I am genuinely sorry you feel that way. I believe the purpose of this site is to try and help people by sharing knowledge based on practical and personal experience and from that to get the best results that people can get when faced with real problems. I come here with no ego to feed and neither am I seeking to score points - but I have a fair amount of hard-bought first hand experience in certain areas which I am happy to share to try and help people avoid mistakes I have made.

WD This may be semantics but it seems there is a difference between a County Court and a District Registry . When a County Court is also a District Registry - and some County Courts are then it can be dealt with by a District Judge sitting in the District Registry based at the County Court. Where there is no district registry based at a county court then it cannot be dealt with at that court . The District Registry is part of the High Court not the County Court - or so it has been explained to me by clerk to the court who also explained that you can't make these applications in all county courts because only some have a District Registry based there. What I was trying to explain was that dashing off to a county court which does not have a District Registry there means it cannot be dealt with there. Equally the District Registry issuing the writ of Fi Fa may be a long way away from the person's home. In that case it can be transferred to another Court such as the Queens Bench division in London. Another way where the court is a long way away is to talk to the issuing court's enforcement section and make the application by fax and pay the fee over the phone by card.

Some quick and urgent points: 1. As this has been transferred to the High Court there will be a writ of Fieri Facis (commonly known as Fi Fa) issued from the High Court and that is what Marstons are executing. It is to the High Court, District Registry that the writ of Fi Fa was issued from, where you must go for an Application of Stay of Execution (Fee £45) - Not the county court , although some County Courts are also a High Court District Registry. If you are not close to the District Registry you can go to the High Court, Queens Bench Division in the Strand, London and you will be able to go before a Master in Chambers with a short wait on the same day. The Writ is only for enforcement so any applications may be made through the originating Court structure - in this case the County Court. If the case had originated in the High Court then this procedure would be correct. Sorry but that is not so if the Clerks to Courts (County and High Court) are to be believed. County Court judgment enforcements such as this are transferred to the District Registry of the High Court and it is that Court which issues a writ of Fieri facias - it is Only that Court which can Stay Execution of that Writ an Inferior Court (County Court) cannot. It matters not where the action started, once a High Court Writ is issued the only place to have that set aside or stayed is in the High Court. If you try and make an Application in the County Court it will be transferred to the High Court to be heard and that will cause delays. Only if the originating County Court is also a District Registry can a District Judge hear the application - but it will be heard in the District registry and not the County Court, albeit in the same building and same courtroom. That is the information that two separate Enforcement sections - one in the High Court, Queen's Bench Division and one in Manchester District Registry have told me in relation to Writs of Fi-Fa 2. If you don't have it, call Marstons to get the Writ number and the Court it was issued from. Also say to them you are unable to pay today but are making arrangements to to deal with this within 7 days. Try not to get led into saying what you mean by deal with it - but ask them to arrange an appointment to visit in a week or ten days. The Writ No is on the Form 55 which has been left. It is not a good idea to let them know you are thinking of applying for a Stay otherwise they will be back to enforce immediately. Agree entirely - but as it may take a day or two to obtain the Stay it is better to have made contact and ensure they will not be coming for a week or so - hence saying 'do not get led into saying what you mean by deal with it.' 3. Call the Court which issued the writ of Fi-Fa and say you want to make an Application Without Notice to a Judge today or tomorrow. If they can't offer you an urgent appointment or are too far away, then consider going to the High Court in the Strand - if you do decide that your application will also need to state why you want it transferred to the Queens Bench Division - a reasonable reason is that the District Registry that issued the writ cannot deal with it in a reasonable time - if you decide to do this call the High Court and explain it to the Master's Clerk. See 1

They are not allowed to list some of the items you say he has listed - e.g. cooker, table and chairs, washing machine - domestic goods you need for living; equally they are unable to levy on items needed for work or business which can include, car, computer etc. I am sure somewhere here you will find the Guidance note which sets out what can and what can't be taken.

