Hello I have seen loads on ppi but cannot find an answer to my dilemma . I have been lucky enough to be offered a compensation for a 7 year endowment mortgage which was mis sold alongside an misold assurance policy. They have made an offer of £5k and have mentioned some vague workings out against their comparisons for what they say I would have paid in a repayment mortage and insurance policy that would put me in the same situation. They suggested the fos would help me to see if there offer was reasonable or not but the fos service says they cannot do this unless they look at all the facts. The rbs offer says deal off if I go forward with the fos in terms of a claim. The trouble is their letter and workings out is very vague and does not say what comparative source they were comparing with my policy so I have no way of knowing whether this is a fair reflection of compensation or not. I don't know if its common place for them all to worked out a certain way from a source so that I can check what is being offered is fair or otherwise. I am new to this issue so would it be wrong of me to ask them for how they arrived at their figures of suggested compensation or should I just trust it will be right and go ahead. I have already discovered they did not include my costs for a new mortage I was forced to take out upon realising it was badly performing . Any sources of help to check out or advice if its fair to ask for how they worked it out would be great as I'm lost. Thanks again

thanks so much I will follow this advice as far as the fact that it was an associated product and has been admitted was misold as it was the opposite of what I wanted and asked for a standard repayment mortgage. I have found the posts really helpful so thanks I need to ask what IMHO means as its not clear to me. their offer states if I refuse and go further with FOS then they will pull it . they offer me to phone them but I feel out of my depth their offer does not seem to include either the subseuqent costs of a new mortgage which I took on when I got a letter telling me the score 7 years later. I had to pay for a valuation and arrangment fees which I would not have needed if I had got what I went into the bank for the in first place a bog standard repayment mortgage. thanks too for the offer of the IMS calculation as i have no idea if what they offer is reasonable. I used to believe banks and so when I complained and got a letter saying I was out of time I believed it till seeing Martin on the money programme who explained that the six/seven year rule applies from when you reasonably could complain if I had not seen this programme I would have believed the bank who wrote the date I should have complained by as a deadline many years ago. I now understand that this does not negate any issue of mis selling appropriate products so whtinn the last week before the 6 months for the FSO I challenged their interpreation of the rule with the compensation offer as a result. I really am very pleased no relieved but at the same time astounded that they can uphold and overturn their own rules. Their letter re Obusdan seems to say it will take 6 months and I may get more but perhaphs less and if I go there they will withdraw their offer. In a civiliassed world this is like blackmail not banking at least to me. I know some of you are saying wake up and smell the coffee but Id like to think I can find a way we are all happy with. I agree with the post before that any assurance formed the deal therefore it is an area to persue their offer states that if I accept I have to drop all actions against them relating to this therefore I assume this means assurance too. thanks again.

Hello their letter seems to calculate the compensation on the basis that difference of if I;d bought at the time a repayment mortgage they say I converted to a capital and and interest but as I recall I just took out a new one incurrying fees for this which do not seem to be part of their calcualtion My belief is that its its about what my position should be if this had not been misold is I would have kept the capital and interest mortage I wanted from the start so would not have paid assurance, nor fees for a new mortgage. The compensation seems to compare the difference in monthly payments I would have paid in the period right enough, compared to paid plus 8 interest to date. They have also considered it from an outlay for two types of mortage including relevant life cover. This confuses me with the post above as assurance seems part of the mortgage. Is there anywhere I can check what has been offered is fair without incurrying costs. thanks to all for their great advice above much appreciated.

their letter of offer overturning their earlier one telling me I was out of time says compensation for mis sold endowment. they say they accept disabity cover from Royal scottish assurance was important to me but that I later accepted exclusion.

