noomill - i look forward to attaining your input when my court papers arrive, as i intend to take the stance much in line with your argument. Allright with you?

I did - this is about the arrears that have built up over time - when and as my cost of living was/is to high to sustain making any payments.

Does this also amount to a breach of contract by the SLC? They are varying the agreements of the loan without express permission of the borrower? Thus its an unfair relationship? Funnily enough i am about to go to court against the SLC for non-payment. The DCA at the SLC won't take into account my long-term illness and give me an relief in the repayments. The letter i got stated, "we will apply for default and to register details with CRA and it will make credit difficult to obtain blah blah blah".

I'd speak to an expert employment solicitor about this - you can generally get some good initial advise in a free consultation Generally they cannot force you to take an offer without being allowed to do 'due diligence' It's not my area of expertise, but it's what i would do

Cheers Master Woody; I have allready been through A) writing to collections manager - they are not interested and are not willing to assist/help. B) I complained, they did not respond, i complained to the FOS who are reviewing the case. B) They have issued proceedings despite an FOS review of the case. C) I will however send off the letter as you have indicated. D) I will also be asking for a hold from the courts pending FOS review

Sorry - When i say i was not disabled, i meant i was not on 'disabled benefits' of any kind. I never have been. You are totally right - everything gets neglected - relationships, personal well being. I jumped between 3 university courses (i failed to complete the first years due to the illness and being undiagnosed) over the years and had 3 nervous breakdowns from 1992 to 2002 (documented) It was only in 2003 that i started to get control, and was correclty diagnosed; i am still on medication and have occasional counselling. I was due to start paying from 1999 (when i graduated) - but was below the threshold. I did not make regular payments; but i paid when i could. I was out of work for 18 months from 2001 - payments stopped and i was on unemployment benefits at this stage. As of 2002 to now - I tried to get an IVA but the SLC refused to be a part it; so i had to indivudally negotiate with the creditors. They were very sympathetic accepted low payment terms and/or full and final settlements. The only other debts i have are my mortgage (4k of equity)/car loan. I am going to build my response to the claim over the weekend and will post it for reference/comment amendment; i hope thats okay?

I have all details from a full CCA SAR - and all is in order As i was not disabled for any of this time; they do not consider i am allowed relief under section 13 (disability act), i asked for relieft under section 12 which was refused again. I want to fight it and pay what i can afford over an extended period with no CCJ (an ideal solution i guess) I should recieve the papers this week and will prepare documents. I am also considering counter claiming that they have not taken all of the evidence seriously i.e that mental illness can have serious effects on abiltiy to manage not just finance. Thus they are being unfair by not taking that into account.

Hi Emma; Loans are dated 1992 to 1998 I defered for a while - paid some payments for a while - this is all arrears. Got ill (letter and docs evidence that i had an undiagnosed disorder from 1992 to 2003); on the road to recovery, but it effected my life seriously in a number of ways for over a decade - in and out of work - moving around a lot - not able to manage things in my life like finance etc etc. Northampton Bulk - Spoke to Bulk and they said i should get papers this week The DCA is the SLCs collection arm. I have no charges.

Martin, Appreciatte you looking at my letter, i have now had a response from the SLC with notification of court proceedings even though the case is with the FOS. Should i wait to wait to recieve the legal pack from the courts, then make the fact that the LC has issued proceedings when a FOS review is underway is illegal? Asking for Hold? Advise appreciatted. Veester

