IMS21 is correct. So if you are a basic rate tax payer then your liability to tax is £500 on this. As it is a bit of a chunk I would suggest you put it aside straight away when you get the repayment. HOWEVER, you need to check when the settlement arrives whether MBNA has already paid the tax on your behalf. HMRC rules would indicate that interest should be paid net of basic rate tax (as interest on savings in the bank is usually paid), meaning that if you are a basic rate tax payer you have nothing more to pay. However some banks/card companies have not interpreted the rules that way and are paying gross. If tax has been deducted it will be clearly stated on the documentation and if in doubt you can always call MBNA and ask. (If the interest is paid with 20% tax deducted and you are not a tax payer you can get a refund from HMRC) Part of your settlement is a refund of interest charge don the PPI premium. That is not liable to income tax.

I think it is reasonable too - interest is nearly always taxable and an 8% return is not at all bad

A slightly tricky one for you. If you do nothing then Nationwide will eventually enter judgement in default and presumably the occupier of your previous address will be able to tell the bailiff where you have gone! It is also quite easy to find your new address from credit reference agencies etc. My immediate reaction is that you need to address this as and when, and indeed if the county court claim arrives. It is quite possible that they will just start the whole thing all over again in which case you could just ask the court to apply it's previous decision re disclosure etc. Currently I presume you just have a letter threatening action?

When you sign a credit agreement you do consent for searches for debt collection purposes and that right also rests with the creditors agent and anyone it transfers the debt to. However that does not give them carte blanche to do as they like. Do check if the search is visible to other potential lenders though - some DC searches are and some are not. I agree with other posters that whatever your rights, it is very difficult to enforce them!

The court should not agree to anyone paying more than they can afford but equally, Judges are masters of their own domain - especially in the county court. My point is that if you do not cooperate and provide details (or to put it another way do nothing and hope it will all go away) then it could be worse in the long run. I am not suggesting that has happened here but it is an easy trap to fall into when you are under pressure. If you do not provide a breakdown when ask by the court (not the creditor) then the court will accept what the creditor asks for as reasonable. You can also be summonsed to court to answer questions about your debts (though this is unusual) so it is always best to comply with any request/direction from the court if you get one, and do it by post. Additionally, you can allow for any other debts you have in that I&E

I do not disagree but it should be noted that some debts, such as overdrafts are not regulated by the CCA in the same way and do not necessarily require a formal default notice to make them enforceable. This debt is made up of different elements I believe? So the lack of a DN may only have rendered part of it unenforceable.

It depends on the terms of the original consent order, but the answer is probably 'yes they can'. The previous order as to costs would only relate to the previous proceedings which were stopped. Given that your IVA has failed I again would suggest you go and see an insolvency professional. £44k is too much to ignore, and you have apparently exhausted the usual routes (PPI, CRA etc). If you have minimal assets there is obviously not much they can take, but it does not stop a bailiff calling at your house, and taking whatever you do have, selling it for next to nothing, and leaving you with a similar sized debt that you started with. That just means more trauma. In the event of the court ordering a monthly payment, they will do this only after you have provided a breakdown of your income and expenditure. There is no set amount. it could range from 1% to 99%. The main thing to be wary of it not replying to that request for an I&E and then letting NatWest suggest an amount, which would probably be accepted. If this goes to court make sure you comply and keep the court on your side. You have a big debt. You have been down the IVA route and failed. You MUST go and get advice from a professional (in my view). Remember that it is not a crime to be unable to pay your bills - so don't let them make you feel like a criminal in the way they talk to you and in the letters they write.

I see, and when did I ever say otherwise? All I have ever done is to point out that when you take out a loan with Provident you sign an agreement that they may call at your home. I have also pointed out that common law, by it's nature does not necessarily take preference over contract law. I am sorry if think I am trying to frighten people - I happen to think that given this is an advice forum that is an important fact that people need pointing out to them so that they may take it into account

It doesn't necessarily, no. Provided a contract is lawful it can take precedence. Common law is a strange beast as it by and large is not written down and relies on customs and precedent. (A good example in the criminal field is murder which is a common law offence and manslaughter which is a statute offence) . I wouldn't reply on a police officer having a completely sound knowledge of this either, as it is a tricky area. The police, in the event the agent were to be charged with a criminal offence and bailed (which let's be honest, isn't going to happen) could not impose such bail conditions on other agents of the company, although in theory as you suggest they could extend the requirement to other agents of the agent.