Thanks for the posts and great advice I will write as advised and instruct them to pay me the mis sold endowment mortgage of £5k . With regard to the assurance sold alongside of it the situation was I was single divorced with children working full time and was told this was part of my mortgage no alternative as it formed the offer and it was my first mortgage and I am female. I explained and it was noted in their notes that disability cover was my number one concern since I had been in a car accident some years before but was fine otherwise. The interviewer did not tell me I could seek out other policies and assured me I would be covered for disability as this of course was my worry in terms of mortage repayments in case I had any subsequent accident . He did not ask about my pre existing condition nor contact the assurance provider. He basically said sign or no first home or mortgage. More than a year later I recieved a letter saying the disability element was not now going to be included. I wrote to the bank asking why as it said due to my health . I wrote to ask what this meant months later it transpired that it was a reference to my old car accident whiplash . I told the bank verbally that I was not happy as this was important to me and now rendered my cover useless and meant I had paid for nothing as I think a premium for disability cover was added at the time. We went back and forth and finally under dueress I signed a form accepting that I would accept the cover as I was given a strict deadline and told that no singing meant no mortage as it would be revolved. Since I was single and working full time it took me some time before I found out that I could in fact shop around I then cancelled this assurance but continued with the endowment mortgage for a few years later before finding out that it was a bad product and would require a lot more investment at which point I changed to a repayment mortgage . They say since I signed I accepted an unsuitable product which is true but only because at this point I had no idea that I could find another provider and as it turned out it was not a condition of the mis sold mortage. I feel it demonstrates further that they mis sold me unsuitable products, they should have made clear I had an alternative, checked at least when I purchased it would cover me. Iron ally I found out I had a brain tumour estimated to have been there when my policy was in force but not found at the time. In the event it had been I would have been without cover or means to keep a roof over my head if alive as it was before surgery .i also felt a year to tell me I was not covered was not timely and it was not fair to tell me to sign or be without a home or mortgage cover again I was not offered an alternative and was amazed when I finally found out this assurance was not in fact part of my mortgage but was optional in terms of their provision. I realise I may think I'm right but be wrong so would welcome advice even it turns out I'm wrong. I now know when I finally had to sign the paper over a year later I should have forced their hand or found a new mortgage provider altogether but I banked with rbs and trusted their advice was inexperienced at mortgages full stop and just trying to keep food on the table and a roof over my children's head as I had no other financial support. Should I just accept the mortgage element compensation as £5 k is a lot for me and I am worried that they will withdraw this if I don't agree to passing on the assurance front?

Sorry I should have mentioned it was an endowment mortgage that was misold replaced by a repayment mortgage until my illness when I arranged to pay interest only and have done for the last few years because of severe illness.

Help urgently wanted finally got a letter from rbs admitting fault for miss-selling a mortgage 12 years ago but they will not pay for the assurance policy that went with it as they understand that it was unsuitable for my stated needs but that I agreed so that's that. They are offering compensation for the mortgage which I paid for 7 years before discovering it was massively under performing and would not repay the loan. The big problem is that I am in financial hardship because of severe disability and illness. I am currently paying interest only on my mortgage. They have suggested that they will take the compensation from my existing mortgage which I took out 5 years ago. I am not in arrears and have never missed a payment but bank with them again not owing them any money. I need to know any grounds for asking for the money to be paid to me rather than taken off my current interest only mortgage. I realise of course it would be great to owe less for the future but the facts are that I feel this was money I lost at the time as I had to start from an endowment to a completely new mortgage. My future may mean moving house at which point it will be to down size and I am still in positive equity if sold it would be repaid fully with sums towards my new home. I would be very grateful if anyone could advise of whether the bank can treat my interest only mortgage as a debt in this instance. I realise it is in a true sense but in the current situation do I have grounds for asking for this sum to be paid when I need it most. Ironically I was a high tax payer so did not miss this at the time but it seems very bad that I need it to just survive and now find it could be paid in effect for future mortgage payments . I don't know how to overcome this repayment to future mortgage payments on my interest only mortgage on what grounds or challenge them over the assurance policy that went with it which they admit was in fact wrong for my stated and documented needs but say I agreed even upon realising this but it was more than a year into the policy when I found out about exclusions that did not meet my needs and by this time I had already taken out the mortgage and was not offered an alternative. I am pretty desperate as I cannot find any posts or information as to if repayment mortgages are seen as debts to RBS and since I am not behind or in default and have never been can I ask for this to be paid despite having a mortage with them in force. Thanks

