My rights regarding a High Court Enforcement regarding an unknown debt

DullGreyGuy

MT1966 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Hold on.  I've just noticed something.

@MT1966 -  what does this bit mean?

MT1966 said:

... "A" informed the insurers that "D" was not pursuing the claim for her son, as far as we were concerned that was the end of it...

I thought you had said that A had made a claim in respect of both herself and her nephew, and that her insurer subsequently told her that they had settled the claim on a 50/50 basis.  I  assumed that was the claim she had made both for herself and her nephew.

So why did A need to tell her insurer that D was discontinuing the claim?

I'm confused as to how this claim on behalf of your grandson came to be made and who made it.

I also can't see any identity fraud here.  (Well there might be but I don't want to say it...)

So A called her insurers, gave all the details including the fact her nephew was in the car at the time. Would A had to have told the insurers that she wanted to pursue an injury claim for both of them or would they have just done that automatically ?

So I've just spoken to daughter "A", to the best of her recollection, her insurance company informed her about 12 months after the accident it was 50/50 liability. As a result, as she was deemed to have been at fault as well, so was told she would be awarded nothing, but that my grandson, as a passenger would still potentially get something, they also informed her that if daughter "D" wanted to continue, she would have to claim against her sister's insurers but would have to do it on her own (I assume that to mean, using her own resources). It was at this point she told her sister that she wasn't going to claim against her, as she didn't want to adversely affect A's insurance premium. As far as I'm aware, nothing else came from that, neither A nor D received any confirmation that the matter was closed.

This where there is some confusion, if the claim has been resolved as 50/50, then the issue is closed, is that right ? and my grandson would have been awarded an amount which would then be held in trust until he was 18. 

Ultimately, I don't think it's about who said what & when (although it is a crucial part of all this), the crux of this issue is, why did "D" (or "A" for that matter) not receive a single letter through the post throughout this whole thing ?

The insurers most likely would have asked if any of the occupants of her vehicle were injured, assuming she said they were then the insurer would have stated she has LE cover and solicitors can be instructed under this policy if she wants. If she said yes then details would be passed to the lawyers, which law firm typically depends on your postcode (or it did in my day as law firms "bought" postcode sectors from insurers rather than paying a per case fee).

In a 50/50 situation A can still claim for their losses but will only get 50% of the award.

A would not have the authority to deinstruct lawyers for D unless they have a Power of Attorney or are a court appointed Litigation Friend etc. This is true in general but even more so when A became co-defendant in the claim. Imagine if someone was suing you and you just had the ability to phone their solicitors and tell them that they should drop the case! Nothing would ever make it to court. 

In claims there are insured losses (damage to the car) and uninsured losses (injury, excess, hire etc). Your insurer deals with pursuing your insured losses and defending against insured and uninsured losses. You, your law firm or an accident management company deals with perusing uninsured losses. 

A claim being "resolved" is often a bit of guesswork unless the case has been litigated... for non-injury claims the law of limitation is 6 years and injury is 3 years from the date of knowing which for a minor is their 18th birthday. An insurer can close their files after dealing with the other insurer and think the claim is resolved but then 2 years later receive a bill from the Highways Agency for damage to street furniture or a letter from lawyer on a minor's 20th birthday claiming they were injured. 

On a 50/50 settlement each party would have contributed 50% each of any award made to the minor which would be held in trust in most cases... if we are talking major injuries requiring care professionals or changes to the home for wheelchair access or bed hoists etc some may not be in trust to fund these things. 

A needs to go back to their insurers to find out why they havent covered the legal costs under their LE policy. 

MT1966

MattMattMattUK said:

Reading through this whole thread I think the only conclusion I can reliably draw is that there are considerable holes in the story. I would suspect that you are not being told all the relevant information, possibly a combination of selective disclosure and your daughter deliberately choosing not to understand something. The claims of identity theft seem at best a diversion, the idea that just because joint liability was agreed between the insurers (very unusual in a case of being hit from behind) and that somehow randomly generating a large legal feels bill is just not probable.

You have mentioned mental health issues and I suspect that because of those you are getting a very selective story. As suggested by others a full SAR to both insurers and the legal firms is in order but that needs to come from the relevant parties (your daughters, the parents/legal guardian of the child, not you) and then working through building a true picture of what actually happened. You can then establish where the legal fees arose from, but from what you have said I would suspect either a dropped personal injury claim or the non-parent daughter starting a legal claim in the name of a child she could not legally start one in the name of.

