Thanks Cymruambyth There hasn't been an instalment order granted yet (judgment was forthwith) - I got taken ill very shortly after the court case so nothing has been arranged. I have been paying existing payments through my DMP though. Case is listed for tomorrow so not sure what I can/should do at this late stage. This is literally the earliest chance I have had to deal with it. Thanks for the advice though.

Thanks Ganymede, you've been a great help. TT

Thanks Ganymede Is there anything else I could/should add into my letter to the court? There are other circumstances which could favour me slightly - my wife owns more of the house than me (in fact my equity is almost nothing) plus the fact there are 2 small children living there. Thanks again for the help.

Hi Everyone Not been on the forums for months due to health/personal issues. To cut a long story short I lost a court case in the summer and the creditor (Nationwide) has successfully got an Interim Charging Order and the hearing to make it final is imminent. It's down in the paperwork as a restriction as I'm a joint owner in the property. Big problem is that due to issues mentioned earlier (so my responsibility/mistake/fault) I didn't deal with the situation so it's got to this stage. I can't attend court (no chance I can make it whatsoever for health reasons). Not sure what I can do next - can't attend court, so do I just wait for paperwork to come through saying it's final? Then is there anything I can/should do? My understanding is that even if I could attend, it would be highly unlikely that I'd be able to prevent it being made final anyway? From the research I've done, am I right in saying that a restriction simply means that Nationwide would have to be informed if the house was sold? But not necessarily paid out? I realise that I've not really helped myself here (due largely to circumstances out of my control) - but is there any help or advice anyone could give as damage limitation? Thanks TT

Thanks Andy, much appreciated (even if it wasn't the news I wanted!) TT

Hi Andy, Sorry to ask again but I'm a bit confused... You talk about an N245 being used for a redetermination and if it's within 14 days there's no fee. Then at the bottom you say there is a fee of £40. If I put it in by Monday (which I will) then that's within 14 days and so is there a fee in these circumstances? Thanks again, just want to get it right.

OK, finally got through to them (some other courts in the area have closed and they now have the workload and don't seem to like answering the phone anymore!) - coincidentally later the same day (yesterday) I got the order through the post, dated 31 Aug. Firstly, does the 14 days start on the court date or on 31 Aug? Secondly, the court staff told me I'd have to pay £40 irrespective of when I applied for redetermination. All the order says is that: Upon hearing counsel for the claimant and defendent in person, it is ordered that: 1. Judgment for the claimant and the defendent in sum of £x 2. The defendent to pay the claimant's costs of the claim assessed at £y Dated 22 August 2011 So is this the actual judgment? Doesn't say anything about 28 days to pay or how much etc... Well confused now - will fill out an N245 before 14 days is up and see what happens I suppose. Any other advice? Thanks again for everyone's help. TT

Hi Andy, Had nothing through the post yet so not sure how I can apply - would it by case number or could I get a judgement number from the court? Not entirely sure how it works. Thanks, TT

Thanks for that - as soon as I get the copy through, I'll re-post. TT

Hi Pecky1, Not my most local court, but was in my county and only about 15 miles away. Was originally Swindon, then transferred to local court, then just before it was listed it was transferred again to a nearby court in same county. You never know what might happen for you on the day, so don't give up hope! Prepare yourself well and try to have as strong an argument as possible and you might just win out on the day. I'll stick around in case I can offer any help/assistance. TT

Thanks for the link, Caro. Your honesty/realism in this thread has been valued and helped prepare me for a possible defeat. Perhaps a couple of years ago I might have won, but that's life I suppose!!

Thanks for that MM - I'm not ruling out an appeal but for now I think the priority is to try to stop a CO. At the end of the day in court, there's a winner and a loser so I'm philosophical but disappointed. Sometimes you're the pigeon and sometimes you're the statue! The one small piece of good news is that NW didn't persue heavy costs. TT

Thanks Caro. I don't regret having a go (and the landscape has changed a lot recently in favour of creditors) but I might be pushing my luck trying for an appeal that I'm likely to lose and then pay a fortune for. Still open to the idea though! I did try to test 234 (4) but the judge took the fact they needed to produce the agreement if terms had been varied to allow the recon too. Not sure what the case law is that would contradict that one? Ultimately, the judge believed the WS from NW - ie. "this is our procedure and we must have followed it". To me, people can make mistakes, there are human errors every single day and it's more than possible not everything was followed properly, but the judge didn't really want to know. So I think now, while I'll look into an appeal, I'm most concerned with preventing a CO. My understanding is that they can only apply for one if I don't pay the CCJ - so I'm thinking I need to set up a repayment plan with the court asap and then stick to it. Gutted to lose but I went into it with my eyes open and take the consequences now. Thanks again everyone. TT

OK, do you have a link to the case please? What's the appeals procedure/costs? Think it's a forthwith as he said I could apply to make a repayment offer I could afford.

Carey allowing a recon agreement - didn't accept any of my arguments on the original "agreement" as he said the recon was valid. WS from NW outlined the card application processing procedure and he ruled that on the balance of probabilities NW followed their own procedures, which complied with the 1974 act. In the friendliest and most reasonable way, he didn't want to know what else I had to say really!