thanks for the post,the problem here is that debtors even the ones doing everything 100% right as per terms of consumer credit act etc are treated as the same as others who act irresponsibly. There are several factors here, firstly MBNA and their lawyers accept the payments terms so the order will not pay the debt quicker it can only be used to presure me into paying more than I can afford. I have been told that I should never have already used the money given to me for my care to use to a debtor. MY other three crditors know about both the court order and the application for a charging order all like MBNA accpeted a pro rata payment and are happy to continue to do so. Bankruptacy would be disproportionate and achieve nothing as their is virtually no and perhaphs negative equity. Baliifs cannot be brought into play unless I default which I have not done. An attachment of earnings is not an option either as I recieve a small regular fee from a company and the rest is disablity benefits etc. My understanding is it costs to make someone bankrupt and would achieve nothing as houses are sold for even less than the open market leavving MBNA with nothing at all. I would be debt free from all creditors, some people believe I should do this but I am doing what my consumer conract says by taking advice from the CCCS and following what the law says is fair. For 10 years MBNA benefited from charging fees on an unseucred basis that was by the way the highest of all credit cards, they did not return any of the illegal fees charged before 2006 as per the law. The Consumer Credit act states that they will act reasonable and sympathetically I believe having been granted an order ( which I fully complied with and agreed with as their right) is not sympathetic when they go one further and try to retrospecitvley have their cake and eat it. They now want the same rights as if I had a secured debt without me having any benefit. My tumour could have happned to anyone so clearly I did not contribute to my situation. If granted I would live under fear or pressure to pay more. This cannot be just and even as you suggest. In a recent High Court Case MBNA were singled out for their conduct of failing to provide terms when giving a contract and disproporationate ( sorry about the spelling) actions of hounding someone who won his case. The judge said that it was not reasonable for MBNA to pressure someone and make their life a missery as a part of dealing with fair debt recovery in todays society. I agree with this judgement. MBNA have already written to me in response to a detailed complaint now with the obudsman that listed 15 seperate breaches of their agreement with me under the consumer credit act, their contract with me not given at the time. They made no appology or offer to refund the unfair charges pre 2006 judgment and suggest that if granted they might or might not want to order a sale when ( not if) they win a charging order. To the man in the street this is threatening and to someone who is living with an illenss and keeping their part of the bargain I do not believe that this is all enivitable and that its just the way it goes. Naturally I still have faith in justice and am hoping that some of the arguments presented will stand me in good stead. Don't get me wrong you have certainly made me worry but I will be very grateful for any help from anyone even if I do not totally concur with their perspective. thanks again

Thank you this is really helpful as surely regardless of the method of deciding it must follow that if the spirit is an enforcement issue. I would be really dumstuck if a DJ were to oppose the Minster of Justice who's current consultation paper on the proposed reforms to TCE Act in March this year spefically states "it is currently unlawful fora charging order to be granted when there is no default. I have had their department write to me to confirm this is true and still the case which was confirmed. Whilst not a legal paper would hope that since this department is the author of the rules they are not incorrect. Surely given the case law this is what is meant to happen and DJ surely whilst excersising some freedom on how decisions are best made, must still be respectful of case law and fairness in these matters. I will let you know how it goes but plan to sit down and try to construct a decent argument from the helpful posts here which has been a life saver, I am really grateful and will help others on the site and contribute when I can , thanks

