The other side has provided account details to pay the Tomlin order but the number was wrong. I made sure I paid the arrears and got the court costs and something for my time. The agreement is continuing. Only problem I have now is I get no statements and have no idea how much I have paid off. Makes it very hard to manage as my payments go to my ex who pays out of her bank account (I do not have one) so I do not know if she is paying or not. Are they still legally obliged to send statements or does the Tomlin order stop this need?

I was paying instalments into the current (overdraft) account and the other side was happily taking these payments and whisking them away until Sept of this year. I was still been chased though by DCA'a over the overdraft. I think one of my letters about the current account asking "How can it be a credit account when no interest or charges are added or have been for the past 2 years?" must have spooked them though as they have now closed the current account and sent me a cheque back for £217 as "overpayment" I believe despite the refund they are still intent on claiming the £2000 alleged to be owed (fees built upon fees built upon an eroneous £90 charge that was never explained) Thing is now I am reluctant to remake payments as they insist future payments go to the credit card account and I am still pritty insistent the overdraft formed part of the oringal Tomlin order as I would have used the £2000 overdraft as a set off defence as well as claiming they deprived me of fund on this account so preventing me making contractual payments and causing the default in the first instance. Quite clearly if they unlawfully deprived me of funds in account A I could not pay account B as demanded. If I do make payments to the new account as requested the Dca's will still pursue me for the overdraft. The Tomlin Order represents my entire free money for debt management. They do not seem to acknowledge this or even care. If I do not it will go back to court and I am unsure of what will happen. Advice please ...

Hi, Just wandered what your thoughts on this are. Have been in dispute with Halifax for ages. They imposed a £90 charge in July 2007 and this spiraled into bank charges totaling £2100. They never explained this charge despite numerous letters. These charges clearly affected my ability to pay off other Halifax products forcing me into default. Went through debt management with cccs and stopped paqing around April 2010. They 'gesture of goodwill' refunded £400 in May 2012 because of my financial circumstances. They closed the account June 2012 and sent me a cheque for £217 overpayment. Now August 2012 Moorcroft debt **** are claiming the full £2100 as due. Seems very bizarre to me. Would the £217 be illegal lending if they are claiming it as part of the debt? Is the best bet with this a complaint based on the banking code 'Levying charges upon charges' Surely you can't close an account with no notice at all send a customer £217 and then set the debt collectors on them for a balance ignoring a previous refund. Thanks

the tomlin order forbids that and other eyes do peruse these forums. I am quite happy to carry on as if the overdraft is outside the Tomlin order. There is the little issue over the £90 charge which sparked the spiral of charges. There is the 2 letters I have from Halifax stating explicitly that these bank charges were a genuine estimate of bank expenses incurred to deal with unpaid items ect. Directly against what they said in the high court. There is also the fact that the £217 for the Tomlin order has been paid monthly into the overdraft account and it magically disappears a fortnight later. They seem to write some weird internal check to a diferent account. The money vanishes but no balance is reduced loan/card or overdraft and no statement issued. I thing they could get in a fair tangle in court with the above. How can the account be closed if money is still going in and out? How can it be a credit account when no interest or charges are added or have been for the past 2 years?

Thanks for the responses. original poc's: The claimants claim is for 14k presently due pursuant to a credit agreement entered into by the parties, full particulars of which have been supplied hithero. By an agreement dated 07/03 the defendant has an account number CDE with the claimant. The defendant has delayed or failed to adhere to the terms of the default notice issued by the claimant under the consumer credit act 1974. The balance due as of 0// on said account is: 14k The card number they supplied was for an old card that had migrated to a new number so the account claimed for was at best fudged. 1. The point I would pursue is that to atchieve settlement their barrister assured me this was for full and final settlement of all issues between the parties at court 2. The overdraft was entirely due to Halifax charging me a erroneous £90 charge (which they have never explained) and this compounded to a 2k overdraft which caused the defaults on the Loan and credit cards as I was deprived of funds. How can a lender act in a way on one account so as to force a default on another account? Bottom line is I am paying all I can to the Tomlin order and there is nothing left in the pot. Halifax are well aware of this having rejected my application for hardship on the overdraft. original thread: G v Bank of Scotland ***Reduced Settlement via Tomlin Order***