cher have you done an analysis of your account - payments, credits and charges to see if they are correct? If they are reversing charges it shows that they have found they have made errors - and they are very prone to that. Make sure they have recorded all of your payments against your account - I have found that they do not necessarily do that, or they get the amount or date wrong sometimes. Worth looking at earlier statements and comparing with later statements and any provided to court to look for discrepancies - you may well find some - also check against payments you have made and dates to make sure all are shown on their statements. I also have a suspicion that acenden / spml apply interest charges incorrectly from the actual rates they advise - athough that may depend on the type of mortgage. It is something I am checking out as a very recent reconstruction of an spml interest only mortgage account based on LIBOR plus produces lower interest charges than they have applied using their quoted rates. I believe the interest rate they charge is quoted as annual and fixed quarterly - they then seem to divide this quarterly fix by 3 and treat it as simple monthly (rather than annual) rate. If the annual rate is being used then the monthly rates are less than one twelth (or less than one third of a 3 month fix of rate) because they are compounded throughout the year. Over a few years that makes a big difference. Maybe someone else has already looked into this aspect ? ?

Probably should have gone to the end of the posts rather than jumping in at the end of the first page !!

You cannot put "because you were not informed of the date of the hearing" as bartok suggests because that is not correct - you never received any summons and it is only if you have responded to a summons and filed a defence that a hearing date will be set . You were totally unaware of any claim; you had moved and changed address; you had sent payment which the nursery for some reason did not cash; you had been in correspondence by email but received no replies. As regards filing your Application - if you have access to a fax you can send this to the court by fax, call them first to tell them and check their fax number and then call them once you have sent it to make sure they have received it - you can then pay the fee by debit or credit card over the phone.

Some quick and urgent points: 1. As this has been transferred to the High Court there will be a writ of Fieri Facis (commonly known as Fi Fa) issued from the High Court and that is what Marstons are executing. It is to the High Court, District Registry that the writ of Fi Fa was issued from, where you must go for an Application of Stay of Execution (Fee £45) - Not the County Court , although some County Courts are also a High Court District Registry. If you are not close to the District Registry you can go to the High Court, Queens Bench Division in the Strand, London and you will be able to go before a Master in Chambers with a short wait on the same day. 2. If you don't have it, call Marstons to get the Writ number and the Court it was issued from. Also say to them you are unable to pay today but are making arrangements to to deal with this within 7 days. Try not to get led into saying what you mean by deal with it - but ask them to arrange an appointment to visit in a week or ten days. 3. Call the Court which issued the writ of Fi-Fa and say you want to make an Application Without Notice to a Judge today or tomorrow. If they can't offer you an urgent appointment or are too far away, then consider going to the High Court in the Strand - if you do decide that your application will also need to state why you want it transferred to the Queens Bench Division - a reasonable reason is that the District Registry that issued the writ cannot deal with it in a reasonable time - if you decide to do this call the High Court and explain it to the Master's Clerk. 4. Prepare your Application with reasons why you want the stay of execution - you are making an Application to the County Court for an Order that this is paid off over a period of time then set this out and also attach a copy of that Application to your High Court Application. (The County Court Application is £80 but you can apply for a waiver of fees on the basis of hardship - do a google search). If there are valid reasons relating to a local authority and housing benefot then explain these and attach any evidence you have to show this. If you have any queries please ask and I will try to help. I am not a lawyer - but I have helped get 3 stays of execution in the High Court and beginning to know how it works and some of the pitfalls. You will find that a Master in Chambers is sympathetic - but you must be honest and give them the evidence they need to help you.

Have had 3 examples of DVLA losing paperwork over the years including one instance where two applications for VED refunds were sent in the same envelope, one was processed the other not and DVLA claimed it must have been 'lost in the post' and that was my responsibility. DVLA seem to have a culture of refusing to accept that they make mistakes and prefer to try and place the onus on the individual. If a letter posted to me by DVLA is not received then that according to them is the fault of Royal Mail and it does not remove any liability from me - But if a letter I send is 'not received' by them then in their corporate culture that is my responsibility........ They need to be sorted out.

Quick point on Tax. 1. Compensation is Not Taxable. The £20 for delay is Compensation. 2. Statutory interest at 8% is Income on your money and thus if you pay tax this could be liable to tax and technically you should declare it to the Inland Revenue. But that does not give the company the right to deduct tax from it at source. I don't quite understand what you mean by 'claims paid'. Was this a partial refund of PPI and interest or was it payment made under the policy?

