I could but I don't. It merely means I have the licence to do it, but as you can see I'm more interested in helping people. I keep being reminded that I've thrown away a golden opportunity to make money but I know what it's like to be in debt and be 'hounded' by unscrupulous DCAs' and lenders. So feel free to check my ISP and if you would like my CC licence number I will provide it on PM. Unlike the many lurkers watching, I've always been open about it. And the pro-rata remark was not aimed at your knowledge, it was for you to defend your position to the DCA.

:(I'm a registered DCA......I'm going to cry in a corner now.

And plead ignorance to pro-rata...Latin isn't your strong point.

The courts are only interested in if the contract can still be performed and to put you back in the position you were in before the breach. The inital contract is sound on the grounds that they secure the mortgage loan against your property and you will pay it off. It's the implied terms that are questionable as unfair and the conditions, which are additional and not vital to the performance of the contract. By taking out the loans have we received any beneficial interest? This will be taken into account. Compensation is certainly due as we have been subject to mis-selling and the companies may have breached the contract first or imposed unfair terms and conditions. The Diplock case isn't valid in our arguement. The contracts can be performed, although not as we expected.

Ouch..I moan a just a single cold sore so you really must be hurting.. Put your feet up and recoup some energy.

Sniff..atchooooo:eek: Catch it. Bin it. Kill it...Seems somewhat appropriate for CAG members:wink:.

Hi Caro, I've just pm'd babybear with an initial idea to see what she thinks. I've volunteered my OH as a 'taxi' and he has a 7 seater so that should help to save a few quid in parking.

There are plenty of places to stay just outside Brum and not far off the Metro or the railway system. I'll certainly be at the meet. How can I say no when I live so near:)? Apart from breaking my ankle last night..but they will be taking the plaster cast off and putting an air-cast on tomorrow (finger crossed). I wouldn't mind but I still hadn't stopped limping from last time it happened. I don't mind which weekend it is or where. It's the good company that counts.

Good luck in your new house babybear!

Is your mortgage in joint names? Without knowing your circumstances .. If you can afford to pay something off the arrears regulary and keep up the current payments, and be expected to settle the mortgage over it's term, then there is no reason why a suspended reposession order wouldn't be given. Someone else will be along to help soon. I'm off to hospital as I think I've broken my ankle again.

In your situation I'd be speaking to the council to get rehoused immediately until this is sorted out. If you stay there then you are making it look at though this acceptable when it's clearly not. If you do nothing you get nothing. Use any legal services you may have with your insurances', car or household. These are often overlooked but you are paying for them so use them. I'd also change your solicitor...

The other problem faced is having to be honest about the sale or any let. Who is going to want a house that has been subject to these attacks? And you can lie about it.. the insurance is going to be sky high and if you don't declare the problems you leave yourself wide open for civil action.

I'm sure we had a similar letter a couple of years ago. It read as though a judgement had been made and I'm sure it was Cohens, (but other **** are available). It was duly filed under B for Bin.

The account the money has been paid from and refunded to is my OH's sole account. I wrote it as 'mine' for simplicity and eyes in the sky. Natwest, Shoosmiths and the judge agreed to this arrangement in court so if my OH hadn't told me I wouldn't have known. This could get really complicated as if could be seen that they have taken money due to the debt but have given my OH money. If they have put money into his account they would have no right to reclaim it without going to court because it's no longer his debt and the reference number is different. They could of course ask for it or contact the bank to say it was a mistake. And I can prove that they have taken money under the reference number for the debt I owe. Hopefully you can see why I didn't post all this from the start.. it's confusing. Don't worry, the money is put aside as it's the only payment going out of the account and a transfer set up from another to cover it every month. So if they don't take it or they refund.. it sits there with interest adding.

I should explain this a bit more and my reasons.... Parties to written contracts often include non-waivers which mean that if they agree to overlook a breach of it or vary the terms they still reserve their rights to enforce the contract. Your mortgage lender may do this when they allow you to pay off arrears over an extended period of time, change the date you pay or its terms although it isn't in line with the original contract. Contract law states that you should enforce the agreement as soon as you are aware of the breach and if you vary the contract by agreement, either orally, in writing or by your action you lose your rights to enforce it. Hence the non-waivers that are put into contracts as a condition that says they still reserve the right to enforce whatever they say or do to vary it (which could be by their mistake or agreement). Non-waivers may not be as valid as the parties seem to think as a point of law. It's questionable if the innocent party doesn't act to enforce it as soon as is reasonable. I'll post a bit more about this once you've managed to get your heads around it but you'll probably see what I'm getting at.

