That, I'm afraid, I don't know, I'm not in anyway qualified in respect of whether you should be writing to judges etc! Presumably correspondence should remain between you and Restons, the judge will listen to everything (hopefully!) at your hearing and you should have the chance to speak out. In respect of my comments on the WS, that's my interpretation of what is being said. It's all words and no substance IMHO!

Basically, in their Witness Statement they are saying that the hardship programme is there to assist, then in the following paragraph, admitting that it is not a binding contract and pretty much a waste of time as they will take legal action anyway! How can they possibly claim to be assisting by agreeing to the hardship programe when in order to make what they call a "formal agreement" a debtor has to be in a position to pay either more than they can afford or a lump sum apparent full and final? That's what I would call Hobson's Choice - if you are stuggling you can't fulfill either criteria! Refer the Court to the OFT tap on the nose our friends at Maryland Bank of North America received recently.

The Independent Banking Advisory Service. Not a company. Glad things worked out well for you DeeJayTee. Are you able to share how it was all resolved?

Good work Billious!!

You can never trust those swines!! However, in my experience you CAN trust The Mould and Andy!

Biliious, if the Court have said it's too late to submit your N244s it's too late to submit 'em! So forgot about N244s for now and concentrate on preparing the witness statements for you and your wife. All the best, CM

This from the HM Court Services Website: On 25 November 2004, in the case of Hammond [CO/3775/04; Neutral Citation Number: [2004] EWHC (Admin) 2753], the Divisional Court considered the provisions of the Schedule. The Court concluded that the statute did allow for an oral hearing where the High Court Judge considered it was appropriate. The Court stressed that such a hearing would only be necessary in rare and unusual circumstances. It stated that “There will be rare cases where oral representations may be required and even rarer cases where oral evidence may be required. It will be for the Judge in each case to decide whether such evidence or such representations are required, depending on a close examination of the issue or issues that have to be decided by him in the proceedings, the full written materials available and submitted and the nature of the oral hearing required.” This could be a good thing surely??

Glad you're back on form Bilious!

And that's what the barristers hate - the fact that advice is available online and people no longer have to lay down and die, they have the option to stnad their ground. As Andy says, nothing illegal in that, it's no different to contacting CAB is it??

I've just spent my lunch hour reading your thread CC. Unbelievable. And how they can submit your thread as evidence - how were they attempting tro use it? Besides which, your thread seemed more of a summary of how things were moving more than anything else. 8 pages of thread - did the Judge read it?!!

No, nothing is lost yet my friend!

Go Billious, don't let those idiots win. Stand up for what is yours - as Churchill said - never ever give up!! I hope your wife can get away just for that one day for the hearing. Best of luck.

Sorry to be a peasant, but what exactly is a consent order? Is it like a Tomlin Order? And who would have to pay the costs for a consent order to be drafted?

In respect of a default notice for an overdraft - I don't think one is required - generally they will just write to you and tell you that they are calling it in, which they will claim they are entitled to do at any time under their terms and conditions.

If you opt for bankruptcy your share in your home will vest in your bankruptcy estate. The Official Receiver (or any subsequently appointed Trustee) would realise your share by firstly asking your wife / partner if they could purchase that interest. IMHO it may not be the best idea to go bankrupt. Remember, if you have young kids no Final Order for Sale is likely to made so chin up medear!!

This explantation from the HM Courts Service website: Vacating fixtures There are occasions when circumstances, outside the control of the List Office, may necessitate them having to vacate a hearing at very short notice. Sometimes this can be as late as 4.30pm the day before the case is listed. This could be as a result of a case unexpectedly overrunning, a judge becoming unavailable, or other reasons. In deciding which hearing has to be vacated, the List Office will assess the cases listed for the following day and take the following factors into consideration: Which case/s, if removed, will cause the least disruption to the list (the aim is to adjourn as few cases as possible, ideally one) How many cases need to be adjourned given the reduced listing time available Have any matters previously been adjourned by the Court The urgency and age/s of the matter/s listed Where the parties and/or their representatives are based (this is relevant as in some cases the parties travel to London the day before the hearing) Whether it is appropriate to 'float' the case in the event of another listed matter going short (cases will not be floated without the consent of the parties) The likelihood of a judge becoming available to hear a floated case After taking these factors into account, the list office decide upon the case(s) which will have to be re-fixed and will inform the parties concerned that their hearing has been vacated. The case record will be noted that the matter is not to be adjourned by the Court again. The Court will also endeavour to refix the case on the next available date convenient to the parties.

The courts can't even get the names of their judges correct?!

Oh my god!! What sort of judges do we have in this country?! Have you had a chance to look at Billious' thread?

Bilious, I spent an hour or so last night reading through your thread and was horrified. First Fairy, Bilious' case sounds similar to yours - have a look here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?290433-Urgent-on-this-please-please-help!!! All the best, CM

Bumpety bump!

Hi there, Sorry, I can't help with your question but I have hit the exclaimation triangle under your post which will bring it to the Site Team's attention, so someone will be along soon to have a look, I'm sure. All the best, CM

Alas, I think you may have hit the nail on the head. If these are the T&Cs then to hell with an act of Parliament!! The Judge may also need reminding that the default notice compliance period was changed from 7 days to 14 for a reason...

Great stuff, thanks DD.

Thanks for this explanation DD. May I clarify one thing please - if things haven't yet proceeded to trial and a WP offer is sent to the acting solicitors, how does it stand for costs, cos at the moment there is one amount which includes the N1 and solicitors' costs. Presumably, if it is kept out of court there shouldn't be any other costs, just the figure quoted on the N1? Would the letter still need to be marked WPSATC? It would seem pretty harsh to me if they now refused an offer they accepted a few months back before an N1 was issued and took it to court anyway!

Certainly in my case all I've ever wanted to do was offer a reasonable amount each month until my circumstances changed, as I knew they would for the better sooner or later. The KISS principle?! What's that please?!