Hi there looked this up I think the two issues that do not fit here are "Except where a rule or some other enactment provides which prefixes 3. as I believe the law is clear on this, and the fact that regarding (M) "related to any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective. The Overiding objective must surely be to act within the rules of the Minstry of Justice, which states that it cannot be granted unless in default. I simply find it hard to believe that Judges can ignore case law and the Minster of Justice if this is so I will certainly still challenge it. I understand you believe I cannot win this but I must because it is simply unjust for an order to be granted for installments and someone keeping their contract to be penalised when no breach has occured no forthwith judgement made to be treated as though it had or like someone who is irresponsble ? I simply do not get it Andy above seems to think that I can apply for set aside on the baiss that an invalid order was made as effectively I had no right of apeal. I think a layman would argue even more as to how on earth is someone able to understand what "permission" means in relation to the status of orders and what rights of appeal exist. I do not mind having powers but surely their purpose is to be fair and transparent. It is clear that a interim order was not properly conducted. Restons say that they could not alter the form for their purposes as it was protected by copywrite however they did strik through lines in other sections but not the two boxes. It follows that the intention was to mislead and that cannot be justified or legal permission or not ?

I understand that judges can do as they wish but believed and hope that this is within some scope prescribed. No one I know thinks this is common and is what is causing the problem as there is divided opionions are you saying that in effect a variation has been granted? where in the CPR rules does it allow judges to allow charging order applications to run alongside installments orders made by another judge ? The CCj is for about 11k but is obviously reducing I am not sure why the amount would affect a decision ? the equity is not speficied but I would think it negilble as house prices here have dropped and the last sold for so little and below what I owe. To be clear it does not say that a judgment order is granted in installments "apart from" anything. My understanding too is that even if it is granted it does not mean it should be made final when no default exists, its hard to follow. I cannot re concile why Debthelpline and other legal CABs are saying one thing and you are suggesting another. If you can be clearer as to what this opt out exclusion other than discretion is it would help then I can go back to Debtline etc and tell them why they are wrong.

thanks so that I can understand, where in the court proceedures does it allow for both to run concurrently both as an installement and concurrently my understanding is that hybrid decisions are to be treated as redermination hearings if so I would have a right of appeal I simply cannot see how I have no rights to challenge either the granting of permission, or the interim based on incorrect information. Or why because as you claim they are both in force that means I have no rights. I realise judges have discretion but cannot understand why the Minster of justic in the UK states that no order can be made and you suggest otherwise as his public document surely cannot be wrong. I am also thinking that the reason it does not apply to Merchatile case is that it is because it is not legal. Does the Ropeilagh case above ie after a variation again this states which must come first does this not suggest again that it is illegal again as I cannot see another case law that allows them to run concurrently. Can you point me to where you believe it allows this in the rules as I am geniunly lost.

