What is the £3500 debt based on, estimated or actual readings? You may have all been paying an amount each month by direct debit but that may not have covered your usage so you still owe a debt. 

If you are joint tenants for the property, all five of you have joint and several liability for any debt owed so you alone can be pursued for the full amount or they can pursue all of you for the full amount. 

You need to find out whether or not British Gas has billed you correctly and the amount claimed is correct. 

The charging order is a red herring. If the IVA fails because payments are stopped, the IVA practitioner can bankrupt the sister.

Depending on the amount of equity in the property, if it's quite high, that's a very likely outcome.

Advising the sister to just stop making payments is absolutely terrible advice.

Where a person who owns or partially owns a property enters into an IVA, it's usual practice that in the fifth year, the person has to attempt to re-mortgage the property to release equity.

It's extremely rare that a homeowner will be successful in re-mortgaging due to having a poor credit rating.

Where the owner is unable to re-mortgage, the IVA is extended for a further year.

This is absolutely normal practice in an IVA, and if your sister cancels payments to the IVA, the IVA is at risk of failing and she could be made bankrupt, therefore losing any equity she has in the property. 

Where creditors agree to a set-aside application, it's called a consent order, the creditor does not have to agree to it, and all it does is reduce the application fee from £255 to £100. There is still no guarantee a judge will set-aside the CCJ with a consent order or not. You might end up paying £255 and the judge denies the application.

Check if you're eligible for help paying the set-aside fee, you might not have to pay:

https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees

Yes, you'll receive backdate severe disability premiums from the date of the origninal decision in Dec 19.  SDPs are one of the rare benefits which can be backdated indefinitely anyway where they haven't been awarded. There have been cases where SDPs have been backdated years where a person was entitled and didn't receive them.

The form entitled "application for debtor attend court for questioning" sounds like an N316 which is an application to summons you to court and obtain information about your income and any assets which you have. If you receive a hearing date, you have to attend or provide a reason why you can't otherwise you can be found in contempt of court. Is the form completed or blank?

It doesn't really make sense that they are threatening to take you to court to 'reclaim monies owed' as you state, they've already taken you to court and have a CCJ against you. That is unless they mean taking enforcement action or submitting an N316 application.

Why would I make stuff up, or BS as you suggest?

It takes a few seconds searching to confirm what I said is true:

"When Honours Trustee Limited purchased the loans in 1999 it entered into a contract with the Student Loans Company to continue to manage the loans.

This contract terminated in October 2004 and HTL transferred the administration of the loans to a third party administrator who serviced the loans using the trading style of Honours Student Loans (HSL).

In January 2016, the administrator was changed by HTL from Capita Customer Management to Link Financial Outsourcing with the Honours Student Loan style remaining in place."

https://www.hsloans.co.uk/about/

You're trying to tell me things I already know, see post #8 where I state:

"Honours Student Loans...is a trading name of Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd."

Obviously if a MoneyClaim is made, HSL would have to provide evidence that the loan was in arrears if the claim is defended.

According to the letter from HSL, you have an outstanding balance of £588.93 which is due as you didn't correctly defer. You can pay the arrears or dispute that you owe them for whatever reason. HSL could make a money claim against you in county court if you don't sort out the arrears.

Yeah, by 2014 they were all sold.

Honours Trustee Limited originally bought them in 1999 not 1998 and were then transferred to Honours Student Loans in 2004.

Eventually administration being transferred to Link Financial Outsourcing in 2016.

SLC has always processed deferments for Honours Student Loans and Thesis, it was never placed "back in control" as you claim, that was part of the sales and purchase agreement when the loans were sold.

No, leaving it is not a likely option unfortunately. HMRC will calculate how much you owe and you can then either agree with or dispute that amount.

They've stopped the claim as you told them you were no longer a single claimant so a change of circumstances triggers a move to universal credit which has now replaced tax credits.

HMRC will contact you at a later date with the amount which you have been overpaid and will expect you to repay it.

Yes, I read the letter, what's your point?

Mortgage-style loans are no longer administered by the SLC, they were sold and are now administered by completely separate companies to SLC.

The debts were all sold off by 2014, the SLC no longer manage them at all.

