The other side has provided account details to pay the Tomlin order but the number was wrong. I made sure I paid the arrears and got the court costs and something for my time. The agreement is continuing. Only problem I have now is I get no statements and have no idea how much I have paid off. Makes it very hard to manage as my payments go to my ex who pays out of her bank account (I do not have one) so I do not know if she is paying or not. Are they still legally obliged to send statements or does the Tomlin order stop this need?

I was paying instalments into the current (overdraft) account and the other side was happily taking these payments and whisking them away until Sept of this year. I was still been chased though by DCA'a over the overdraft. I think one of my letters about the current account asking "How can it be a credit account when no interest or charges are added or have been for the past 2 years?" must have spooked them though as they have now closed the current account and sent me a cheque back for £217 as "overpayment" I believe despite the refund they are still intent on claiming the £2000 alleged to be owed (fees built upon fees built upon an eroneous £90 charge that was never explained) Thing is now I am reluctant to remake payments as they insist future payments go to the credit card account and I am still pritty insistent the overdraft formed part of the oringal Tomlin order as I would have used the £2000 overdraft as a set off defence as well as claiming they deprived me of fund on this account so preventing me making contractual payments and causing the default in the first instance. Quite clearly if they unlawfully deprived me of funds in account A I could not pay account B as demanded. If I do make payments to the new account as requested the Dca's will still pursue me for the overdraft. The Tomlin Order represents my entire free money for debt management. They do not seem to acknowledge this or even care. If I do not it will go back to court and I am unsure of what will happen. Advice please ...

Hi, Just wandered what your thoughts on this are. Have been in dispute with Halifax for ages. They imposed a £90 charge in July 2007 and this spiraled into bank charges totaling £2100. They never explained this charge despite numerous letters. These charges clearly affected my ability to pay off other Halifax products forcing me into default. Went through debt management with cccs and stopped paqing around April 2010. They 'gesture of goodwill' refunded £400 in May 2012 because of my financial circumstances. They closed the account June 2012 and sent me a cheque for £217 overpayment. Now August 2012 Moorcroft debt **** are claiming the full £2100 as due. Seems very bizarre to me. Would the £217 be illegal lending if they are claiming it as part of the debt? Is the best bet with this a complaint based on the banking code 'Levying charges upon charges' Surely you can't close an account with no notice at all send a customer £217 and then set the debt collectors on them for a balance ignoring a previous refund. Thanks

the tomlin order forbids that and other eyes do peruse these forums. I am quite happy to carry on as if the overdraft is outside the Tomlin order. There is the little issue over the £90 charge which sparked the spiral of charges. There is the 2 letters I have from Halifax stating explicitly that these bank charges were a genuine estimate of bank expenses incurred to deal with unpaid items ect. Directly against what they said in the high court. There is also the fact that the £217 for the Tomlin order has been paid monthly into the overdraft account and it magically disappears a fortnight later. They seem to write some weird internal check to a diferent account. The money vanishes but no balance is reduced loan/card or overdraft and no statement issued. I thing they could get in a fair tangle in court with the above. How can the account be closed if money is still going in and out? How can it be a credit account when no interest or charges are added or have been for the past 2 years?

Thanks for the responses. original poc's: The claimants claim is for 14k presently due pursuant to a credit agreement entered into by the parties, full particulars of which have been supplied hithero. By an agreement dated 07/03 the defendant has an account number CDE with the claimant. The defendant has delayed or failed to adhere to the terms of the default notice issued by the claimant under the consumer credit act 1974. The balance due as of 0// on said account is: 14k The card number they supplied was for an old card that had migrated to a new number so the account claimed for was at best fudged. 1. The point I would pursue is that to atchieve settlement their barrister assured me this was for full and final settlement of all issues between the parties at court 2. The overdraft was entirely due to Halifax charging me a erroneous £90 charge (which they have never explained) and this compounded to a 2k overdraft which caused the defaults on the Loan and credit cards as I was deprived of funds. How can a lender act in a way on one account so as to force a default on another account? Bottom line is I am paying all I can to the Tomlin order and there is nothing left in the pot. Halifax are well aware of this having rejected my application for hardship on the overdraft. original thread: G v Bank of Scotland ***Reduced Settlement via Tomlin Order***

