Help me out with this one... I've been pursuing the Deed of Assignment / GDPR journey with this account of mine. The original creditor was Halifax (now Bank of Scotland), Moorcroft has been involved and not declaring their role. The account was 'sold' to Link Financial. Bank of Scotland have missed the 30 day deadline to reply to my SAR. Strangely when I submitted my SAR to BOS I received a letter very quickly from Link declaring the account was unenforceable. This was followed a week later with the same letter. I asked them to clarify their lawful basis for continuing to process my data and received this letter. What advice can you give me regarding the question of the debt being unenforceable but collection activities and reporting will continue. How does this site with GDPR? Any suggestions for my next step will be greatly appreciated.

I'm pursuing Shop Direct at the moment. I've received an incomplete SAR, complaint against them to ICO, who warned them. Shop Direct Have admitted they do not use a 'Deed of Assignment' when selling debts. They use a 'Debt Sale Agreement', and have also confirmed the personal data that is transferred via the debt sale agreement. I sent them a Letter Before claim based on the latest versions uploaded here by Peter. Can I just say they are extremely well written and scalpel like in their impact. I received the attached letter after the deadline I gave them. I ad already posted the Intent to Prosecute letter before I received this letter by email. They appear determined in their view that a Deed of Assignment is not necessary. They rely on 'Goodbye' and 'hello' letters (I'm guessing this means a Notice of Assignment). Sadly, within the SAR they gave me there is no 'Goodbye' or 'hello' letter, so they cannot even meet their own lower standards. I've addressed the latest letter to the CEO in the hope of getting senior eyes on the matter...so far this has remained at an operational / complaint handler level. I'd be interested in feedback about their position on this. The prospect of filing in the Business & property Court is literally around the corner and they seem oblivious to the law being referenced in the letters I'm sending. Am I missing something or are they simply refusing to engage with the prospect of being taken to court? Attached are the letters I received confirming the use of Debt Sale Agreements and not Deed of Assignments and also the Final Response. Is this typical of what others are experiencing? Cheers paul

Whilst I'm here to pursue debt collectors and get redress, I expect as most of you all are, I also have another issue I would like some guidance on. This may or may not be related and I'm open to feedback as appropriate. I acted as Executor for my late Mother-in-Law, was granted probate and proceeded to sell er leasehold retirement flat. The sale was agree quickly, the conveyancing process was a nightmare, it tool nearly 6 months to complete. I turns out the lease on the flat is 'defective' - that's the word used by my solicitor. The lease does not is missing the Third Schedule that contains the details of all teh charges the landlord - Anchor Hanover Group will charge for both maintenance, service charges and the 'sinking fund'. Neither, when this flat was purchased was there a 'deed of assignment' as part of the purchase / conveyancing process when my mother-in-law bought the property. It turns out Anchor do not have the full lease - I've requested a full copy and only ever get back what my solicitor already has. The buyer's solicitor on this occasion was wanting a full surrender and re-write of the lease for her client and I'm told I would be liable for the costs. My solicitor and the other solicitor squared this away via 'Indemnity Insurances' which my solicitor told me was common practice - this cost me £300. back to the issue of the defective lease. At the last minute at the point of completion, Anchor wades in with a demand for £13k for the sinking fund fee, which they claim is specified in the lease (schedule 3). The Third Schedule is missing and there is no evidence my mother-in-law ever signed it. Would the Law of Property Act 1925 & 1989 be applicable here? I'm guessing it would be unless anyone here can point to something else?