Agreed. Any tips as to how I can resolve this problem now, though? Will I need to apply to have this set aside before I can apply for annulment, or would the court consider an annulment without a set aside of the CCJ. Obviously I would apply to set it aside subsequently. Just need to try to get this bankruptcy annulled as quickly as possible without any delays.

Thanks for the link. Following the advice on that page ("Steps to take if the bankruptcy order should never have been made") takes me to Form 7.1A on this site - http://www.bis.gov.uk/insolvency/about-us/forms/england-and-wales - which seems to relate to company insolvency. Is this the right form, do you know? Also, when I apply to have the bankruptcy order annulled - probably using the statements in my post upthread - how will the fact that a CCJ is in force (albeit for an amount which I can show is wrong) affect my case for annulment? I think I've missed the boat on that one, I'm afraid, since I've had a ton of unsolicited letters from companies offering their services to me.

Hi. No IP, just the Official Receiver.

He he. Thanks for your input.

Thanks for the reply citizenB. How can I deal with this now, though - particularly in the context of the bankruptcy order which was granted based on the petition for the amount in that CCJ?

To be fair, he was a pretty affable chap and I still have his contact details and in fact see him around as he lives quite near me. This is something I prepared earlier! In late 2001 or early 2002 I entered into a personal loan agreement with Direct Line. As I recall, the monthly repayments on this loan were in the region of £190.00 per month. In July 2002 I was made redundant by my then employer following their insolvency. Following this I entered a brief and unsuccessful period of self-employment, prior to obtaining my present employment in June 2003. During that period I defaulted on my loan repayments and Direct Line passed the debt to a third party collection agency. On a date which I do not recall, but which I believe to be during 2004 I was visited by a collection agent - Mr XXXXX - who identified himself as acting for 1st Credit Ltd on behalf of Direct Line. I offered Mr XXXXX repayments in the sum of £50.00 per month to which he agreed. At the conclusion of that meeting, Mr XXXXX presented me with a payment card clearly identified as originating from 1st Credit Ltd and detailing the agreed payment plan and an opening balance of £6929.64, being the sum owed at the time. It was my understanding that in concluding this repayment plan the matter was settled to the satisfaction of both parties. Mr XXXXX called at my premises each month for the following 39 months and collected from me payments in accordance with the agreed plan. On each occasion, the payment card was marked by Mr XXXXX with the amount paid and the reducing balance and was signed by Mr XXXXX. On a date which I do not recall, but which I believe to be during 2008 Mr XXXXX called to advise me that he had been instructed to cease collection any further amounts in respect of the debt. At this time the balance outstanding on the original debt had reduced to £4989.64. On a date which I do not recall, but which I believe to be during 2008 and which I recall was shortly after Mr XXXXX’s visit to me described in para. 6 (above) I received a letter from - I believe – Connaught Collections demanding payment in the sum of around £8300, allegedly being the full amount still outstanding to Direct Line/1st Credit Ltd. I telephoned the number advised on the letter and explained that the amount demanded was wildly incorrect, that I had been making regular monthly payments against this debt for over three years and that, in fact, the outstanding debt was less than £5000.00. I also asked for an explanation as to why – after the previous repayment arrangement functioning satisfactorily for many years – it had suddenly and inexplicably been stopped. The person I spoke to was not aware of either the previous arrangement or previous payments, but advised me to send a copy of the marked up payment card to their office as proof of my assertion. This I duly did. I heard nothing in reply to my correspondence. On various occasions (not exceeding 4-5) between that time and now I received letters from both Connaught Collections and 1st Credit Ltd similar to that described in para. 8 (above). On two further occasions, I contacted the companies and made the same representations as those described in para. 8 (above) and sent further copies of the marked up payment card. My next communication on this matter was received by me on 17th December 2011, that being from the Insolvency Service which included a copy of my bankruptcy order on 12th December. I can categorically state that I did not receive any notification of the court hearing of 12th December, nor did I receive a copy of the claimant’s petition. Had I been aware of the hearing, I would have attended the court on the required date and presented the facts outlined above. It is suggested that a statutory notice was served at an earlier date. I can state that no such notice was served to me in person. I am unable to confirm or deny that the notice was delivered to my house by post, only that I had no knowledge or sight of it. Since receiving the correspondence from the Insolvency Service, I have made further enquiries and have been advised that the claimant’s petition was in the sum of £8622.64. I am unable to ascertain how this sum is arrived at, but it is clear that payments made by me have not been taken into consideration, hence I am not ‘justly and truly indebted’ to claimant in this sum.

