Does the judgment state you must pay at £100 per month? If not then yes the payment arrangement can be changed. They will be sending out the forms to review the arrangement e.g. Ensure she is paying the most she can afford to but also to ensure the amounts are affordable. They can get into trouble if they are demanding payments which puts her in a worse financial position such as being unable to pay her mortgage or other priority debts etc. As long as when filling in the forms she shows that the £100 per month is the max she can afford then they should be happy with that arrangement. If the forms show she has a higher disposable income they may request that she increases the payments.

unfortunately it doesn't sound like you would be successful in having the Judgment set aside. quite a number of payments have been made to the Judgment debt so you couldn't claim that you were unaware of it and did not have an opportunity to submit a defence. the payment arrangement could also be looked upon as an admission that the debt is owed. Even if the claim form was sent to the previous address this is within the court rules as claim forms can be sent to your last known address if you havent informed the creditor that you have moved. When an interim charging order (ICO) is granted the creditor must serve a copy on the owner (your wife) and anyone else with an interest in the property eg the occupier/tenant, mortgagee or secured loans the ICO will have a date on it for either the Final charging order hearing, or a date by which you must lodge your objections to the charging order being made final to the court. I personally have not heard of many objections being successful in stopping the charging order being made final, simply not wanting the debt to be secured on the property is not normally an objection which is given consideration as the creditor is entitled to obtain a charging order to secure the debt even if an instalment Judgement is granted or an arrangement is made. The charging order will simply be to protect their position in the event that the payments stop or your wife sells the property in which case the debt will be paid from the sales proceeds. it is unlikely that they would force a sale of the property, especially if she continues to make payments towards the balance.

have you served the ICO on the defender and all other interested parties eg the mortgage company and any one else such as joint owners, any one with restrictions or notices on the property?

The ICO does not have the same effect as a FCO. The ICO can be registered, however the charging Order must be made final by a Judge to have the desired effect. The registration of an ICO only indicates that there is a FCO as it is not a requirement to also register the FCO when it has been granted. The defender still has the oppertunity to appeal against the ICO being made final at the hearing so ultimately can be refused if their argument is accepted by the Judge. This is rare however can still happen. The Judge can also impose sanctions on the FCO such as not allowing the creditor the power to force the sale of the property unless the defender defaults in payments or such like. essentially, if the ICO has the same effect as the FCO why would anyone ever bother with having it made final? in your case ICO has been allowed to remain in place, however you are not able to proceed with it and have a hearing for it to be made final. therefore in my opinion, if the defender was to sell the house, you would be notified under the notice you have registered, but you do not have a final charging order to ensure you get paid from the sales proceeds.

there is no claim form to be served on you anymore. the claim form is served on you, by the court, when the action is raised. once Judgment is granted, which it sounds like it has in this case, there is nothing else to be served on you. if you dont make payment of the Judgment the pursuer can proceed with enforcement action. its now time to contact the pursuer with your offers of payment if you cannot afford to pay the Judgment in full.

just a quick question, particularly if you are banking on the charging order. I note from the forms you have uploaded that the judge has ordered the "interim charging order" remains in place. this is not a final charging order, you must have another hearing for the interim charging order to be made final. If left at an interim charging order and the defendant sells their property, it may not have an effect.

has the agreement been terminated or is it still an live card?

The attachment of earning process can take a while. If judgment was not set aside it is likely that it is still ongoing. I would not wait for the claimant to approach you. If attachment of earning is still ongoing they won't, and will continue with the process until attachment of earnings order is granted. Then you will not have a say in how much is deducted from your wages. Contact the claimant as soon as possible with an offer or payment and state that it is in order to stop the attachment of earnings. Even if the attachment of earnings has been suspended, they can apply to reinstate it or they may take another approach such as charging order against your property, a third party debt order where they can take money from your bank account or any third party who is holding funds on your behalf, warrant of control where county court bailiffs may appear to take goods or they can have it upgraded to the high court where high court enforcement officers will be instructed to collects goods. Offer payment so that it doesn't go further to any of these stages as that would increase the debt each time another method is applied for.

Hi, unfortunatly the rules in England and Wales are that a court action can be raised against someone at their last known address . As you moved and did not tell your creditor, they have not done anything wrong in obtaining a Judgment at your old address and i think that may be why the Judge dismissed your application to set Judgment aside. it sounds like they are now trying to do an Attachment of Earnings with your employer if you have received a notice of earnings. you should receive a full Attachment of Earnings Order if this is the case stating how much your employers have to take from your wages. However, if you havent received this yet (it can take a while as the courts can be quite slow) then you may still be able to offer a repayment arrangement. have a think about what you can realistically offer as payment and contact the creditor with your offer. If they feel like it is a better deal than what they would get by going via your employer they may accept it and cancel the Attachment of Earnings. Try and start a dialoge with them about setting up an arrangement tho, and dont ignore the Judgment. if the debt is for over £600 they can upgrade the Judgment to the High Court and send out High Court Enforcement agents, which you would not want as this will only increase the debt and they can remove goods or vehicles from your property.

It's also not a good idea to automatically advise someone to defend especially when they have stated they don't have a defence or dispute that they owe the debt. And yes it can end up costing you. The expenses once it has been defended in a small claims was £150, however the claimant can request the sheriff to up the expenses if they feel the defence had no merit or was particularly costly, resulting in expenses which could be far higher. This particular person was specifically seeking help, under a deadline on how to respond to the summons to make a payment offer, not defend

hi, when is the hearing date and when is your last date to respond by (previously known as "return date") Your options here are to fill in the form called Time to Pay application if you want to offer a payment plan eg £50 per month or whatever is affordable to you. Send this back to the court before the return date or last date to respond by. The court will then inform the company who have taken you to court and give them the option to accept or reject the offer you have made. if it is accepted the court will be asked to grant an Instalment Decree, this is a still a Decree however it has the payment arrangement written into it so the creditor can only enforce the Decree if you have missed 2 payments with the third becoming due. If they reject the offer they will have to advise the court and write to you stating why it has been rejected. It will then be up to the Sheriff on the hearing date to decide if they agree with you, that it is a fair offer and accepts it anyway and grants an Instalment Decree, or if they agree with the creditor and rejects your application and grants open Decree. If you want the court action to be dismissed and no decree granted at all then you should contact the creditor directly. They may be open to sisting the action (placing it on hold) to allow you to make payments if the full balance will be paid within a reasonable amount of time (usually a few months) or you can arrange to pay the full sum due which would result in the action being dismissed. You may now be liable to pay court expenses however as the action has been raised and served upon you.

The person who advised me just sent me this link. She said this was the law about there not being a time limit as it was for services tended or something. Not sure if it applies to your case but you can have a Look http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/52/schedule/2 Sorry wouldn't let me post a link

Was just wondering when the statue barred debt was mentioned. As I said I contested it on those grounds as well but was told as it's an ongoing account e.g. I get a bill every year there theres is no time limit and they can claim all of what I didn't pay.

Is that the same as a factor?

What kind of debt is this? I'm curious as had a similar issue with a bill I hadn't paid for 7 years. I contested it as statute barred but my solicitor (family friend) explained that because it's an ongoing bill, they bill me every year for factoring fees connected to my flat for roof repairs and cleaning the close etc. as it's an "ongoing account" there isn't a time limit. If it's a one off bill that's a dif story apparently. can't remember the law she quoted but I can find out.