Hybrid Orders help Restons incorrect Form Filling tricks N379 Help

[henry mackie]

: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

Edited August 2, 2011 by cerberusalert
paragraphed

[rebel11]

Hi henry

 

Welcome to CAG

 

The guys will be happy to advise as soon as they are available.

 

Thread moved.

[henry mackie]

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

[sequenci]

Hi there, just a few quick points.

 

1. As far as I was aware, hybrid orders have been declared void by the court system as they do not comply with the civil procedure rules

2 .The changes to charging orders as part of the tribunals, courts and enforcement act were dropped - the law was never introduced and there are (currently) no plans to change this - as far as I'm aware!

 

I'll post up some more info tomorrow once i'm back in work.

 

best wishes,

 

seq.

[henry mackie]

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.

[henry mackie]

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 ?

[sequenci]

Hi there.

 

When the original CCJ was entered against you, was there a hearing?

[henry mackie]

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

[henry mackie]

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.

[sequenci]

If an order was made at an actual hearing which gives the right for the creditor to make an application for a charging order - even if instalments have been met it wouldn't be a breach of the CPR (Sadly). A redetermination would cancel any previous order and may have the potential of allowing the claimant the possibility of getting their charging order. The only hybrid orders that can be challenged are those which are made without a hearing - which are made on the n24 form. I think you'll find it hard to argue an absuse of process here. Unless I'm missing something.

[Ganymede]

There is nothing wrong with a DJ allowing the CO application alongside instalments.

 

In relation to the CO application form, the Claimant is right that there form is not the greatest and doesn't have all the possible options. Its a "best fit" scenario when filling it in.

 

Also as sequenci said, the TCE Act has been scrapped and will not be coming into force.

 

Finally, no you cannot apply for the CO application to be struck out early as that is the whole point of the FCO hearing - to listen to arguments for and against etc.

 

Unfortunately I don't see you winning this one as the Order gives the Claimant the right to apply for the CO, it is the for the DJ to decide if the CO should continue and become final.

 

If a FCO is granted make sure you get the DJ to state no further enforcement of the CO whilst payments are made that way the Claimant can't try to force the sale of your property.

[henry mackie]

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.

[AndyOrch]

Hybrid orders are usually created when a creditor refuses the defendant's application on the N9A form to pay in instalments, they instead ask the court to make a forthwith judgment and state their intention to go for the charging order. A judgment is then made on the N24 form which states that the judgment is forthwith allowing a charging order application to be made BUT all over execution stayed whilst an instalment order is kept up with. Some hybrid orders consist of the N24 form being presented with an N30(2) at the same time.

 

In effect the hybrid order process tries to allow a district judge the ability to determine the rate of payment of the judgment without a hearing. Under the Civil Procedure Rules there isn’t jurisdiction for them to carry out any other processes at the same time.

 

What seems to be happening is that such an order one that suspends or stays the judgment under s71(2) of the County Courts Act 1984 instead of allowing an instalment to be made under s71(1):

 

Section 71 of the County Courts Act 1984

 

Satisfaction of judgments and orders for payment of money.

 

(1)Where a judgment is given or an order is made by a county court under which a sum of money of any amount is payable, whether by way of satisfaction of the claim or counterclaim in the proceedings or by way of costs or otherwise, the court may, as it thinks fit, order the money to be paid either—

(a)in one sum, whether forthwith or within such period as the court may fix; or

(b)by such instalments payable at such times as the court may fix.

 

(2)If at any time it appears to the satisfaction of the court that any party to any proceedings is unable from any cause to pay any sum recovered against him (whether by way of satisfaction of the claim or counterclaim in the proceedings or by way of costs or otherwise) or any instalment of such a sum, the court may, in its discretion, suspend or stay any judgment or order given or made in the proceedings for such time and on such terms as the court thinks fit, and so from time to time until it appears that the cause of inability has ceased.

 

It may be possible to argue the legalities of hybrid orders for technical reasons. If a forthwith judgment is granted there should be a 14-day period allowed for a redetermination application to be made, the N24 form that is often used for these orders often refers only to a 7 day period, which can often confuse! Some N24 hybrid order judgments don’t mention the ability to apply for a redetermination at all and course further confusion by containing an order to pay in instalments.

 

Under CPR rule 4.1(2), rule 4.1(3) and practice direction 4 1.2 a court is not allowed to leave out any information on a form, such as the right to redetermination. A set aside application should be made arguing that an invalid order has been made, also ensure that any pending enforcement action is prevented. Judges in Northampton had recently decided that hybrid orders were in breach of the CPR and that they should treat such applications simply as a request for determination. CPR rule 3.2 makes clear that they should use their discretion to make such an order that complies with the overriding objective to ensure that the case is managed effectively.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Ganymede]

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.

 

 

 

Unfortunately under the Court's case management powers a DJ can make pretty much any Order he likes.

 

As for your Mercantile defence, that would only apply if the DJ had granted instalments without allowing for a CO as well.

 

So in your case the Claimant has permission from the Court to apply for a CO alongside the instalments. In the Mercantile case there was no such permission to apply for a CO.

[henry mackie]

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.

[sequenci]

It's quite simple. At a hearing a judge has the ability to make an order as he or she fits. Requesting that a judgment debtor pays an instalment to halt all enforcement action apart from the ability for a creditor to make an application for a charging order is pretty common. I can't see that an appeal would be possible. Ropeilagh comes in where a variation application is made after an application for the interim charge is made, so I guess it has similarities to your situation. How much is the CCJ form, how much equity is there?

[henry mackie]

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.

[Ganymede]

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.

 

 

 

Ok try reading the CPR 1 and 3. In particular 3.1(m).

 

 

You may not like it but that's the way it is. A Judge is pretty much King in his own courtroom.

[henry mackie]

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 ?

[Guest]

......... A Judge is pretty much King in his own courtroom.

 

subject to any relevant statute, other cpr etc, precedent for eg.

 

imo

[sequenci]

subject to any relevant statute, other cpr etc, precedent for eg.

 

imo

 

I totally agree. However, as far as I understand, I don't think the action of granting instalments + leave to allow a CO application to be made is in breach of anything. Of course I would be keen to hear of anything that counters this argument - it would make a lot of people's lives much easier for sure!

[Guest]

hi

i know what you mean. but, my view generally is that it would be perverse to grant an instalment order concurrent with leave to apply for a co in any event given that, by virtue of statute and precedent, when there is an instalment order prior then a co should only be available as an enforcement option when any such instalment order is not complied with. this of course would require careful argument! if that all makes sense!

(and was just posting on the apparent sweeping statement that a 'J is pretty much king in his own courtroom'!)

imo

Edited August 5, 2011 by Ford

[henry mackie]

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

[sequenci]

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.

 

That it a great point, and important for sure. My only concern, and I'm happy for others to possibly try and find an answer to it, is that if the original order of the court gives leave for such an application then a default wouldn't be necessary. I feel it's a bit mean of a judge to grant such an order as it's a bit ambiguous from the debtor's point of view but it's important to bear in the mind that a judge's job should be to balance the interests of all parties within a case. I fear my personal stance is a little controversial but I don't really feel that there are that many problems with charging orders if they are managed well. Often the judgment creditor gets off your back, and as far as enforcement goes it's often not as 'in your face' as an attachment of earnings or bailiff action. One other thing to note is that the fastest growing enforcement mechanism out there against those that own a property is bankruptcy action. Compared to that a charging order is practically a godsend usually.

 

For the record, I do hope you can find your solution as I really, really, really dislike Restons!

[henry mackie]

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