Sorry, I.P.??? Yes - the same debt. But this is the buggeration factor. I had been paying the debt off monthly through their doorstep collector before they got the CCJ. The amount claimed on the CCJ did not take account of those payments that I had made and was for the full amount that was assigned to them at the outset (i.e. before their doorstep collector ever called on me) plus interest and costs. Stupidly, I didn't deal with this CCJ business at the time. I didn't attend court which was in Northampton - about 250 miles from where I live!

Thank you all so much for your replies. Of course I will pull all documentation together - such that I still possess, but I'm more relying on the fact that the figure cited in the bankruptcy petition is almost double what I actually owe, rather than lack of receipt of documentation (although I maintain that I did not receive the petition and was not notified of the court hearing date). The original personal loan was with Direct Line and was later passed to 1st Credit when I defaulted.

A few days before Christmas I received a huge pack from the Insolvency Service informing me that I had been made bankrupt upon the petition of 1st Credit. The hearing was apparently a few days beforehand, though I knew nothing about it at all and had not received any petition or notification of date of court hearing and so obviously was not at court when the case was heard. The Insolvency Service have since provided me with a copy of the petition in which 1st Credit claim that I owe them in excess of £8000. History of the debt is that I took out a personal loan in 2002 on which I defaulted with the repayments. The debt (about £6900 at the time) was assigned to 1st Credit who used a doorstep collection agent to collect monthly payments which I agreed with him and paid every month without fail for over three years (thus reducing the debt quite significantly). Out of the blue a couple of years ago, 1st Credit instructed the collection agent to cease collections and then started corresponding with me direct asking for the entire amount – failing to take account or even acknowledge the fact that I had been making payments for over three years. I contacted them repeatedly – usually in response to their letters - to explain that their figures were wrong and sent them copies of proof of the payments I had made to their collection agent (a payment card with each monthly transaction recorded and signed by the agent) – all of which were seemingly ignored. Do I have grounds to have this bankruptcy annulled? I am incredibly aggrieved that I had no notification of the hearing or copy of the petition before the event and I am relying on the fact that the sum quoted in the petition is very wrong indeed and that their claim (also in the petition) that I have not made any payments against the account is quite demonstrably wrong – luckily I still have the payment card. One possible fly in the ointment is that 1st Credit have a CCJ against me for the sum of £8000+. Foolishly, I didn’t challenge this at the time (even though I had the evidence to so so) being so exasperated with them. Would this make a difference to any application for annulment? Sorry if all this sounds like a garbled mess, but my head is in a spin. I’ve had a terrible Christmas thinking about all this and would really appreciate any and all advice. Many thanks.

Having read the judgment, my understanding is this: Mr Justice Smith did indeed rule that the charges were not penalties in as much as no breaches of contract have occurred. But - and this is the crucial point - he also held that the charges were not a fee or remuneration for a specific service provided by the banks (indeed, he held that in the case of unpaid item charges no service actually existed). My understanding, therefore, is that if a bank charge is neither a penalty nor a fee for a specific service, there is only one thing that it can ultimately be, and that is a liquidated and ascertained damage and as with any LAD the only charge that can be levied is one which is at a level which is a genuine estimate of the bank's actual financial loss in respect of that specific transaction. And I trust that that is what the OFT will be seeking to establish during the next phase of this process.

Well done! Got my letter today, too.

I've been dying to do this bit... ***************** I'VE WON!! ***************** Standard Halifax payout letter recieved this morning. Donation en route. Right, who's next? Ah yes - Citi...

Nothing! I'm sad now. I see some posters who submitted their claim after me and have been paid out. Oh well, hopefully tomorrow or Friday.

My claim was acknowledged on the 19th, so I'm also getting a little anxious - keeping lookout for the postman, checking my account online every hour etc. LOL. Halifax seem to have slowed down a bit lately when it comes to settling. Typical! They are still paying out though, it seems. Any day now hopefully - for all of us.

I'm guessing that that letter is a response to your LBA, rather than a response to your court claim. Probably crossed in the post. What's the date on the letter?

