I don't think that's quite right... from Income Payments Agreements and Income Payments Orders "Applying a 'Nil tax' code If you pay tax under PAYE, HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) will usually apply a 'nil tax' code to you for the rest of the tax year in which you were declared bankrupt. This means that soon after your bankruptcy, your employer will be told NOT to take any more income tax from your wages for the rest of the tax year. HMRC applies nil tax codes for various reasons, and the new tax code will not tell your employer you are bankrupt. The nil tax code does not mean no tax is due. It just enables HMRC to claim the whole of your unpaid tax for the year of your bankruptcy. There will be extra money in your pay because of the nil tax code. This money will form the basis of an IPA or IPO, even if you have no other real disposable income. A nil tax (or NT) IPA or IPO may be the only amount you have to pay, and the agreement or order will stop when your tax code changes. If you have other real disposable income, the IPA or IPO will reduce when your tax code changes" (my bolding) No, the OR would want ~50% of the £200 - see Technical: IEL Reference Guide: WAGES OWED Cheers Michael

Hmm, yeah, your tax code is set to NIL, but that's because the OR will want you to hand over your normal tax element of earnings as an IPA (or part of a larger IPA if disposable income)! Better to go BR in March methinks... Cheers Michael

Sorry to re-open an old thread, but I'm going through this same argument with Experian right now - whilst they've removed linked addresses over 8 years old, they reckon they're entitled to "retain this information for up to eight years. This is to ensure that any relevant financial information at your previous addresses is made available to lenders". I know the ICO leaflet used to say "up to 6 years" (and I'm sure I have a version of the PDF stating that), but on visitng the link above I see that the ICO changed the PDF in August 2008 to state "A linked address may stay on your credit file as long as this information is relevant for credit referencing purposes." Now, why do the CRAs need to keep this info for >6 years when nothing else is retained that long? Cheers Michael

Interesting stuff - can't wait to hear more Cheers Michael

The sensible & proper decision is NO All the best mate! Cheers Michael

A legally binding contract is a legally binding contract is a legally binding contract.... Any judge in their right mind will see you've accepted an offer and the other side have tried to change the terms of it - though I'd still try and get this in right at the start of the CMC (before t'other side obfuscates the judge) Good luck today matey - looking forward to seeing your update later... Cheers Michael

I'm not sure what you'll need to do about the PPI stuff as I've not had one of those cases meself. As far as commencing court proceedings for charges go, take a look in the library, as it is all detailed there. HTH Cheers Michael

The application form is the one that they were relying on - I think the "Bank reference" would've been because they state the Ts&Cs were on the back of the application form taken from a brochure and sent back to the Bank, possibly leaving a copy of the Ts&Cs in the brochure itself for retention. It was so long ago I really can't remember the brochure and format of it though. If you haven't received your CCA *at all* then they shouldn't be able to commence Court action, and that should be your first defence. Thinking about that actually, it's the one argument that I could've really argued the toss over and I've probably let LTSB off the hook on that.... I know what you mean - I guess that it's just that I don't feel there's much value in going over what's already been published. I mean, I can't really add much more to it as I haven't tested the arguments in Court.... Cheers Michael

Why don't you reply with a draft of your own (acceptable) Tomlin Order for their signature? Cheers Michael

To be honest guys, I don't really want to go back over the whole technicalities of the argument, or what possibilities there were - I've had my opportunity and am happy with the settlement - just wanna move on from that bit now. I can help out with this though: It's really absolutely nothing like the courtrooms you'd see on soaps (or even "Crown Court" if you're old enough to remember that ITV lunchtime classic!) From my experiences in Swindon CC, this is what happens: You go to the waiting room and tell the usher that you're present by letting them know your case and your name. Then there's waiting around until the DJ is ready - during the waiting period, the other side's representative will probably approach and make themselves known - they may even want a "Without Prejudice" discussion in a side room. When the DJ is ready, you get called into court - well, "the Court" is simply a room, probably laid out with normal desks/tables in an "I" shape...... a large desk at one end for the DJ at one end (this has his computer, papers, books, etc.. on), a large desk for the Claimant and Defendant at the other end, and then a couple of smaller desks in the middle for witnesses, etc. The only people in the room are the people interested in the case - the DJ, Claimant, Defendant, legal representatives of C & D if applicable and any witnesses. I believe you can be accompanied by a friend, and even that people can request access to watch anyway - but I'm not sure about all that stuff. The DJs I've seen before have all been quite friendly and accommodating to a LiP. Above, I used the phrase "All in all, not a scary experience, but intimidating" - I think intimidating was probably the wrong choice of word.... or at least applicable to the wrong bit - I don't find the Court bit scary or intimidating in any way, but I may have been meaning to apply "intimidating" to the arguments that LTSB put forward HTH Cheers Michael