So, long story short. I have a debt of £11k with the SLC; i have tried to offer reduced payments, not being accepted. I have sent medical evidence of long-term illness; which is being ignored. Today despite my recent letter (pasted below) advising them of the FOS complaint and the law, they are taking me to court. Can they do that while the complaint is with the FOS? Should i wait to wait to recieve the legal pack from the courts, then make the fact that the SLC has issued proceedings when a FOS review is underway is illegal? Asking for Hold? Advise appreciatted. Regards, Veester ___________________________________________________________ Thank you for your communications to me in July, and more recently a number of telephone conversations during early August. Once again, I draw your attention to my letters in April 2008, in which I provided medical evidence (letter from a GP and also a chronology of illness) to offer a valid explanation as to why my debt with SLC arose. I am disappointed to note that both the department and SLC have failed to give considerations to this information. Specifically, by failing to take account of my information to you, the SLC is in breach of the fundamental principle of natural justice, which is established in Common English Law from 1876 to 2000 and beyond, particularly; Duty to consider all relevant material. Duty of inquiry. Duty to consider evidence of probative value. Duty not to adopt an unduly rigid policy. My right to legitimate expectation. If you do not understand this, then I suggest you obtain advice from your legal department. However for immediate clarification, I attach House of Commons/Lords transcripts. I trust you will now give thorough considerations to this. Failure to do so will escalate to one or all of the following actions by myself. A) I will pursue a complaint with the F.O.S. B) Commence litigation in the County Courts which will incur costs to yourselves. As a measure of my intentions to have the matter resolved without the need for any of the above, I give you a final chance to take this matter seriously. I enclose a cheque for £60 as an interim payment while the situation remains unresolved. The Cheque is post dated, and therefore, should not be submitted before the post date, or any charges incurred will be claimed from the SLC. Once again I make a reduced offer of £60 pcm to be reviewed in 12 months time. Additionally, I look to SLC in providing interest relief based on the medical evidence provided and perform their responsibilities as per statute law, as defined in the accompanying texts. Should this not be acceptable, then upon completion and dependant of the review of my complaint by the FOS, I will have no option other than to serve on notice, County Court proceedings. I look forward to your response with respect to all of the unresolved areas in writing; I must remind you that no further communications will be entertained by telephone. Yours faithfully, 20th August 2008 XXXX Cc’d Financial Ombudsman Service ------------------------------------------------------

The HSBC are full of rubbish - they do not assess hardship inline with proper process, its all to get more money out of you. After 7 months of repeatedly sending them information,racking up over £900 in charges and changing to another bank i lost patience and got the FOS involved. Then within days i had a call from 'T' to get me to run through my I&E form; told him there was nothing to run through as i had sent it 4 times allready. He said he would get back to me. 24 hours of assesment later; i.e. sitting on it as they have no inclination to actually review it he calls back on my mobile. Despite asking him to call my landline, they kept calling my mobile for weeks...anyway, finally spoke with T today; A call today and he tells me that HSBC has calculated my disposable income without taking any of my loans/credit card into account - incl there own loan!!!! They said i had £200 in disposable income - my HSBC loan payment is £200!!!, plus payments to SLC/HSBC Credit Card. Then proceeded to offer me a consolidation loan for my HSBC overdraft/credit card and loan. I told him politely they had not considered all the evidence, and surprise surprise 'no answer' or response...'T' needs to understand that ignorance or silence is not a defence or indeed answer! They totally ignored guidelines set-out by the FOS and set out in the statues of Natural Justice; so know waiting for them to confirm all this stuff in writing; i.e A) There assessment criterion B) They offered me a consolidation loan But i GUARANTEE 100% they will leave out how the assesed it and what they offered - because they are sneaky!! Then i have to go back to the HSBC with the FOS stating that the final response is wrong as: A) They did not consider all evidence - illegal B) The assesment criterion for hardship is not inline with FOS guidelines - illegal C) The I&E calculations are flawed as they do not take into account creditors - illegal D) Also using the premises of Natural Justice (as the HSBC is failing under a number of these areas - I found a number of these statutes apply to my case and will form basis of the complaint and communication to follow) All delaying tactics by the muppets at HSBC! Is it me or are these guys just greedy, pig headed and uninformed!!!! If i did my job in this way i would not have a job!!!