All other issues aside, if you genuinely owe the money (and I know you are not sure) and if it is enforceable, thats not a bad deal! No interest, no charges and a reduced balance paid over a year - maybe longer. But clearly you need to know whether you really do owe this and if so, that it is not statue barred

There are a lot of issues here. The one of your home is an important one. Any creditor with a judgement over £750 (I think) can apply for a charging order over your home and can force you to sell if you don't keep up with repayments (subject to the court's consent of course). They can apply to do that at any time that the debt remains enforceable. As you pay your mortgage and as property values go up (which they probably will at some point) you will get a few £££ equity and someone might decide it is worth going for. A small debt can be subject to a charging order in the county court. So I really do think that you should go and seek advice from an insolvency expert on this one. People here will do their best to help you but really, giving full disclosure to someone who can take stock and given professional advice is your best option and, frankly, you have nothing to lose by asking?

I have had issues in the past with Orange adding extras on in the store and then me finding out about them later when I get charged. Legally required to call a 750mb download limit 'unlimited'? Absolute rubbish. What law are they quoting I wonder? 'The Orange Dodgy Download Limit Act 2003' perhaps? He probably means that the Advertising Standards Authority or the regulator have taken them to task over so called 'unlimited' deals. Because the phone was sold to you in store you need to deal with 'Orange Retail' over any mis-selling requirements. Been there, done that. Orange are fine until something goes wrong. then they are just awful.

I reckon you'll get that with a bit of pressure!

Hi Major Debtor - I hate to suggest this but £44k is huge and as debbbbsy says, if you try and pay it by instalments you will be paying it forever and in years to come if you amass any assets/equity the bank can come back, issue a claim and take it. Have you actually considered if going bankrupt is an option? You don't say if the debt is secured or not but you do confirm that there is no equity in your home. Whilst such a move is not to be taken lightly it would have the effect of writing off any unsecured debt. You can get free advice on this kind of thing from a professional.

That is a difficult one. I would say that if the charges which are subsequently removed form a significant part of the debt then they should remove the default. In practice you can sometimes find yourself screaming as loud as you can and still they ignore you. If that happens your options are either (a) the Information Commissioner or (b) if you end up taking them to court for the default charges add on to that the removal of the default as part of your claim. There is guidance elsewhere on the forum. My credit file is looking very green these days but it wasn't previously and what I discovered is what many have found - the finance providers and credit agencies do whatever they feel like and taking them on is very difficult indeed.

Hi Silverfox - to answer your original questions:- The court claim needs to be in your daughters name. You may prepare it for her but it remains her application. If it gets as far as a hearing then, assuming you are not a solicitor yourself, you can ask the court for permission to help her as a litigation friend (sometimes referred to as a MacKenzie advisor after the Judge who first allowed this in a criminal case). it is at the court's discretion but will almost certainly be ok as long as you are not acting as a witness for her too - they may not like that. Could I ask what you are intending to sue for? You say that Vodafone is chasing her for an os debt - what would your claim be for?

wkdboi - I hope that you can get this sorted out now that Vodafone web team are looking at it. However just one word of advice. Don't try and cancel your service at this stage whilst 'in contract'. It will cause you all sorts of hassle and result in automated debt collection procedures starting. You'll end up banging your head against the wall twice as much as you are already. I definitely agree about checking your credit file too..

Just to clarify here - it is Provident, the doorstep lender, that i acting as a debt collector here. I didn't know they did that?

That's interesting. Do you know if that has been tested (in a case like this)?

They didn't deliver to the address on file so you should be able to claim your costs back - the supplier is liable not the carrier. Its certainly worth a try and probably not worth mentioning at this point that you put the wrong address down on the initial order!

I'm sorry to say this, but you have no chance at all. If you lodge a claim however you may get something minor such as a book of stamps, but without proof of posting you won't get anywhere

As you have the items undamaged I would stick with a complaint to the Royal Mail and leave it at that.

Oh no, no no! You can't take the Royal Mail (or certain other bodies including any Government department in fact) to the small claims court!

I don't think I know of a service like that (open and scan). You can however hire an 'accommodation address' and receive your post there. You could then get it forwarded to other addresses you are at at regular intervals. A legit accommodation address needs to be linked to a real address but you don't need to give it out.

I agree that under Common law there is an implied consent that people can come and knock on your door etc unless you make it clear that they can't - however- the agent is not coming onto the property using the implied consent under common law - they are coming onto their customer's property because the customer has given them consent as part of a legally binding contract. So withdrawing the common law consent would not have the desired effect as the agent isn't using it in the first place. Of course the agent cannot harass the customer or act unreasonably. Given the position that decz2004 is in then this is probably a bit of a side issue (although I am sure it is quite stressful). I would be interested to hear what Provident has to say if and when they get back. I am not 100% on this one and I don't dispute what you (Teaboy2) say about implied rights - I just question whether it is relevant in the case of a loan contract that is based around doorstep collection and will inevitably have a specific clause in it about authority to call and collect. Common law is generally superseded by either statute law or a binding civil contract.