FYI - This is not widely enough known about and is well worth reading and understanding because of it's apparent simplicity and effectiveness. This will not allow me to post links so you will have to add the appropriate to links below Copy of legislation quoted below is here legislation.gov/ukpga/2006/14/contents OFT online examples of the use of section 140A and 140B - oft.gov.uk/about-the-oft/legal-powers/legal/cca/CCA2006/unfair/unfair-rel-full From 2006 Consumer credit Act Section 19 Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors This section has no associated Explanatory Notes After section 140 of the 1974 Act insert— “Unfair relationships" 140AUnfair relationships between creditors and debtors (1)The court may make an order under section 140B in connection with a credit agreement if it determines that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor arising out of the agreement (or the agreement taken with any related agreement) is unfair to the debtor because of one or more of the following— (a)any of the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement; (b)the way in which the creditor has exercised or enforced any of his rights under the agreement or any related agreement; ©any other thing done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, the creditor (either before or after the making of the agreement or any related agreement). (2)In deciding whether to make a determination under this section the court shall have regard to all matters it thinks relevant (including matters relating to the creditor and matters relating to the debtor). (3)For the purposes of this section the court shall (except to the extent that it is not appropriate to do so) treat anything done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, an associate or a former associate of the creditor as if done (or not done) by, or on behalf of, or in relation to, the creditor. (4)A determination may be made under this section in relation to a relationship notwithstanding that the relationship may have ended. (5)An order under section 140B shall not be made in connection with a credit agreement which is an exempt agreement by virtue of section 16(6C).” 20 Powers of court in relation to unfair relationships This section has no associated Explanatory Notes After section 140A of the 1974 Act (inserted by section 19 of this Act) insert— “140BPowers of court in relation to unfair relationships (1)An order under this section in connection with a credit agreement may do one or more of the following— (a)require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to repay (in whole or in part) any sum paid by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement (whether paid to the creditor, the associate or the former associate or to any other person); (b)require the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, to do or not to do (or to cease doing) anything specified in the order in connection with the agreement or any related agreement; ©reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or by a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement; (d)direct the return to a surety of any property provided by him for the purposes of a security; (e)otherwise set aside (in whole or in part) any duty imposed on the debtor or on a surety by virtue of the agreement or any related agreement; (f)alter the terms of the agreement or of any related agreement; (g)direct accounts to be taken, or (in Scotland) an accounting to be made, between any persons. (2)An order under this section may be made in connection with a credit agreement only— (a)on an application made by the debtor or by a surety; (b)at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any proceedings in any court to which the debtor and the creditor are parties, being proceedings to enforce the agreement or any related agreement; or ©at the instance of the debtor or a surety in any other proceedings in any court where the amount paid or payable under the agreement or any related agreement is relevant. (3)An order under this section may be made notwithstanding that its effect is to place on the creditor, or any associate or former associate of his, a burden in respect of an advantage enjoyed by another person. (4)An application under subsection (2)(a) may only be made— (a)in England and Wales, to the county court; (b)in Scotland, to the sheriff court; ©in Northern Ireland, to the High Court (subject to subsection (6)). (5)In Scotland such an application may be made in the sheriff court for the district in which the debtor or surety resides or carries on business. (6)In Northern Ireland such an application may be made to the county court if the credit agreement is an agreement under which the creditor provides the debtor with— (a)fixed-sum credit not exceeding £15,000; or (b)running-account credit on which the credit limit does not exceed £15,000. (7)Without prejudice to any provision which may be made by rules of court made in relation to county courts in Northern Ireland, such rules may provide that an application made by virtue of subsection (6) may be made in the county court for the division in which the debtor or surety resides or carries on business. (8)A party to any proceedings mentioned in subsection (2) shall be entitled, in accordance with rules of court, to have any person who might be the subject of an order under this section made a party to the proceedings. (9)If, in any such proceedings, the debtor or a surety alleges that the relationship between the creditor and the debtor is unfair to the debtor, it is for the creditor to prove to the contrary.” Prospective 21 Interpretation of ss. 140A and 140B of the 1974 Act This section has no associated Explanatory Notes After section 140B of the 1974 Act (inserted by section 20 of this Act) insert— “140CInterpretation of ss. 140A and 140B (1)In this section and in sections 140A and 140B ‘credit agreement’ means any agreement between an individual (the ‘debtor’) and any other person (the ‘creditor’) by which the creditor provides the debtor with credit of any amount. (2)References in this section and in sections 140A and 140B to the creditor or to the debtor under a credit agreement include— (a)references to the person to whom his rights and duties under the agreement have passed by assignment or operation of law; (b)where two or more persons are the creditor or the debtor, references to any one or more of those persons. (3)The definition of ‘court’ in section 189(1) does not apply for the purposes of sections 140A and 140B. (4)References in sections 140A and 140B to an agreement related to a credit agreement (the ‘main agreement’) are references to— (a)a credit agreement consolidated by the main agreement; (b)a linked transaction in relation to the main agreement or to a credit agreement within paragraph (a); ©a security provided in relation to the main agreement, to a credit agreement within paragraph (a) or to a linked transaction within paragraph (b). (5)In the case of a credit agreement which is not a regulated consumer credit agreement, for the purposes of subsection (4) a transaction shall be treated as being a linked transaction in relation to that agreement if it would have been such a transaction had that agreement been a regulated consumer credit agreement. (6)For the purposes of this section and section 140B the definitions of ‘security’ and ‘surety’ in section 189(1) apply (with any appropriate changes) in relation to— (a)a credit agreement which is not a consumer credit agreement as if it were a consumer credit agreement; and (b)a transaction which is a linked transaction by virtue of subsection (5). (7)For the purposes of this section a credit agreement (the ‘earlier agreement’) is consolidated by another credit agreement (the ‘later agreement’) if— (a)the later agreement is entered into by the debtor (in whole or in part) for purposes connected with debts owed by virtue of the earlier agreement; and (b)at any time prior to the later agreement being entered into the parties to the earlier agreement included— (i)the debtor under the later agreement; and (ii)the creditor under the later agreement or an associate or a former associate of his. (8)Further, if the later agreement is itself consolidated by another credit agreement (whether by virtue of this subsection or subsection (7)), then the earlier agreement is consolidated by that other agreement as well. OFT case history of Unfair Relationships under section 140 (a) and (b) is at the beginning.

