Tomlin Order from Link Financial

[MikeHH]

I have just received a Tomlin Order from Link Financial. They said they were taking me to court for an MBNA credit card debt of £1500. I asked for a true copy of the CCA from 2006, which they sent me. Oddly, where it should be signed by myself and MBNA, there are no signatures on it. The Tomlin order asks me to pay £2269 over the next 18 years, this includes interest and fees. Is this whole thing legal?

[sillygirl1]

Tell them you will not be signing this, if at ANY time you default on the agreement they can chase for the whole lot again via court, regardless of what you have paid. I would contact the court and ask for a mediation hearing.

 

Tomlin orders are becoming the next thing after charging orders have been queried on debts under a certain amount.

[42man]

Firstly good advice from SG.....Mike, send your letter from Link to the Office Of Fair Trading, sending this to you before any court action has been taken is oppressive and it hopes to exploit your lack of knowledge of the legal system - The OFT make it quite clear in their guidelines.

 

b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge

d. unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language

[MikeHH]

Thanks! Should I include the unsigned copy of the CCA as well?

[DonkeyB]

Did you apply for the account online? That may explain the lack of signatures.

[MikeHH]

I honestly cannot remember if I applied online. If I had applied online, surely I would have been sent forms to sign?

[DonkeyB]

Not necessarily... !

[MikeHH]

So how can it be legally binding without a signature?

[DonkeyB]

The laws changed in, I think, April 2006 – a tick box was enough to accept T&Cs and apply.

 

Depends on exactly when you applied.

 

Can you post up what they sent you? Should give us a clue.

[MikeHH]

This was dated Feb 2006.

Edited December 17, 2010 by MikeHH

[HFO-vered]

MikeHH

 

Please take some sound advice. DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES ENTER INTO ANY FORM OF CONSENT OR TOMLIN ORDER. Once signed they are difficult to overturn or get out of. There is very limited grounds for a County Court to overturn it. I know of someone who has got into unnecessary extensive litigation to get it overturned. It is tantamount to a ball and chain for the next 18 years. Avoid at all costs. If you default on it, they can enter Judgment at any time. A V O I D !!!!!!!!

[MikeHH]

Thanks for the advice. What do you think I should I do next?

[DonkeyB]

Attachment too small – can you post it ‘in line’ as a PDF?

[MikeHH]

01.pdf

[DonkeyB]

That looks distinctly like an online application to me.

[MikeHH]

So, can anyone give me any advice on what to do with the Tomlin order? Should I send it back unsigned?

[sillygirl1]

Just send it back with this

 

"I am not going to sign any Tomlin order, if you have a good enough claim against me then I wish to be able to defend myself properly.

 

Goodbye"

 

Don't get into any legal arguments with them and make sure that you keep a copy, no need to put Without Prejudice on it.

[MikeHH]

Thanks SG.

[MikeHH]

Today I received a "Notice of Transfer of Proceedings" moving this to my local court. Also enclosed was a "Small Claims Mediation Service" form which claims to be a free service. But on the form it asks if I have attached a fee. I am a bit puzzled by this as it states: "An allocation fee is payable if your claim or counterclaim exceeds £1,500" I am not making a claim or counterclaim.

[spamheed]

Today I received a "Notice of Transfer of Proceedings" moving this to my local court. Also enclosed was a "Small Claims Mediation Service" form which claims to be a free service. But on the form it asks if I have attached a fee. I am a bit puzzled by this as it states: "An allocation fee is payable if your claim or counterclaim exceeds £1,500" I am not making a claim or counterclaim.

 

this is a "one size fits all" form, for claimants, counterclaimants and defendants and as such only the applicable parts should be heeded, as you are not bringing a claim, nor a counterclaim, then you have no fees to pay. it asks if you have attached a fee in regard of any other matter, not the mediation service

 

The mediation service is free

[the_shadow]

That looks distinctly like an online application to me.

 

Spot on as usual Donkey,

 

Also its legally acceptable as a signature of an agreement after December 2004.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

MikeHH do you have a defence to this claim? what kind of defence did you file? embarrassed?

 

S.

[MikeHH]

Last week I received an "Allocation Questionaire" which I filled in and returned. Today I received a copy of Link Financials Allocation Questionaire which says that they "would request that the Defence be struck out and Judgement entered for those sums claimed". What does this mean? And, after repeatedly explaining to MBNA and Link Financial that I have been unemployed now for four and half years with my only income being housing benefit, I am surprised that they are taking this to court. They are hoping to get £2260 from me, What do they expect to achieve when I have no money?

[MikeHH]

Hi Shadow, I am not sure what you mean by "embarrased". I have simply told them the facts. Unemployed for 4 and half years, no savings, no saleable assets, unable to find suitable employment due to health reasons. I have told this to MBNA and Link Financial repeatedly, but they are still taking me to court.

[the_shadow]

Hi Shadow, I am not sure what you mean by "embarrased". I have simply told them the facts. Unemployed for 4 and half years, no savings, no saleable assets, unable to find suitable employment due to health reasons. I have told this to MBNA and Link Financial repeatedly, but they are still taking me to court.

 

Ok, well thats not really a defence but rather mitigation imo. A defence would be either something amiss with the agreement or the amount they are claiming etc.

 

As to your question about allocation questionaire, they are asking for a summary judgement against you, this is because they say your defence holds no reasonable grounds and the court should strike it out.

 

S.