Hi Campari2, Interest will have been added to the fees charged and once removed the whole sum has to be recalculated again.

I believe that to use 'duress' it has to be a major issue and under direct threat, usually physical violence. As you are free to seek legal help I doubt that would work. But I do know what you mean about being blackmailed into paying the arrears at the cost of all else.

Welcome back Supersleuth, All I've ever asked for is to be treated fairly and it's just not happening. It's hard to stomache when you have worked hard for what you have but when times get tough you don't fall into safety net provided to people that haven't, don't and never intended to contribute to society one bit when they are capable. There seems to be some unwritten code that says if you could ever afford home ownership in the first place you must have assets and can just pack up and go to rental or downsize if repo'd, or you can afford to defend it. We were encouraged to buy our homes and now we are being punished for it. Totally off topic but we all need to have a moan now and again to keep us sane and united.

Thanks Suetonius, It was worth a look and considering the wider implications avenue. I'd like to ask your thoughts on court orders and waivers of the terms by the claimant. Would a non-waiver clause still be effective or would they have to apply for a variation? As an example; If a claimant was granted a suspended repossession order and the defendent was required to meet the terms imposed by the judge. If the defendent or claimant vary those terms without court consent is it a breach of the order? Particularly in the case of the claimant. Would they still be able to rely on the court order and any previous or post contract non-waivers if they initiated the varied terms either written, orally or via their conduct? I think I know half the answer but would appreciate a 2nd opinion. Hopefully you'll be able to understand what I've written as it's not always easy to convey what you mean, (when it's sweltering hot despite the fan on max!)

I was ordered to pay to Natwest originally but when they started an eviction order they changed it to DD via Shoosmiths and the debt certainly isn't paid off yet. They dropped the court action for eviction on condition that the DD was set up. If it's a mistake, it seems a very strange one to make. If they had been sacked then any money taken would have surely been passed on and a letter sent out for new arrangements. I might leave it another month and see what happens then. It can only strengthen my position against them to challenge the CO especially if they are refusing payments and failing to contact me.

Strange goings on.. I pay the Charging Order by DD to Shoosmiths Solicitors. They have refunded the monthly amount due back to the account this month, under a different reference number and with 'closed' against it. They took the DD and then refunded the same amount back on a different transaction. It's not a failed DD on my part or my banks, it's a payment they have made into my account, directly. I called my bank and they can't give me any explaination why it says 'closed' against the refund. The DD is still active. Neither Shoosmiths or NatWest have written to me to say that a change in payments would happen and I haven't asked them for one. So now, I'm left wondering why and if I'm technically in default because of this refund. If NatWest have dumped Shoosmiths (or the other way around) I would still imagine they'd pass the money on and not just refund it. Why does it say 'closed'? If they want a variation in the CO they should apply to the courts and not refuse or refund the payments they asked for.

Strange goings on.. I pay the Charging Order by DD to Shoosmiths Solicitors. They have refunded the monthly amount due back to the account this month, under a different reference number and with 'closed' against it. They took the DD and then refunded the same amount back on a different transaction. It's not a failed DD on my part or my banks, it's a payment they have made into my account, directly. I called my bank and they can't give me any explaination why it says 'closed' against the refund. The DD is still active. Neither Shoosmiths or Natwest have written to me to say that a change in payments would happen and I haven't asked them for one. So now, I'm left wondering why and if I'm technically in default because of this refund. If Natwest have dumped Shoosmiths (or the other way around) I would still imagine they'd pass the money on and not just refund it. Why does it say 'closed'? If they want a variation in the CO they should apply to the courts and not refuse or refund the payments they asked for.

If she didn't defend the case and admitted the debt there is a possibility she can contest but you'll need some proof that they shouldn't have been awarded a CCJ for the debt.

Agatha c. (granny) We are working on it, all individually and together to bring them down a peg or two. Your experience has been terrible and is shocking. Criminals get treated better with at least a roof over their heads and meals provided. But make the mistake of being in debt then you are out on your own. I don't know about the sane part but if kicking your own a**e was an Olympic sport we'd win a gold for sure and knowing it's a team effort makes it that bit better. Congratulations on your good news! You bloomin' well deserve it and it's something to look forward to. I can't wait 'til it's my turn to be a Gran but I think I'll have to wait a few years.

To use ADR as a group woudn't be that unusual if we all agree to the same points of complaint being raised. It's just a thought as I haven't yet seen it mentioned and if there is a loophole we can use at the least cost to ourselves then it's worth a look at.