Agree with Tuttsi/Zaffie, The HSBC are full of rubbish - they do not assess hardship inline with proper process, its all to get more money out of you. They just told me they calculated my disposable income without taking any of my creditors into account - incl there own loan!!!! They said i had £200 in disposable income - my HSBC loan payment is £200!!! Then proceeded to offer me a consolidation loan for my overdraft/credit card and loan. They totally ignored guidelines set-out by the FOS; so know waiting for them to confirm all this stuff in writing; i.e A) There assessment criterion B) They offered me a consolidation loan Then i have to go back to the HSBC with the FOS stating that A) They did not consider all evidence - illegal B) The assesment criterion for hardship is not inline with FOS guidelines C) The I&E calculations are flawed as they do not take into account creditors. And also using the premises of Natural Justice (as the HSBC is failing under a number of these areas - See Below for concept of Natural Justice, i found a number of these statutes apply to my case and will form basis of the complaint and communication to follow) All delaying tactics by the muppets at HSBC! Natural Justice A. Definition Natural Justice is an umbrella term for the legal standards of basic fairness. It is a fundamental doctrine within the common law, rested in centuries of legal tradition. R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex parte Datafin PLC (1987). Sir John Donaldson, Master of the Rolls “... a failure to observe the basic rules of natural justice, which is probably better described as fundamental unfairness since justice in nature is conspicuous by its absence.” B. Importance John v Rees (1970) . Justice Megarry “It may be that there are some who would decry the importance of the rules of natural justice. ......those who take this view do not, I think, do themselves justice. As everybody who has anything to do with the law well knows, the path of the law is strewn with examples of open and shut cases which, somehow, were not: of unanswerable charges which, in the event, were completely answered ; with inexplainable conduct which was fully explained; ........ nor are those with any knowledge of human nature who pause to think for a moment likely to underestimate the feelings of resentment of those who find there is a decison against them as being made without their being afforded any opportunity to influence the course of events.” C. Parliament’s Intent Fairmount Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment (1976) Lord Russell “I am satisfied that if the true conclusion is that the course which events followed resulted in that degree of unfairness ... that it is commonly referred to as a departure from the principles of natural justice and it may equally be said that the order is not within the powers of the Act and that a requirement of the Act has not been complied with. For it is to be implied, unless the contrary appears, that Parliament does not authorise by the Act the exercise of powers in breach of the principles of natural justice, and that Parliament does by the Act require, in paraticular procedures, compliance with those principles .” R v Commission for Racial Equality ex parte Hillingdon London Borough Council (1982) - Lord Diplock “I do not think that in administrative law as it has developed over the last 20 years attaching a label ‘quasi-judicial’ to it is of any significance. Where an Act of Parliament confers upon an administrative body functions which involves making decisions which affect to their detriment the rights of other persons ... there is a presumption that Parliament intended that the administrative body should act fairly towards those persons who will be affected by their decision.” R v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council ex parte Chetnik Developments Ltd (198 Lord Bridge “Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as if it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way in which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended.” R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd (1995) Lord Justice Rose “statutory powers however permissive, must be used with scrupulous attention to their true purposes and for reasons which are relevant and proper” Lord Steyn (1997) “We live in a democracy in the narrow sense that majority rule prevails but, more importantly, we live in a liberal European democracy based on values of justice, liberty, equality and humanity. Judges are therefore entitled to assume, unless the Statute makes crystal clear provision to the contrary, that Parliament would not wish to make unjust laws.” R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Pierson (199 Lord Steyn “... unless there is the clearest provision to the contrary, Parliament must be presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law. And the rule of law enforces minimum standards of fairness, both substantive and procedural.” R v Secretary of State for the Environment Transport & the Regions ex p Spath Holme (2001) Lord Nicholls “No statutory power is of unlimited scope” D. Rights and Duties 1) Duty to promote the legislative purpose R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Brind (1991) Lord Ackner “The discretion .......... must be used only to advance the purposes for which it was conferred. It has accordingly to be used to promote the policy and objects of the Act." 2) Duty not to act ‘ultra vires’ HTV Ltd v Price Commission (1976) Lord Denning - Master of the Rolls “A public body which is entrusted by Parliament with the exercise of powers for the public good cannot fetter itself in the exercise of them. It cannot be estopped from doing its public duty. But that is subject to the qualification that it must not misue its powers: and it is a misuse of power for it to act unfairly or unjustly towards a private citizen when there is no overriding public interest to warrant it”. Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983) Lord Scarman “The unreasonableness of the decision i.e that which would enable the Court to conclude that it is one which no reasonable authority could have reached, is that it proceeded upon a misconception of the duties imposed upon the appellants by the statute.” R v Hendon Justices, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (1994) “It is implicit in the enactment that a conferred power is not to be exercised unreasonably .......... If it is ... the conferred power can be characterised as illegal, void or a nullity” 3) Duty to act in good faith Board of Education v Rice 1911 Lord Loreburn “They must act in good faith and fairly listen to both sides, for that is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything”. 4) Duty to act reasonable Roberts v Hopwood 1925 Lord Wrenbury “A person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon Reasonable grounds. A discretion does not empower a man to do what he likes merely because he is minded to do so - he must generally exercise the discretion to do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably” R v Department for Education & Employement ex parte Begbie( 2000) Lord Justice Laws “Fairness and reasonableness and their contraries are objective concepts: otherwise there would be no public law, or if there were it would be palm tree justice.” 5) Right to fairness Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) Lord Diplock “in exercising their discretion, as in exercising any other administrative function they owe a constitutional duty to perform it fairly and honestly and to the best of their ability” Board of Education of the Indian Head School Division of 19 of Saskatchewan v Knight (1990) “ The existence of a general duty to act fairly will depend on the consideration of three factors: i) The nature of the decision to be made by the administrative body ii) The relationship existing between that body and the individual iii) The effect of that decision on the individual’s right” R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Unilever PLC (1996) Lord Justice Simon Brown “Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power .......... it is unlawful ....... because it is illogical or immoral or both for a public authority to act with conspicuous unfairness and in that sense abuse its power”. R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Pierson (199 Lord Hope Referring to the Secretary of State as “ bound by considerations of substantive unfairness ...... as there are no statutory rules, the presumption must be that he will exercise his powers in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances.” 6) Right to procedural fairness Greater London Council (1985) Lord Justice Muskill Went on to identify four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely, “1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision. 2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation. 3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information. 