Not sure what you mean by 'considerable holes', all I was after was advice relating to my daughters situation, initially in relation to the DCBL, but it seems to have been directed more towards the solicitors, which is fine, as it also pertains to them as well.

Let's just put aside, just for one moment, 'the selective disclosure and deliberately choosing not to understand something', and at least assume that she has told me everything truthfully and to the best of her knowledge (which I know she has). On that understanding can we look at the facts.
As I said, let's just assume for the moment "D" has disclosed everything, and I get your point about mental health but please just go with it.
Fact, "D" did not have any knowledge of these legal fees. Think about it, she has very limited income, so why would she knowingly rack up a huge legal bill ? If was a debt for a luxury item that she defaulted on payments for
and ignored demands for payment, I could understand it.
Fact, she never received any letters from the solicitors at any of the addresses she lived at. Probability would be that she would have received at least one letter from them. Where does the burden of proof lie ? As it would appear to me to be a "He said, she said" scenario.
Put the identity theft aside for a second, that was what I was told by the Action Fraud, that it seemed to them that she had been a subject of possible identity theft. I don't know about stuff like that so just took it gospel, rightly or wrongly. So let's forget ID theft for a second.
I don't ever recall mentioning "A" was hit from behind, she was T-boned at a mini roundabout.
Daughter D is in no fit state to request anything at the moment and I'm not going to pressure her into requesting SAR's or whatever else right now. I understand that a SAR will more than likely get to the bottom of it all, which is what we all want at the end of the day. I will speak to daughter A and see if she will do one to insurers and Carpenters, that on it's own may well give us what we need to get to the bottom of this.
The reason I reported everything to the Action Fraud team was due to the email attachments I received from the solicitors of 'Original copies' of all of the documents relating to the case file. The ones they sent were full of grammatical errors etc. I found an article online on www.lawscot.org.uk, which had an article entitled 'How to spot a scam solicitor'. Paragraph 6 states:

(Copied and pasted from the website)

6. Watch out for bad grammar and poorly written communications

Letters and emails sent from fraudsters may sometimes seem unprofessional, poorly written and contain spelling and grammar errors. If you notice any of these signs in a communication which claims to be from a law firm or a solicitor, there’s a chance they’re not who they say they are.

Hence the reason I reported to Action Fraud team, they were the ones that mentioned identity theft in the first instance, not me, just to be clear. 

MT1966

Pollycat said:

user1977 said:

MT1966 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

@MT1966 -  are you 100% sure that neither of your daughters started legal proceedings by themselves against the third party involved in the accident?  That is in respect of injuries suffered by A herself and by her nephew?

MT1966 said:

...The insurers must have instructed the law firm to commence injury claims for both of them...

You see, that seems like rather a bold assumption to me.  If I were you I'd be asking telling daughter A to find out from her insurers exactly what happened.  In particular I'd want to know from them if they had instructed a firm to start legal proceedings, and if so, on behalf of whom?  Just daughter A ,or both daughter A and her nephew?  And again if they did, was the firm Carpenters?

Also - and I hate to ask this - but is it at all possible that your daughter A could have authorised Carpenters to act on her nephew's behalf without daughter D's knowledge?

I don't see how Action Fraud or anybody else could come to the conclusion that this is identity fraud.  After all, it does appear on the face of it to be something your daughter D was (or should have been?) aware of.  Assuming she'd been told about it.

(By "something" I'm referring to the claim made on behalf of your grandson)

Daughter A has contacted the insurers she was with at the time but she's getting nowhere with them and is still waiting for the requested info regarding the original instruction to the solicitors. Neither A nor D contacted any law firm at any point to instruct them to act.
Despite it all, A's insurance policy included legal cover, so at what point, and how, did D suddenly become liable for legal costs?

I'm just going by what I was told by Action Fraud. I had suspicions about the authenticity of some documents they emailed last week (allegedly they were original copies), I reported it to Action Fraud based on what I had read on the Law Society of Scotland website pertaining to 'How to spot a bogus solicitor'.

So the fraud you're talking about is that they're not a real firm of solicitors? (rather than somebody else masquerading as your daughter) Surely it's pretty easy to verify whether they're a real firm of solicitors? It doesn't sound likely that a bogus firm would be getting judgments.

This bit about identity fraud is very confusing.
If the OP means that the 'fraud' relates to the solicitors rather than someone taking over the daughter's identity, the firm of solicitors that they mention in this post seems to be a very well known company according to a later poster. Referred to as 'massive' with 1000 employees.