I don't think it was a forgery. That was the whole reason they got back to FT anyway - complexity. I found it really hard to argue against it too...oh well! Cheers Michael

Indeed - I think I actually got away lightly by settling in the end - and I really don't have the stomach for an appeal (I've got an MCE battle to fight next). Besides, it won't matter in the long term for reasons I'll disclose much later Re the re-allocation bit, I can't see how a full day hearing would sit in the SCT - I thought SCT hearings were only allowed a maximum of like 4 hours or something? Nope - they didn't have the original. Originally I thought this was a major plus point, but I read & re-read their arguments regarding submitting copies as evidence and cross-referenced it with the Civil Evidence Act, and it seems that as long as the copies form part of the records of the business, that's ok. Plus, one of their witnesses was the guy that orignally approved the card & "signed" the agreement! I'm pretty sure that the actual Ts&Cs that they were relying on (not the first lot they submitted) were the correct ones from the back of the document. Cheers Michael

Thanks folks - wasn't the way I wanted it to go, but I guess you could say that I bottled it really... Ok, well I do remember saying that I'd update the thread with what happened, and I've been a bit slack on that - so, over a week later, here you go I'd received the bundle on Tuesday and didn't have a chance to look through until Thursday night. I found their skeleton argument while I was looking through the bundle, and it was damn good - unfortunately given the above I didn't have a massive amount of time to prepare a response, so was pretty nervous from that point of view anyway. I got to Court at around 0945hrs, hearing was listed for 1000hrs and to go on all day. Met the solicitor for LTSB and had a bit of a chat about the way things would be scheduled for the day (nice chap, we'd been amiable enough at the previous hearing and that continued) - he'd brought along another guy from SC&M and 2 witnesses. Well, 1000hrs came & went, as did 1015hrs....1030hrs and we were called into see the DJ. Despite LTSB's solicitor phoning the Court to make sure they had a copy of Goode and that the DJ would get plenty of reading time for the weighty skeleton, neither had been planned in properly. The DJ got the bundle at 1700hrs the night before and had spent most of the morning trying to read the bundle and also hunting round to get a copy of Goode! Also, the DJ informed me that he was a LTSB customer in case that had any impact on my case. We were duly informed that the DJ needed some reading time - LTSB's solicitor recommended that the DJ read the skeleton, and I recommended that he read my witness statement. The DJ had had a quick scan over the skeleton and suggested that it wasn't a Fast Track case, but perhaps even Multi-Track which would need an adjournment (not too chuffed at that)! He was minded to strongly suggest that we come to an arrangement while his reading time was taken. So, at about 1140hrs we duly filed out of the room - LTSB's solicitor wasn't too happy that the DJ hadn't done the reading, maybe suggesting that the DJ didn't want to deal with a complex case on a Friday, especially as we were now running very late and hadn't even started the arguments. Of course, he was insistent that he had a very strong case and wasn't prepared to concede - likewise I told him that I thought I had a strong argument too. I went outside to smoke and decided that the day was likely to be a very long one, and the LTSB skeleton was very very good, so I'd have a completely uphill battle. I went back in and had a coffee with LTSB's solicitor and decided that I wanted to settle - I came up with a deal that I thought fairly reflected what I wanted, and it was accepted. A draft Tomlin order drawn up & signed by us both, and we went back in to advise the DJ that we'd come to agreement. The DJ advised that the settlement was a good decision by myself as I'd have an uphill battle - summing up that basically I'd had the money and should pay it back (a bit of a telling off really) - though he'd be more minded to be on my side if I'd suffered prejudice and owed more than I should've done due to a CCA breach. Anyway, he did say that every January the DJs get to go on "refresher" courses and he's requested the CCA as his chosen one - so I suppose that's a bit of a positive.... Shook hands with the LTSB & SC&M chaps afterwards - we'd shared a few chats & jokes during the morning, and it was nice that everything was amiable. All in all, not a scary experience, but intimidating and I'm disappointed I didn't have the guts to see it through to the bitter end - still, there's a settlement agreement that I'm happy enough with. Cheers Michael

And a link to that story: BBC NEWS | Business | Bank plans for overdraft refunds Cheers Michael

No worries I think the general "PPI costs 2% of your balance" or whatever it is, in the small print would cover that - but it's a very interesting argument developing on PT's thread Cheers Michael