It depends on whether the PPI was mis-sold or not. If it was you have grounds for refund if not then you don't. Mis-selling can cover factual things such as you were wrongly advised, not advised and for the first they have to have gone through a question and answer process to ensure it was suitable for you and you fully understood and agreed to it. If it was a matter that they simply insisted you took it and had no choice then that was wrong and can comprise mis-selling. Section 140A Orders have been based on that last point. There are examples on the FOS and FSA sites. have a look

Interesting. I'm not sure that the statute on limitations need apply - if it did you need to apply for leave to commence action 'out of time'. It seems to me , and I am not a lawyer, that Sections 140A and 140B of the CCA are a better route to go. Claims for incorrectly applied PPI were made retrospective and Sections 140A and 140B are not a claim in the sense of issuing proceedings through the court. They are a ground for making an Application for an Order whether or not proceedings are in existence - in other words it is not starting a court action. 140A enables you to make an Application to the County Court (cost £75) for a Judge to rule on whether or not the creditor (credit card company) acted Fairly - that may be through mis-selling of PPI or in acting unfairly in not considering your complaint that PPI was inappropriate to you. The section makes it very clear in the explanatory notes that the onus is on the Creditor to prove they acted fairly. If the Judge decides they did not then under 140A they must Order that this was unfair. That opens the door for a 140B ruling where the Judge listens to your arguments / evidence on what restitution (and compensation) should be and to make that ruling. In my case Santander simply did not want to have claims for PPI refund going back to January 1999 heard by a Judge and settled . My arguments on level of refund are what has made the FSA and FOS go through their approach to settlement as it has now been realised that their approach was wrong and resulted in people being short-changed by, potentially, very considerable amounts. It is also open to you to include the DCA in your application and for them to be bound and jointly liable for whatever the Judge rules. I would certainly write to them and tell them both you have a section 140A and 140B Application being prepared and see what their reaction is.

Can you say how the refund of £7k was calculated ? How much was original loan - how much was the PPI cost - when was it and what happened?

Kate the rate should be the rate charged by the card company and that is likely to have varied over time. Check it from old statements if you have them. If the rate varied then you will need to do separate calculations for each period. e.g. the spread sheet you uploaded shows a rate of 24.9% But if part of the period between April 2000 and Mar 2004 was at a higher or lower rate then that period needs to be calculated at the rate applied. Did you clear the card in 2004? or what happened after PPI stopped in 2004. Was the card used, or was it left dormant and payments made over and above? The answers to that may have an effect on what you claim for.