MT1966 said:

If you'd like to Google the law firm, they're called CAPENTERS GROUP, based on Merseyside. I would urge you to read some of the reviews left by people and let you make up your own mind.
 

Just because they are a massive firm, doesn't necessarily mean to mean to say there don't have some dodgy individuals working for them.
I would like to just clarify on your mention of identity fraud, it was actually identity theft.
I didn't say she had been the victim of identity theft, the Fraud Action team said that, I just posted what I was told by them, and I just took them at their word. I think I may have confused the issue a little by bringing this point up in the first place so allow me to clarify.
My original post pertained to the High Court enforcement team, where I asked if they could still pursue a debt even if the debtor had been the victim of identity theft. The general consensus appears to be that they can pretty much do what they want.
The subject of identity theft came about from email attachments received from the solicitors of supposed 'Original copies' of letters sent from them. They were so poorly written that I found an article online on www.lawscot.org.uk, entitled 'How to spot a scam solicitor' (I think I out bogus, but it was actually scam). Paragraph 6 states, 

6. Watch out for bad grammar and poorly written communications

Letters and emails sent from fraudsters may sometimes seem unprofessional, poorly written and contain spelling and grammar errors. If you notice any of these signs in a communication which claims to be from a law firm or a solicitor, there’s a chance they’re not who they say they are.

That was my reason for reporting it to the Fraud Action team, and it was them that said she may have been a target of identity theft, not me. I was just relaying what they told me.

powerful_Rogue

MT1966 said:

That was my reason for reporting it to the Fraud Action team, and it was them that said she may have been a target of identity theft, not me. I was just relaying what they told me.

She may have been or she was? Your first post said she was.

user1977

MT1966 said:

Pollycat said:

user1977 said:

MT1966 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

@MT1966 -  are you 100% sure that neither of your daughters started legal proceedings by themselves against the third party involved in the accident?  That is in respect of injuries suffered by A herself and by her nephew?

MT1966 said:

...The insurers must have instructed the law firm to commence injury claims for both of them...

You see, that seems like rather a bold assumption to me.  If I were you I'd be asking telling daughter A to find out from her insurers exactly what happened.  In particular I'd want to know from them if they had instructed a firm to start legal proceedings, and if so, on behalf of whom?  Just daughter A ,or both daughter A and her nephew?  And again if they did, was the firm Carpenters?

Also - and I hate to ask this - but is it at all possible that your daughter A could have authorised Carpenters to act on her nephew's behalf without daughter D's knowledge?

I don't see how Action Fraud or anybody else could come to the conclusion that this is identity fraud.  After all, it does appear on the face of it to be something your daughter D was (or should have been?) aware of.  Assuming she'd been told about it.

(By "something" I'm referring to the claim made on behalf of your grandson)

Daughter A has contacted the insurers she was with at the time but she's getting nowhere with them and is still waiting for the requested info regarding the original instruction to the solicitors. Neither A nor D contacted any law firm at any point to instruct them to act.
Despite it all, A's insurance policy included legal cover, so at what point, and how, did D suddenly become liable for legal costs?

I'm just going by what I was told by Action Fraud. I had suspicions about the authenticity of some documents they emailed last week (allegedly they were original copies), I reported it to Action Fraud based on what I had read on the Law Society of Scotland website pertaining to 'How to spot a bogus solicitor'.

So the fraud you're talking about is that they're not a real firm of solicitors? (rather than somebody else masquerading as your daughter) Surely it's pretty easy to verify whether they're a real firm of solicitors? It doesn't sound likely that a bogus firm would be getting judgments.

This bit about identity fraud is very confusing.
If the OP means that the 'fraud' relates to the solicitors rather than someone taking over the daughter's identity, the firm of solicitors that they mention in this post seems to be a very well known company according to a later poster. Referred to as 'massive' with 1000 employees.

MT1966 said:

If you'd like to Google the law firm, they're called CAPENTERS GROUP, based on Merseyside. I would urge you to read some of the reviews left by people and let you make up your own mind.
 

Just because they are a massive firm, doesn't necessarily mean to mean to say there don't have some dodgy individuals working for them.

They might have "dodgy individuals" working for them but unless someone is e.g. asking for money to be paid to their personal account (and it's pretty straightforward to check you're paying to the correct party) it's not something realistic to start being worried about. And the fact they've got a judgment (in the name of the firm) really wouldn't make sense if there was fraud going on.