I can see where you're coming from, and I can definitely agree for loans where the premium is advanced at the start and repaid with interest - just playing devil's advocate for a moment for credit cards... I think credit cards are different for PPI - you're basically paying an insurance premium each month (whether that insurance is actually useful or not is another discussion ) and having it charged to your credit card account. Although the amount of the premium is calculated on your revolving balance, you don't have to have it, so it can't be a charge for credit. Neither is it credit, as you're not advanced it at the time of taking the credit card out - even though it can form part of your revolving balance if you don't clear the balance each month. Of course, if the premium was actually paid to a 3rd party and you had the 2 standing separately, it'd be a bit clearer....(though don't they usually include "PPI provided by...[xxx]..." on the PPI leaflets?) Just MHO of course Paul Cheers Michael

Can I just clarify this please? I didn't lose against LTSB, but neither did I win - I made a strategic decision to settle with them (can't reveal the terms, but they were agreeable!) and no judgement has been entered. That said, I do believe that the DJ wouldn't have found in my favour if the hearing would've continued - not because any argument was weak, but because he was going to let his personal view affect the interpretation of the law (I'll update my thread soon with some more detail) - and I don't really think that he wanted a full day Fast Track hearing on complex CCA issues on a Friday! Anyhow, onto your issue - I don't know just how much help I can be as I've not dealt with PPI infuences before. I know this goes against what PT says above, but I would've thought that PPI is very different for credit cards as opposed to loans. With a loan you generally pay a premium up front and this is usually advanced as a loan by the creditor - which would mean the payments are fixed every month and the interest/charges for that need to be detailed. However, with a credit card, the amount charged is a flexible amount based upon your revolving balance - any PPI charges onto the card would simply be a purchase of the premium for that month wouldn't they, with interest charged on the premium if you don't clear the balance? So IMHO PPI on a credit card doesn't form part of the charge for credit or interest - meaning it wouldn't need to be detailed on the agreement.....ISTBC of course! Cheers Michael

Well, I'm back somewhat earlier than I expected. I ended up settling with them via a Tomlin order - can't tell you what for as that's confidential, but it saved a full day in court with a judge who (as he revealed after we said we'd settled) was unlikely to side with me. So, a bit deflated, but life goes on... will be back with a full account of events later, but thanks for all the support anyway. Cheers Michael

Thanks Am just reading their skeleton and it seems pretty good. Nervous doesn't quite cover it.... Ouch - yeah, hope they hold off til next year Thanks BTW: This was changed to 17th November after the Court's order, but their skeleton is dated 20th November! What's interesting here is that in their skeleton they're making a bit of a deal out of how "deemed service" came into play for my Witness statement (I sent it by special delivery so it arrived on the day of the revised deadline, but they're saying "deemed service" meant it was received after the deadline), but then haven't complied with the order revising their bundle deadline to 17th November.... Cheers Michael

Thanks guys - am gonna give it my best shot, but have nothing to lose really.... fingers crossed! Cheers Michael

Perfect - thanks mate, hadn't even thought about the ICO's guidance Well, it's only 4 months, but absolutely agree - especially if the regulatory requirement to comply is 10 days (as it was then) Yeah, I've found the big one again - will have to wade through that tonight.... Cheers Michael

Yup the new package is the trial bundle. They've included a supplementary Witness Statement that explains why the default on my CRF is dated Mar 07 when they allege a DN was sent in Dec 06 (apparently it's because they give so much time to comply with the DN ) - also that the reason the CRF Default is for ~£300 more than the DN is because they've added fees on. I think these are bogus arguments - a CRF Default date and amount should be exactly the same date as the DN if the DN requirements aren't satisfied (or at least the DN+10/14 days - i.e. the "if you do not do this by this date" date) - after all, I haven't defaulted on the "fees" that they've added on (which aren't included in the claim amount either) as they've not issued a DN for them....! Just need some case law for this one I think.... In the case authorities folder, there is a copy of the Rankine judgement - I'm presuming that they're going to rely on this for the "enforcement" definition (i.e. starting a claim isn't "enforcement"). Am I right in thinking that it's only a persuasive case, rather than a binding one - since my case and the Rankines' are completely different? In Court tomorrow, so quick pointers on the above would be much appreciated please! Cheers Michael

Hi Paul No worries matey - have a CMC on 3rd December on that one. Would just be grateful of you having a look over, but know how busy you are For this case, I have now received a binder full of case authorities, and there's a recorded delivery package waiting for me at the post office to pick up, which I presume is their trial bundle. However, I do believe that they were due to file & serve by 13th November.... Cheers Michael

Received a letter frm SC&M today - perhaps unsurprisingly they've rejected my offer Anyway, we're scheduled to be in court on Frida 28th, so bring it on Cheers Michael

Judging by the following posts on this R2D, I reckon my recent R2D from MC is probably along the same lines (my thread) - like you I've not posted it yet.... Cheers Michael