Halifax took me to court august 2010. I was alleged to owe around 28,000 over 3 accounts but the court case was centered on the credit card debt of 14,000. Many issues including overdraft charges been incorrectly added, incorrect default notices and irresponsible lending. In my mind and in the defence I was formulating these accounts were certainly intermingled. Anyway I tried to be reasonable and signed a Tomlin order for 13,000 payable over 60 months on the understanding it was in full and final settlement between me and Halifax. It states in the order "full and final settlement of all claims that either party shall have or may have against the other arising out of the matters in this action." The are saying now that this was just for the credit card and are activatly chasing the overdraft and loan. The Tomlin payment are been made monthly into the overdraft account. Halifax whisks these away. No balances on any of the accounts are been reduced in anyway. So where would we stand legaly. Can they take me to court for a related issue or would they have to apply for the Tomlin order to be removed first. The payments been paid for the Tomlin order represent my total disposable income. No more money is available as well they know. I know I have made mistakes in accepting and seeking credit but so has the bank. To lend someone far more than they can pay back and then throw at them charge after charge until they cannot pay for even necessaties should be criminal. And all because I co-own a property that has gone up in value. Any all advice welcome.

There seems to be very few 'won' threads posted lately and no updates on appeal for cases that have gone against caggers seemingly unfairly in the lower courts. Is there any new cases that are relavant to cca enforceability or defective default notices? Are these cases still very much down to good presentation and getting the right judge? Halifax loan are moaning about a alleged debt they issued a 7 day default notice for then terminated and I have accepted unilateral termination and offered to pay arrears genuinely due. Would just be nice to be pointed to more recent law if there is any.

Still awaiting some positive assertion as to how this disadvantaged you. Judges now are looking more at fairness in these matters and if their was no prospect of you complying with the Default Notice they wouldn't be too concerned that technicaly not enough time was allowed. A higher court judge might be more interested in the letter of the law but have you any idea how much legal fees you could be running up. Consider offering settlement at a reduced rate without admiting liability. This looks good later as well when the judge has to decide who is liable for costs.

Any update.

Can someone post a link to the Brandon case refered to in post 5046. Could do with a little night time reading. Cheers

So are we not again left with the situation where we have to provide a positive assertion as to how this was detrimental to us. i.e. I had the funds available in x account (see this statement) Had bank x allowed me more time to remedy this breach then I would have paid the balance owing and the account would have continued. By not allowing me the opportunity to remedy the breach bank x issued a invalid default notice. They later informed me this account had been Terminated and I have accepted this so although the Default Notice did not affect the account or the money due bank x in effect Terminated this account with no notice whatsoever and are not entitled to take the next step which would be enforcement.

If they haven't notified you of anything in 12 month that is another challenge as they have to supply details of the debt at least every 12 month. Sure someone will elaborate on the legislation but yes this does look like bad news for those of us who hoped to escape the chains of debt on non compliance.

Point 1 I would make is that this thread is still in the legal success forum and should be moved Point 2 would be that your only argument about the claim seems to be that this included fees and charges. Be very careful here because if you do get the decision reversed and go to full trial the legal expenses could easily outweigh the benefits you would get from reducing the amount owed due to fees and charges. I would not expect the court to wipe out your debt because it includes fees and charges only to reduce the amount owed. Yes they were wrong to send this to your old address but you do need to weigh up wether it benefits you to fight this decision.

Yes you would loose in court because the money is still due wether it is the councils fault for not collecting or not. Your argument should not have been that the money was not due but that the council was liable to pay the legal costs as it was the councils fault and not yours that payment was not made. I think the judge would have had more sympathy for a costs order against the council.

Sounds like you are arguing for arguments sake here. You admit in your first post at best this is unenforceable without a court order and have given no reason why you believe a court order would not be granted. In what way are you saying that Eggs behaviour was detrimental to you? Please don't tell me your just trying to get out of debt on a technicality! The second loan is the one with money due on so Egg would be right in saying that the original loan is irrelavant in this. If you suspected it was not legal you should not have agreed the top-up loan to pay this. This would be viewed as full and final settlement of the original loan and I can't see why you need to see this agreeement.