It's far more likely that they're a legitimate firm, legitimately asking for payment, and whoever is sending it is a bit sloppy with their grammar.

Undervalued

MT1966 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Reading through this whole thread I think the only conclusion I can reliably draw is that there are considerable holes in the story. I would suspect that you are not being told all the relevant information, possibly a combination of selective disclosure and your daughter deliberately choosing not to understand something. The claims of identity theft seem at best a diversion, the idea that just because joint liability was agreed between the insurers (very unusual in a case of being hit from behind) and that somehow randomly generating a large legal feels bill is just not probable.

You have mentioned mental health issues and I suspect that because of those you are getting a very selective story. As suggested by others a full SAR to both insurers and the legal firms is in order but that needs to come from the relevant parties (your daughters, the parents/legal guardian of the child, not you) and then working through building a true picture of what actually happened. You can then establish where the legal fees arose from, but from what you have said I would suspect either a dropped personal injury claim or the non-parent daughter starting a legal claim in the name of a child she could not legally start one in the name of.

Not sure what you mean by 'considerable holes', all I was after was advice relating to my daughters situation, initially in relation to the DCBL, but it seems to have been directed more towards the solicitors, which is fine, as it also pertains to them as well.

Let's just put aside, just for one moment, 'the selective disclosure and deliberately choosing not to understand something', and at least assume that she has told me everything truthfully and to the best of her knowledge (which I know she has). On that understanding can we look at the facts.
As I said, let's just assume for the moment "D" has disclosed everything, and I get your point about mental health but please just go with it.
Fact, "D" did not have any knowledge of these legal fees. Think about it, she has very limited income, so why would she knowingly rack up a huge legal bill ? If was a debt for a luxury item that she defaulted on payments for
and ignored demands for payment, I could understand it.
Fact, she never received any letters from the solicitors at any of the addresses she lived at. Probability would be that she would have received at least one letter from them. Where does the burden of proof lie ? As it would appear to me to be a "He said, she said" scenario.
Put the identity theft aside for a second, that was what I was told by the Action Fraud, that it seemed to them that she had been a subject of possible identity theft. I don't know about stuff like that so just took it gospel, rightly or wrongly. So let's forget ID theft for a second.
I don't ever recall mentioning "A" was hit from behind, she was T-boned at a mini roundabout.
Daughter D is in no fit state to request anything at the moment and I'm not going to pressure her into requesting SAR's or whatever else right now. I understand that a SAR will more than likely get to the bottom of it all, which is what we all want at the end of the day. I will speak to daughter A and see if she will do one to insurers and Carpenters, that on it's own may well give us what we need to get to the bottom of this.
The reason I reported everything to the Action Fraud team was due to the email attachments I received from the solicitors of 'Original copies' of all of the documents relating to the case file. The ones they sent were full of grammatical errors etc. I found an article online on www.lawscot.org.uk, which had an article entitled 'How to spot a scam solicitor'. Paragraph 6 states:

(Copied and pasted from the website)

6. Watch out for bad grammar and poorly written communications

Letters and emails sent from fraudsters may sometimes seem unprofessional, poorly written and contain spelling and grammar errors. If you notice any of these signs in a communication which claims to be from a law firm or a solicitor, there’s a chance they’re not who they say they are.

Hence the reason I reported to Action Fraud team, they were the ones that mentioned identity theft in the first instance, not me, just to be clear. 

As I suggested earlier, if they can show some kind of audit trail that letters were sent to a particular address, at a time when she lived there, it will be a struggle to convince a court that they were not received.

You say "any of the addresses she lived at". How many? That might help but could also make the problem worse.

Given that she says she had no dealings with then why would they have multiple addresses for her on file? She presumably didn't send a firm of which she had no knowledge change of address cards. 

If they continued to write to her first address, after she left there, then it is more believable to a court that she didn't get the later ones. Where these addresses normal houses / flats with a generally reliable post delivery? Or were they multiple occupancy addresses with regular mail issues?

MT1966

powerful_Rogue said:

MT1966 said:

That was my reason for reporting it to the Fraud Action team, and it was them that said she may have been a target of identity theft, not me. I was just relaying what they told me.

She may have been or she was? Your first post said she was.

The guy on the phone said "from what you have told me, it looks like she has been the victim of identity theft", and I just took it as she had because they told me they were going to look into it.

Pollycat

MT1966 said:

Pollycat said:

user1977 said:

MT1966 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

@MT1966 -  are you 100% sure that neither of your daughters started legal proceedings by themselves against the third party involved in the accident?  That is in respect of injuries suffered by A herself and by her nephew?