Many thanks to both posts above this is helpful but confusing. Just in case I have not presented the information properly the redermination as such was withdrawn during the hearing. The order stated "no changes to the order in force, save permssion to apply for a charging order". therefore has a redertimation really taken place as above ? If you are suggesting it has then, what does this mean as their is neither changes to make it a fortwith judgement or altering the installments ? In what way has this cancelled the installment order ? Where I can read about this rule or proceedure as to what is and is not allowed as a lay person as this is virutally impossible to follow and should be accessible if citizens are to be bound by these rules surely they should be written somewhere if so where can i locate this ? The Minister for Justice Deparment the TCE sent me an email confirming that it is currently unlawful for a charging order to be granted either in county Court or High Court without default. They also said that the consultation results are to be published in Oct this year and depending on these may come into force next year. Both posts above seem to suggest that I have missed something as you both seem to agree I will loose my fight. I am depending on the following but would be very grateful if you could let me know what here constitutes an order. its not correct as I am finding it hard to see consistent guidance and have been told my Debt help lines and local legal advice reps that I can object simply on the following grounds The notes to the Green Book used in county court proceedings CPR3.3 [1] on page 1950, anticipate the insertion of s1(7) into the Charging Orders Act 1979, by s93 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (TCEA), where the fact that the debt is payable by instalments and there has been no default in payment does not prevent the court from making a charging order. This is incorrect because s93 has not been brought into force. On page1943, beneath s1 of the 1979 Act it is noted that “Sub-sections (6) to (8) are inserted by the [TCEA] with effect from a date to be appointed.” The correct position is that where the county court has made an order for payment of any sum of money by instalments, execution on the order shall not be issued until after default in payment of some instalment according to the order: s86(1) County Courts Act 1984. For this purpose, ‘execution’ includes a charging order. On the other hand, a charging order can be made despite the making of an instalment order only where the instalment order was made after the date of the interim order (for example, on a variation application). The authority for this is Ropaigealach v Allied Irish Bank [2001] EWCA Civ 1790. Instalment orders are made under s71(1) of the County Courts Act 1984 and there is no power to attach conditions regarding enforcement to such an order, therefore the country court has no o jurisdiction to make such an order. I am sorry if I am not really following this as I have been told that I am protected by Merchatile V Ellis case law. Could you explain in laymans terms what order you believe exists because my papers from court in order are the CCJ and order saying no changes to the order followed by interim judgement. any clarity really helpful as i am devasted by reading the posts.

Sorry should have pointed out that the permission given was at a redertimation hearing at my request. I was granted disablity benefit after applying for a redertermination therefore since my income improved ( all be it for my illness) I withdrew the request at the redermination hearing. Restons stated that they wanted to be compensated for the waste of time and asked the judge for permission to apply for a charging order which apparently saved them some kind of court fee. The exact words of the judgement read "that there be no change to the order except permission to apply for a charging order. MY undestanding is the judge should not have granted this and that permission does not mean a right. Since the installements remained as per the orginal order and have never been detaulted upon I am hoping that I can rely upon the incorrect granting of an interim order.

No the judgment was granted without a hearing because I admited liablity for the debt in full.

Can anyone help clarrify if Hybrid orders are legal as I do not have access to civil proceedures ? Restons claim that as a judge gave permission to apply for a charging order and this constitutes a hybrid order. I have searched the net and can find virtually nothing about what a hybrid order means in county court proceedings. Restons claim they have completed these forms when someone is not in default on numerous occasions where a hybrid order has been granted previously to this without being challenged by anyone. I find this hard to believe or understand the legal basis on which they can do this. My understanding is that if this related to Section section 93 of the Tribunals and Enforcment act currently in consultation from the Minster of Justc dept that this if approved will not come into force until at least 2012/2013 and will require secondary legislation ? Can anyone help me to find out if I can request the case struck out before the charging order hearing in two weeks time becuase the interim order should not have been granted or am I timed out ? If I present this argument in court in writing at least a week before the hearing to the court and the other side how do I prove that the TCE Act is not in force. Can I simply supply the consultation document which sates that "charging order may not be made in relation to a debt which a debtor is paying off in installments in accordance with an installment agreed by the court.In another section of the official consultation paper from march this year it also states that applications cannot even be made for a charging order in these circumstances. This is tricky as I do now want to get on the wrong side of the judge who gave permission or the one who allowed the interim bases on incorrect information. can anyone please shed some light on my options for dealing with this most effectively ?