There would have been no point in selling them if they had to still manage them after the date of the sale

. The purchaser can enforce the original T&Cs as they now own the debt.

What makes you think that SLC still manages loans which were sold off years ago?

8 hours ago, Bazooka Boo said:

If you stopped paying them in 2007, AND have definitely NOT paid them anything since, then these are Statute Barred and they are barking up the wrong tree.

Not if there's a CCJ. Defaulted in October 2008 so it's possible that there is and it's still enforceable.

Honours Student Loans is one of three companies which purchased mortgage-style or fixed term student loans from the Student Loans Company in 2014. It is a trading name of Link Financial Outsourcing Ltd. In this case they are not acting as debt collectors, they own the debt.

"Thought i didn't Have to repay till aged 55"

I think you are confusing the terms of the loan agreement where there is a possibility of the loan being written off when you reach the age of 50. Where you are behind with any payments, ie you did not defer properly and there is an outstanding amount owed, it won't be written off:

"12.  The lender will cancel the borrower’s liability to repay the loan if the borrower—

(a)dies,

(b)is not behind on any repayments under any agreement for a student loan and—

(i)was under the age of 40 when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 50 or when the last agreement for a student loan has been outstanding for not less than 25 years, whichever is the sooner, or

(ii)was aged 40 or older when his last agreement for a student loan was made and he reaches the age of 60, or

(c)if the borrower can show the lender that he gets a disability related benefit and because of his disability is permanently unfit for work."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1998/211/schedule/2/made

Case 3 - If there is a CCJ, they don't have to provide you with details of the infringement, you've already been found liable. If you want to dispute liability, you'll have to make a set-aside application.

Case 4 - It doesn't matter if you were never the owner or the registered keeper of the vehicle. If the registered keeper received the ticket and named you as the driver, you'll have to provide evidence that you weren't the driver who parked the car at the time the ticket was issued or dispute that you were.

What date did you receive notice that the TE7 was rejected as you have 14 days from service of that in which to submit an N244?

That's a lot better than the first one, good luck.

The nine applications issue is relevant when you are telling someone to resbumit a TE7 which was already rejected, and unless it was rejected on the basis of the form not being completed properly, a TE7 cannot be resubmitted after a rejection. There is still a right of appeal but the TE7 is not the correct process.

It is not the decision of the council to accept or reject a TE7, the council can contest it or not but a court officer can reject it even where the council does not contest the application. Do you seriously think that where a TE9 is accepted by the council and the PCN is not paid, once an order for recovery is enforced again, it will accept another TE9 for the same PCN? That would be completely barmy.

Slight correction to the above after re-reading, if the council accepts the TE7, the PCN will be reset, however, where the council objects to the TE7, that decision can be overturned by a court officer.

Ah, okay. So a TE7/TE9 appeal can be submitted, which will stop enforcement action and if that's rejected, another one can be submitted to stop enforcement action again and if that one is rejected, another one can be submitted to stop enforcement action and if that's rejected, another one can be submitted to stop enforcement action, and again and again and again and again and again. That's a great tactic to delay enforcement! I'm surprised not everyone does it. You state it is the council's legal obligation to accept nine submissions so it shouldn't be too hard to dig up the relevant legislation.

Or is it that a TE7/TE9 can only be submitted once, and if that is rejected, there is no further right of appeal and an N244 has to be submitted to the court for a district judge to hear the case if the PCN is still contested? That sounds way more feasible, as it would be the correct process.

It's true that a TE9 can't be rejected on face value but the council can object to it, and acceptance or rejection varies widly between different councils. One of the op's TE9 applications was already rejected.

As I mentioned before, it is grounds to appeal and may be good evidence to support a TE7/TE9 but it's also good grounds for the application be to rejected as the council can argue that it made every effort to contact the keeper at the correct address held by the DVLA and it's the owner's responsibility to update those details.

Also out of interest where do you get the information from that a TE7/TE9 can be resubmitted up to nine times for the same PCN?

On the other hand it could be argued that you kicked the leaves over the yellow lines after moving your car which to be honest was my first thought when looking at the photos. Good luck anyway.