MT1966 said:

...The insurers must have instructed the law firm to commence injury claims for both of them...

You see, that seems like rather a bold assumption to me.  If I were you I'd be asking telling daughter A to find out from her insurers exactly what happened.  In particular I'd want to know from them if they had instructed a firm to start legal proceedings, and if so, on behalf of whom?  Just daughter A ,or both daughter A and her nephew?  And again if they did, was the firm Carpenters?

Also - and I hate to ask this - but is it at all possible that your daughter A could have authorised Carpenters to act on her nephew's behalf without daughter D's knowledge?

I don't see how Action Fraud or anybody else could come to the conclusion that this is identity fraud.  After all, it does appear on the face of it to be something your daughter D was (or should have been?) aware of.  Assuming she'd been told about it.

(By "something" I'm referring to the claim made on behalf of your grandson)

Daughter A has contacted the insurers she was with at the time but she's getting nowhere with them and is still waiting for the requested info regarding the original instruction to the solicitors. Neither A nor D contacted any law firm at any point to instruct them to act.
Despite it all, A's insurance policy included legal cover, so at what point, and how, did D suddenly become liable for legal costs?

I'm just going by what I was told by Action Fraud. I had suspicions about the authenticity of some documents they emailed last week (allegedly they were original copies), I reported it to Action Fraud based on what I had read on the Law Society of Scotland website pertaining to 'How to spot a bogus solicitor'.

So the fraud you're talking about is that they're not a real firm of solicitors? (rather than somebody else masquerading as your daughter) Surely it's pretty easy to verify whether they're a real firm of solicitors? It doesn't sound likely that a bogus firm would be getting judgments.

This bit about identity fraud is very confusing.
If the OP means that the 'fraud' relates to the solicitors rather than someone taking over the daughter's identity, the firm of solicitors that they mention in this post seems to be a very well known company according to a later poster. Referred to as 'massive' with 1000 employees.

MT1966 said:

If you'd like to Google the law firm, they're called CAPENTERS GROUP, based on Merseyside. I would urge you to read some of the reviews left by people and let you make up your own mind.
 

Just because they are a massive firm, doesn't necessarily mean to mean to say there don't have some dodgy individuals working for them.
I would like to just clarify on your mention of identity fraud, it was actually identity theft.
I didn't say she had been the victim of identity theft, the Fraud Action team said that, I just posted what I was told by them, and I just took them at their word. I think I may have confused the issue a little by bringing this point up in the first place so allow me to clarify.
My original post pertained to the High Court enforcement team, where I asked if they could still pursue a debt even if the debtor had been the victim of identity theft. The general consensus appears to be that they can pretty much do what they want.
The subject of identity theft came about from email attachments received from the solicitors of supposed 'Original copies' of letters sent from them. They were so poorly written that I found an article online on www.lawscot.org.uk, entitled 'How to spot a scam solicitor' (I think I out bogus, but it was actually scam). Paragraph 6 states, 

6. Watch out for bad grammar and poorly written communications

Letters and emails sent from fraudsters may sometimes seem unprofessional, poorly written and contain spelling and grammar errors. If you notice any of these signs in a communication which claims to be from a law firm or a solicitor, there’s a chance they’re not who they say they are.

That was my reason for reporting it to the Fraud Action team, and it was them that said she may have been a target of identity theft, not me. I was just relaying what they told me.

Who - individual or company - took over your daughter's identity?

eskbanker

powerful_Rogue said:

MT1966 said:

That was my reason for reporting it to the Fraud Action team, and it was them that said she may have been a target of identity theft, not me. I was just relaying what they told me.

She may have been or she was? Your first post said she was.

Action Fraud don't investigate as such, so couldn't possibly confirm that there was definitely identity theft - their primary roles are raising awareness and gathering intelligence, but if there's anything that they consider worthy of action then they refer to actual police forces to pursue.  That all takes time and effort, so if letters received last week were forwarded to Action Fraud, then there can't have been anything like enough time to conduct any sort of investigation, even if there was any prospect of this being warranted....

Having said that, as OP appears to accept, it does seem that the whole identity theft aspect is a red herring!

MT1966

user1977 said:

MT1966 said:

Pollycat said:

user1977 said:

MT1966 said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

@MT1966 -  are you 100% sure that neither of your daughters started legal proceedings by themselves against the third party involved in the accident?  That is in respect of injuries suffered by A herself and by her nephew?