Halifax took me to court august 2010. I was alleged to owe around 28,000 over 3 accounts but the court case was centered on the credit card debt of 14,000. Many issues including overdraft charges been incorrectly added, incorrect default notices and irresponsible lending. In my mind and in the defence I was formulating these accounts were certainly intermingled. Anyway I tried to be reasonable and signed a Tomlin order for 13,000 payable over 60 months on the understanding it was in full and final settlement between me and Halifax. It states in the order "full and final settlement of all claims that either party shall have or may have against the other arising out of the matters in this action." The are saying now that this was just for the credit card and are activatly chasing the overdraft and loan. The Tomlin payment are been made monthly into the overdraft account. Halifax whisks these away. No balances on any of the accounts are been reduced in anyway. So where would we stand legaly. Can they take me to court for a related issue or would they have to apply for the Tomlin order to be removed first. The payments been paid for the Tomlin order represent my total disposable income. No more money is available as well they know. I know I have made mistakes in accepting and seeking credit but so has the bank. To lend someone far more than they can pay back and then throw at them charge after charge until they cannot pay for even necessaties should be criminal. And all because I co-own a property that has gone up in value. Any all advice welcome.

There seems to be very few 'won' threads posted lately and no updates on appeal for cases that have gone against caggers seemingly unfairly in the lower courts. Is there any new cases that are relavant to cca enforceability or defective default notices? Are these cases still very much down to good presentation and getting the right judge? Halifax loan are moaning about a alleged debt they issued a 7 day default notice for then terminated and I have accepted unilateral termination and offered to pay arrears genuinely due. Would just be nice to be pointed to more recent law if there is any.

Still awaiting some positive assertion as to how this disadvantaged you. Judges now are looking more at fairness in these matters and if their was no prospect of you complying with the Default Notice they wouldn't be too concerned that technicaly not enough time was allowed. A higher court judge might be more interested in the letter of the law but have you any idea how much legal fees you could be running up. Consider offering settlement at a reduced rate without admiting liability. This looks good later as well when the judge has to decide who is liable for costs.

Any update.

Can someone post a link to the Brandon case refered to in post 5046. Could do with a little night time reading. Cheers

So are we not again left with the situation where we have to provide a positive assertion as to how this was detrimental to us. i.e. I had the funds available in x account (see this statement) Had bank x allowed me more time to remedy this breach then I would have paid the balance owing and the account would have continued. By not allowing me the opportunity to remedy the breach bank x issued a invalid default notice. They later informed me this account had been Terminated and I have accepted this so although the Default Notice did not affect the account or the money due bank x in effect Terminated this account with no notice whatsoever and are not entitled to take the next step which would be enforcement.

If they haven't notified you of anything in 12 month that is another challenge as they have to supply details of the debt at least every 12 month. Sure someone will elaborate on the legislation but yes this does look like bad news for those of us who hoped to escape the chains of debt on non compliance.

Point 1 I would make is that this thread is still in the legal success forum and should be moved Point 2 would be that your only argument about the claim seems to be that this included fees and charges. Be very careful here because if you do get the decision reversed and go to full trial the legal expenses could easily outweigh the benefits you would get from reducing the amount owed due to fees and charges. I would not expect the court to wipe out your debt because it includes fees and charges only to reduce the amount owed. Yes they were wrong to send this to your old address but you do need to weigh up wether it benefits you to fight this decision.

Yes you would loose in court because the money is still due wether it is the councils fault for not collecting or not. Your argument should not have been that the money was not due but that the council was liable to pay the legal costs as it was the councils fault and not yours that payment was not made. I think the judge would have had more sympathy for a costs order against the council.

Sounds like you are arguing for arguments sake here. You admit in your first post at best this is unenforceable without a court order and have given no reason why you believe a court order would not be granted. In what way are you saying that Eggs behaviour was detrimental to you? Please don't tell me your just trying to get out of debt on a technicality! The second loan is the one with money due on so Egg would be right in saying that the original loan is irrelavant in this. If you suspected it was not legal you should not have agreed the top-up loan to pay this. This would be viewed as full and final settlement of the original loan and I can't see why you need to see this agreeement.

Following a seperate complaint to Halifax they have now sent me a "copy of the default notice" for the above card. When asked through cpr31.14 3 times and cpr31.15 twice Scm eventually stated that Halifax did not retain a copy and this was "beyond thier control. Someone must be lying. Other thing is the Halifax reduced the interest around the time of this Default which according to the terms would have meant I was only liable to pay 1% of the balance and not the 2.25% the Default Notice claimed. Their is also no mention of an ability to accumulate missed payments in the terms. All it says is that missed payments will incur interest. If I accepted the contract was indeed valid and these terms were inforce I now feel I could defend this case through reference to the terms. Incorrect figure quoted for remedy of breach = unilateral termination = just balance due at the time of the termination which would just be 1% of the last statement and this has been more than paid since. Thoughts anyone I haven't been studying these forums for a while so am unaware of any recent developments.

