instrument called 'the money'. They cashed this in(*), and then used that to loan you back your own money. You don't owe a damn thing! THEY owe YOU - an apology at the very least - for applying this confidence trick on you - AND FOR CHASING YOU FOR SOMETHING YOU ALREADY GAVE THEM.

(* Actually they just could have walked away with your cash. But they didn't, because they are greedy, greedy, greedy, greedy. They knew they could get you to pay everything back, and also to pay them INTEREST on top of that. Thus they had already been paid in full ONCE when they cashed in on your money, took a risk by offering it back to you, and reckoned on being paid TWICE OR EVEN MORE via the 'interest'. Are you just beginning to feel slightly less sympathetic? If not, I don't know what else to say.

"Can this really be true?" Answer: Yes, because there is no other way. Banks are not allowed (by LAW) to lend Depositor's money (which is held by them 'in trust'). Loan Companies and Credit Card Companies (etc.) have no Deposit Money in the first place! Do they? So how else could they do it, then?)
stay real..[smile]

Thank you for this post pitano1.  I was wondering how to put these 4 proofs in the context of a letter?  I am dealing with Robinson Way who are rebounding my 3 letter process with stating that these internet letters "have no relevance or foundation in relation to the account or amount owed".  They also state that they are awaiting for my requested agreement from Halifax (this is a credit card alleged debt).  They also state that they "will not enter into repetitive communications with you and any further internet based templates will not be acknowledged by us unless you provide a valid query or dispute".  I sense that this may become a bit sticky and would like to add in the "Notice of Conditional Agreement" as a precaution should they file a court case.  

Thank you

Hi curvy,

You do not have to abide to their timescale .On the final DCA I dealt with I dictated the timescale after listening to Troy.I gave them 3 working days to respond ,thats all you need to give them.

They are making allegations against you and do not even have the basic paperwork to substantiate it.Remenber in their legal world 3 days is all you need to give them.

Ok, thank you. I'm just wondering on whether or not I just keep to the process and send a bill or if this Notice of Conditional Agreement as mentioned above is better? I didn't understand why Halifax sent my account on to collection because I was making agreed payments?

Kind regards

Wheres the problem with standard internet letters as these are only the same standard or pro forma documents they produce from computer generated templates, so when they make this claim it needs rebutting in writing, as failing to rebut their claim means it stands in law and this is in their favour, and this standing in law to their benefit is another trick they employ.

Think about it for a while, someone produces a pro forma template and posts it to the internet; while they produce pro forma templates to send to you, no difference. This is where the need to rebut their claims is so important as they can walk into a court (any fake court) and already they have something standing in law, while you dont. Who is the court going to favour? and particularly where it is taken to task and investigated, and they can justify it as a decision based on "probability" and produce law as evidence to favour any decision to justify their claim.

Hi curvy,

If you are doing the three letters ,it says in them that you will pay any money you may lawfully owe . When they have supplied the documentation you have requested to prove their claim.
This they cannot or will not do .
Re billing ,up to you ,i personally don't bother .

Please keep us updated,

thanks dave

ok.. I'm resending letter 3 revised to take in the suggestion to challenge the "internet letter" thing, and also they sent a letter "agreeing to my proposal of making payments" which is BS... I have never consented to making any payments to them and thought if this does go to court, the fact that I did not challenge them may make their case? I personally like to bill them because it seems to frustrate them and I like that

thank you x