MT1966 said:

...The insurers must have instructed the law firm to commence injury claims for both of them...

You see, that seems like rather a bold assumption to me.  If I were you I'd be asking telling daughter A to find out from her insurers exactly what happened.  In particular I'd want to know from them if they had instructed a firm to start legal proceedings, and if so, on behalf of whom?  Just daughter A ,or both daughter A and her nephew?  And again if they did, was the firm Carpenters?

Also - and I hate to ask this - but is it at all possible that your daughter A could have authorised Carpenters to act on her nephew's behalf without daughter D's knowledge?

I don't see how Action Fraud or anybody else could come to the conclusion that this is identity fraud.  After all, it does appear on the face of it to be something your daughter D was (or should have been?) aware of.  Assuming she'd been told about it.

(By "something" I'm referring to the claim made on behalf of your grandson)

Daughter A has contacted the insurers she was with at the time but she's getting nowhere with them and is still waiting for the requested info regarding the original instruction to the solicitors. Neither A nor D contacted any law firm at any point to instruct them to act.
Despite it all, A's insurance policy included legal cover, so at what point, and how, did D suddenly become liable for legal costs?

I'm just going by what I was told by Action Fraud. I had suspicions about the authenticity of some documents they emailed last week (allegedly they were original copies), I reported it to Action Fraud based on what I had read on the Law Society of Scotland website pertaining to 'How to spot a bogus solicitor'.

So the fraud you're talking about is that they're not a real firm of solicitors? (rather than somebody else masquerading as your daughter) Surely it's pretty easy to verify whether they're a real firm of solicitors? It doesn't sound likely that a bogus firm would be getting judgments.

This bit about identity fraud is very confusing.
If the OP means that the 'fraud' relates to the solicitors rather than someone taking over the daughter's identity, the firm of solicitors that they mention in this post seems to be a very well known company according to a later poster. Referred to as 'massive' with 1000 employees.

MT1966 said:

If you'd like to Google the law firm, they're called CAPENTERS GROUP, based on Merseyside. I would urge you to read some of the reviews left by people and let you make up your own mind.
 

Just because they are a massive firm, doesn't necessarily mean to mean to say there don't have some dodgy individuals working for them.

They might have "dodgy individuals" working for them but unless someone is e.g. asking for money to be paid to their personal account (and it's pretty straightforward to check you're paying to the correct party) it's not something realistic to start being worried about. And the fact they've got a judgment (in the name of the firm) really wouldn't make sense if there was fraud going on.

It's far more likely that they're a legitimate firm, legitimately asking for payment, and whoever is sending it is a bit sloppy with their grammar.

I think your phrase "a bit sloppy" is a gross understatement. Considering these documents were sent from a 'massive firm, with over a thousand employees'. Allow me to expand on just a few of the errors in the documents and I'll let you make your own mind up. Bear in mind these were supposed be 'Original copies' of the supposedly posted documents they claim they sent.

Firstly, they were all sent on a plain document, by this I mean, they were not on Company headed paper. There were no footers at the bottom of the pages, which would usually have all their blurb about being authorised by the SRA, FCA etc. 
Second, first line of the letter stated, and I quote as written, "Please find a copy Bill.....", I assume Bill has a twin brother or a clone !! I know, just a little error, but still.
Third, the letter then says, 'Please make cheques payable to....'. Problem is, there was no contact address to which any cheque could be posted. They then gave a phone number to call to arrange payment which had a different prefix from any other contact numbers within the firm. Usually, and I stand to be corrected on this, they also provide an account name, sort code and account number if you want to do a bank transfer, they were not present on the letter.
Moving onto the 'copy Bill' that was enclosed. That was addressed to Master xxxx xxxxx' with his address underneath. Are they allowed to sent a 'Final Statute Bill' to a minor ? 
The was listed as follows:

8 letters sent @ £30 each
3 telephone calls @ £30 per call

1.1 hours for 'Attendance on documents' £330, which makes their hourly rate £300 per hour.

The final document which was the final demand for payment and went on about court action and CCJ's and the like, was addressed to my daughter and began:
Dear Miss p......,  surname began with a lower case letter.
In itself, not a huge error, but if you take into account the fact that the exact same error also appeared on the first letter using a lower case letter to start her surname, it suggests to me that both letters were drafted at the same time and the dates changed to make it look like the were written 2 months apart. Either I'm being overly paranoid or something is definitely amiss with these letters.