4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit for example where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance” 7) Duty of enquiry The Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside M B C (1977) Lord Diplock. “the question for the Court is did the Secretary of State ask himself the right question and take reasonable steps to acquaint himself with the relevant information to enable him to answer it correctly?” R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Venables (199 Lord Justice Hobhouse “Essential that (the Secretary of State) should be fully informed of all material facts and circumstances”, “it is not clear what account the Secretary of State took of this consideration nor that he took any steps to inform himself of the relevant facts”, Duty to ask the right question Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside M B C (1977) Lord Wilberforce “The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement.” Lord Diplock “The Secretary of State did not direct his mind to the right question; and so, since his good faith is not in question, he cannot have directed himself properly in law” 9) Duty to consider all relevant material R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994) “Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken” R v Legal Aid Area Number 1 (London) Appeal Committee ex parte McCormick (2000) “The Committee cannot simply leave those issues in the air since their resolution ... could be beneficial ...”, “serious doubts about whether they did take into consideration all potentially relevant factors” 10) Duty to consider relevant evidence Dakar v Minister of Transport “There may be situations when the Ministerial body has not taken any extraneous factors into account and has confined itself solely to relevant factors, yet there has been such a distortion and lack of proportion given to the weight given to these that the final result cannot possibly hold up and is therefore, completely unreasonable.” Secretary of State for Education & Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977) Lord Wilberforce “The ultimate question in this case, in my opinion, is whether the Secretary of State has given sufficient, or any, weight to this particular factor in the exercise of his judgement” Recommendation Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11 March (1980) In describing this basic principle “an administrative authority when exercising a discretionary power .......... observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any of the factors relevant to the particular case”. R v Parliamentary Commisioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin (199 “The relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused the decision maker to reach a different conclusion” R v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd (1999) Justice Lightman “The Court may interfere if the Director has taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to take into account a relevant consideration.” R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001) Lord Slynn “It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside”. 11) Duty to consider evidence of probative value Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd (1984) Lord Diplock In referring to a principle of natural justice that an investigative decision maker “must base his decision upon evidence that has some probative value.” R v Wakefield Magistrates Court ex parte Wakefield M B C (2000) The Magistrates decision “fatally flawed by its error of law in purporting to make a critical finding of fact, without having heard any evidence called in the proceedings upon which that finding of fact could properly be founded” 12) A right to see documents relied on T A Miller v Ministry of Housing Local Government (196 “The person at risk should have an opportunity to comment on materials being considered by the decision maker and to contradict them”. Wiseman v Borneman (1971) Lord Morris “I feel bound to express my prima facie dislike of a situation in which the tribunal has before it a document (which might contain both facts and arguments) which was calculated to influence the tribunal but which has not been seen by a party who will be affected by the tribunal’s decision” Lord Wilberforce “The natural aversion against allowing a decision to be made on the basis of material he has not seen” R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995) Justice Sedley “The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to contravert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything.” 13) Right to sufficient information Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) Lord Diplock “Fairness requires that the objector ......... be given sufficient information about the reasons relied on by the Department as justifing the draft scheme to enable them to challenge the accuracy of any facts and the validity of any arguments upon which the departmental reasons are based” 14 ) Right to cross-examine Osgood v Nelson (1872) Baron Martin There can be no doubt my Lords that the Courts of Law in this country, would take care that any proceeding in this country were conducted in a proper manner; that the person proposed who was to be removed should have every opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses brought forward against him, or otherwise opposing the case up against him; that he should have the power of calling witnesses to prove his own case; and he should have every possible opportunity which a person can have, according to the law and constitution of this country, of defending himself and of establishing that he is not liable to amotion” Bushell v Secretary of State for the Environment (1981) Lord Edmond-Davies “There is a massive body of accepted decisions establishing that natural justice requires that a party be given an opportunity of challenging by cross-examination witnesses called by another party on relevant issues.” 15) Right to legitimate expectation Council of Civil Service Unions v Ministry of the Civil Service (1985) Lord Roskill “The principle (of legitimate expectation) may (include) .......... an expectation of being allowed to undertake representations especially where the aggrieved party is seeking to persuade an authority to depart from a lawfully established policy adopted in connection with the exercise of a particular power because of some suggested exceptional reasons justifying such a departure.” R v Secretary of State for The Home Department ex parte Ahmed (1999) Lord Justice Hobhouse “The principle of legitimate expectation and English law is a principle of fairness in the decision making process.................” 16) Duty not to adopt an unduly rigid policy R v Secretary of State for the Enviroment ex p.Brent London Borough Council (1982) “(The Minister is) entitled to have well in mind his policy. To this extent the reference to keep an open mind does not mean an empty mind. This mind must be kept ajar” R v Hampshire County Council ex parte W (1994) Justice Sedley “What is required by the law is that, without falling into arbitrariness, decision makers must remember that policies are means of securing a consistent approach to individual cases, each of which is likely to differ from others. Each case must be considered, therefore, in the light of the policy, but not so that the policy automatically determines the outcome”. R v Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Food ex p Hamble Fisheries(Off shore) Ltd (1995) Justice Sedley “In describing the two conflicting imperatives of public law “the first is that while a policy may be adopted for the exercise of a discretion it must not be applied with rigidity which excludes consideration of possible departure on individual cases.............., the second is that a discretionary public law power must not be exercised arbitrarily or with partiality as between individuals or classes potentially affected by it............. the line between individual consideration and inconsistency, slender enough in theory, can be imperceptible in practice” 17) Duty to reconsider where an important error of fact is made known R v Newham London Borough Council ex parte Begum (1996) “the decision cried out for review when the error, on so important a matter, was drawn to the council’s attention by the claimant’s solicitors ............ A failure to reconsider the decision in these circumstances would in my judgement have been unlawful.” 1 Duty not to be irrational Bromley and London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1983) Lord Diplock “Decisions that, looked at objectively, are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached”. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) Lord Diplock “By irrationality I mean what can now be succinctly referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness ............. it applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it.” 19) Right for the procedural process not to effect an unfair conclusion Mahon v Air New Zealand Ltd (1984) - referring to the rule of natural justice, Lord Diplock “that the decision to make the finding must be based on some material which tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be disclosed, is not logically self-contradictory”.