thanks please let me know as I have reasched the internet and not managed to find anything about hybrid orders so as a female cannot work out if they are any bais of an excuse. I have done my best to find out what the law says but its hard becuase rough reps can claim some exemtiions to the women in the street that appears unreasonable. Even worse is the point they added that they Restons have been doint this for a while ( incoorectly and knowingly giving false info) but have not been challenged. I keep calling heplines etc they keep telling me what should happen. The judge has allocated 1 hour for the hearing and even though I have direct evidience from the minister that the acti is still in consultation not action I am to figtht against the opposition. I have been told that I cannot remind the district judges of their responsibilites to case law and run the risk of it going against me even if the law says otherwise. MY main objectios is that for ten years I paid fuu wack for not knownigly putting my faimily at risk of deafult and only a head tumour caused an issue in a well paid job. Not irreesponsible did evrryiting as prescribed with the relevant bodies, now they are trying to gain real advantage from my disadvantage which could have happened to anyone and is indiscriminate. The district judges do not seem to do their role well ie read the even basic notes and seem automatially to view the debts reps as being able to treat everyone the same. I have responded to the cccs acts and guidance in all respects. I do feel that the public should be warned that the safeguard of how these people will act in times of dault do not even come close to what they prpose to do in a default situatuon. IN effect it appears that unsecured debt means they get these terms but can then take advantage of brain tumours or peoples misfortunes. T ebe clear I had not deafulted on a single payment or agreed interim payment actions only arose when I asked for a copy of the original agreement in 2000. this prompted sending my file to Restons who have claime this hyrbid exlusion and that this has been under the radar withoutb challlenge for many moths now. If anyome has had restons pull this on them, then I am happy to send them what the Minister for Justice has sent me and wlll hopefully make the basis of any charging orders granted out of incorrect form filling illegal. Having had a life or death experience and despite the weeker sex syndorme I feeel I cannot oblige restons by allowing them to go unchallenged with any remainging intelligence I may have from the legal loopholes that clearly I do not understand. Every time I contact anyone supposed to help they tell me I need legal help I cannot afford. What happended to law and making everyone aware of the same playing field.

Hi I hope so as I am truly lost in this !

:sad:Hello this is my first post. I have a problem with Restons solictors acting for MBNA who gained a CCJ against me and with no dafult ever taking place before of after the installment judgement, the completed an application for a interim order placing an x in the box that default had taken place. I reported them to the Solcitors Regulation authority and made a formal complaint with MBNA and now with Obudsman as to disproportionate attempts to gain retrospective security after 10 years of unseured fees that had not faulted until I lost my job due to a tumour in my head and followed by clincial depression. I made proper payments on loosing my job to both MBNA and three others ( all others still happy without a CCJ and one owing more) despite this Restons claim that since the judge gave them leave to apply for a charging order that this constitutes a hybrid order. The now claim they lied on the N 237 form as they had no alternative as it is not suited to a Hybrid order. I am claiming defense under section 86(1) merchantile V ellis. They claim that they had no alternative to lie on the form as it was protected by copywrite and did not offer any of the two options they needed ie default or forthwith as neither applied. I want to argue that the interim order should not have been granted given that thr judge agreed to this based upon incorrect information. I understand that there is consultation which might allow applications to be made and granted under Section 93 of the Tribunals and enforcement act TCE act 07. I am hoping to argue that I do not acept their argument for lying on a from but I know little about hybrid orders. I heard that if they do exist ( not sure they are allowed) that they only relate to one section of an act at a time does anyone know if this is true. I am arguing that even if they could argue a hybrid order exists section 93 of the TCE act is not yet in force and was not at the time of incorrect form filling. I am dyslexi and strugle and cannot afford for a legal person with me. Restons habits are to turn up at these hearings then quote irrelvant case law about other creditors in order to mislead the judge away from the main point under section 86 which I stand by. The case is due to be heard at a final charging order hearing can I ask for it to be thrown out on the basis that I now know their excuse and its still not lawful ? I plan to take evidence from the minstry of justice to prove it is not in force and is currently illegal for an application to be made never mind granted when no default exists. I understand I need to disclose what I need to rely upon but do Restons as I am worried they will arive with poppy cock that is placed before the judge and allows them to get away with it even if its unlawful. Some dsitrict judges don't apparently know its not in force and are acting in advance of the law. Any advice on how to deal with Restons now I have their excuse in advance of the hearing. At the last hearing Restons did not turn up and it was ajounred but the judge told me that If what I said was true that they incorrectly filled in the form then it could be struck out