I am no legal expert but I have had experience of the court system. The impression I get is that the judges although expecting a properly pleaded case would also need to be guided as to how this disadvantaged you. A witness statement from yourself detailing what you believe happened along with proof that if given enough time you would have complied with the terms of the default notice and paid arrears due would help. You see at the moment all you are saying is that they got the paperwork wrong without going into any detail as to how you think this disadvantaged you. Even if the default notice was incorrect and they should not have terminated you would still be liable to the arrears due at the time of the termination. This would need a part admission with a set-off argument for damages to your reputation for unlawful repudiation. Quite tricky getting all this right and then getting lucky with a judge that will actually listen to you rather than just nod his head and agree with everything the vastly overpaid barrister on the other side says. Best advice - gather your best case (along with calculations to show how much if anything you should owe) pay for an hour or two of a solicitor experienced in civil law and see where you stand. If your case still looks good use these forums and google to prepare your case and if it comes to it hire a barrister to present your case at court. Good settlements can usually be reached in these cases and it is something to consider. Debt and money worry eats at you, keeps you up long hours and can alienate you from your family. You have to be sure this is the right path for you. You did spend the money after all is said and done so surely something should be paid!

Interesting development me thinks. The Tomlin order clearly states that the reduced amount payable in instalments is for full and final settlement of all outstanding matters between the parties and resolves all disputes. Can anyone say why I cannot read into this that the full and final offer includes the 14k loan to Halifax and the 2.5k overdraft which were also in dispute. Can anyone also say why I shouldn't pay the agreed amount into my Halifax current account. They have provided me no payment details and they are able to transfer money from this account at will. I don not expect them to be happy about this but can't see how they could argue this before the judge if they applied to lift the Tomlin order. Thanks

Unless you are very legaly savvy I would advice caution in these matters. Look at the long term best result. Try to settle for a reduced amount without admitting anything. These cases are not as straightforward as some would lead you to believe and alot of it is down to the judge to assess wether he/she is satisfied an agreement was signed. Be prepared to be asked how did this disadvantage you? Why you think you can avoid your debt on a technicallity. Please do not take advice on these forums as gospel. Always check and if possible pay for a little legal advice.

Liking the idea that you receaved the terms and conditions didn't agree to them and so sent the banks an amended set of terms and conditions (without prescribed terms of course) then the bank must of agreed as they processed the application. This would tie in nicely with ancillary negotiations that are encouraged when entering into credit. If you do have the original agreement I would also think sending a photocopy of this as you have stored it in a bunker in croatia and would struggle to retrieve it would cause problems for the defence. Lower court judges do now seem to be awarding cases on recon agreements now though so beware. Trouble is case A is awarded to them for whatever reason. The case B puts up a good defence and they discontinue. Case C comes to court and they then have case A as a persuasive argument "Look how a judge ruled in a simular case. Case D comes to court and is then faced with case A and C and it snowballs. Case D appeals, they drag the appeal process out then discontinue rather than set a precident. Can you see where this ends up? My advice in the current climate is settle on as favourable terms as possible.

Final post Got to the allocation/hearing in good time with all my documents prepared and as expected the Barrister for Bank of Scotland took me into a side room for a quick chat. They had my earlier letter with an offer of reduced payment spread over 60 months and also a Tomlin Order with the same details on waiting for signature. Yes I know if they were that keen to settle they can't of been that sure of their chances but the offer was good and this whole process was driving me mad to be honest. I'd call this one a draw all in all. Thanks everyone who has helped me through this process and good luck with your own cases. Settled for a reduced amount via a Tomlin Order Payable over 5 years intrest free with both sides to bear their own costs.

If you follow the link above the cagger got hammered at the allocation stage for not submitting a fully particulized defence faced with a simular lack of evidence.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/234277-me-cabot-6.html Every case I read seems to tell the same tale of judges ignoring all the evidence. Any advice on tomorrows allocation/directions hearing would be most welcome.

Hearing tomorrow - for allocation/directions - any advice about what to research, what to take with me and the directions to be applied for (and resisted) all most welcome.

Facing an allocation/directions hearing tomorrow with ****. Situation is very simular they migrated a halifax visa card opened in 2003 to a halifax mastercard in 2007 with no notice. I maintain the 2 cards were both in existence before this date. They have produced the agreement and the reconstituted agreement. They have admited that the agreement lies only on microfiche They have admited that they are not in control of the default notice. The two parties are close to an agreement for settlement on a reduced amount but not quite there. A request for an 'unless order' rests on my Allocation Questionairre. Any comments or suggestion of what I need prepared, what I need to research, what I need to take with me, and what directions should be now asked for welcome. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/251664-g-bank-scotland-scm-8.html