I am looking to rent a spare room in my house. Does anyone please have an example of a tenancy agreement that could be used?

HSBC did the same thing to me re hardship - they are talking to me now the FOS are involved...

I am dealing with SLC atm The law changes soon re Defaults for SLC - they might drag it out to do so. re Statute Bar - neither - A debt is statute barred when the debt is not admitted/acknowledged etc for 6 years or over

Hi, In my understanding that is illegal under a number of different statutes. Including those reffering to "benefits and the like" There are other more experienced people on here who can't point you to the actual law statutes. My response will bump the thread.

Alex - You're on the right track. My claims against nationwide and HSBC were stayed. I sent medical evidence to the NW and HSBC They ignored it I wrote to the FOS - stating this was against the law NW refunded some charges - enough to bring my account into credit - but not the rest. HSBC - ongoing discussions...

People seem to be charging out £9 per hour for time and effort. Plus making copies etc at 4p per sheet. Hope that helps.

Maria - Your situation sounds awful, why not lets just all take a step back - see if you can respond with the 'required' info to your earlier posts and let the people here get things back on track for you. Obviously wishing your husband the earliest recovery.

good read

Thx

You are focusing towards the points that the banks appear to be taking a very hardline to hardship. I had the same issue with nationwide, where they took a very inflexible approach thought i qualified under FOS rules for hardship consideration. Nationwide came back saying they had consdiered my I&E and that i did not qualify. I wrote back saying they did not look at the whole picture and were being unduly rigid in there policy on the hardship rule i.e ,y I&E was not positive, and the casuation of the hardship was more complicated and long running etc etc, this was sent alongside the House of Commons document on 'natural justice' attached. After this some of my charges were refunded others are being discussed. Natural Justice.doc

Thanks Martin - Appreciatte your input/efforts - will send this first thing tommorow. Veester

I note features of the new PCN Act - particularly reseting of the 14-day early payment discount when representation is not allowed. I have several PCNs in the last 6 years in Surrey; which i appealed in writing, but representation was rejected; but due to time involved in communication the charge was increased asthe 14-day time frame was breached. Could i put in a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for any data and ask/make a claim for refund? Any particular part of the new PCN legislation or General Law say i can't? Surely the 6 year rule would apply?

What a great link