To have comitted perjury, the following elements need to be in place: 1. "lawfully sworn as a witness", i.e. having taken an oath, 2. "in a judicial proceeding", i.e. can be criminal, civil, inquest, tribunal etc., 3. "made a statement material to that proceeding", 4. "which he/she knew to be false or did not believe to be true". Elements 2 & 3 are clearly satisfied. If element 4 is also satisfied (he would have to known it to be untrue OR not believe it to be true), then assuming the statement was made under oath, your man has comitted perjury. Attempting to or actually perverting the course of justice is the charge which would probably cover the matter if all of the perjury tests were not met.

It seems that the letter I had last Saturday was in response to my Preliminary approach, since I've had another letter today which appears to be a response to my LBA. Letter reiterates their offer of £962.00 and emphasises that they will not be refunding my charges for the last six years (I only claimed for four years - I've only *had* the account for four years ). Obviously a stock letter, despite it being hand signed. Oh well, too bad. The court claim has already been done - deemed issued today according to MCOL. Oh goody - so should be early next week then, all being well.

That inconvenient thing called real life has been getting in the way of things over the past couple of weeks, so here's a quick update with timeline. LBA was sent on 4th October. Reply received last Saturday (14th October) offering to refund six months worth of charges in the sum of £962.00. All pretty standard stuff. Just been on to MCOL and issued claim - Charges £3705.00 + Interest £777.11. (Oh and the lost SAR eventually found its way to the Halifax three weeks after it was posted, since I had a second set of statements last week!)

So... having sent my Prelim letter on the 20th September claiming a "reasonable estimate" of charges in the sum of £3087.00, finally - on Saturday - I got all my statements; all 122 pages. Having spent 2 hours reliving the highs and lows of my life over the past 4 years, the final *definitive* amount I have clocked up in charges turns out to be £3705.00. Quite a bit higher than my previous reasonable estimate and far, far higher than the £1500.00 I thought would be the case when I started all this. Also on Saturday I received a reply to my Prelim letter, advising me that my "complaint" was being "escalated to Stage 2 of [their] complaints procedure". Haven't heard of that one before. Whatever! LBA due to go on Wednesday.

Oh at least £300 of the £561 is charges. I'm thinking that this is a pre-emtive strike, rather than an olive branch as such, so that when I do reclaim my charges, they'll be able to wriggle out of it by saying that they've already credited it to the tune of £whatever by virtue of this offer. I shall have to wait and see what is written in the letter of confirmation they said they would send (me having provisionally accepted the offer).

My Capital One account was placed with a DCA about 8 months ago - them having defaulted the account because charges left the account permanently over the credit limit. The defaulted amount was £561.00, which I've happily been paying to a doorstep collector £20.00 every month since. I got home from work today to find a letter from Capital One to say that they were taking the debt back from the DCA. I called the doorstep collector (who is actually quite a decent chap) to advise him of this, but he seemed to know nothing about it. Then I phoned Cap One to query what was happening, whereupon I was asked whether I would like to clear the outstanding debt in full tonight (£421.00) or whether I would like to pay a reduced settlement figure of 40% (=£168.40) within the next 21 days. Duh! Let me think. Although I said that I would most likely to be able to do the latter within the next couple of weeks, it occured to me later that something here doesn't seem right. I smell a rat, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I can't help thinking that their offer of 40% plus the fact that their charges are now 60% of what they were, is somehow significant (arithmetically speaking). Has anybody else had this? Does anybody have any thoughts?

"Within your letter dated 14 September 2006 ( These refer to my earlier charges LBA), you've advised us that our fees are unfair, I can advise that these charges are set out within the mortgage offer and according to the OFT, are thereby exepmt from the test of fairness." That right there is a load of bollocks. In fact the OFT report on CC charges stated quite clearly that there was an obvious read-across of the report's conclusions to late payment charges etc. on mortgages.

I think I can see what's happening here. Looking at the scans above, it seems that The Halifax are paying interest at a rate of 8%, but appear to be compounding it annually. In other words it is neither being paid as a simple rate from the date of each charge nor as a compounded daily rate. So what's happening is that all charges for any given year are totalled, 8% interest is calculated on that amount, the new total is added to the sum of the following year's charges...8% is calculated on that amount, and so on.

Well colour me wrong! It seems that the Bill was revived after the election - or at least something similar to it. In fact, not only revived, but enacted and now on the statute books. The Consumer Credit Act 2006 Someone here now has the unenviable task of working out how the CCA 2006 is going to affect actions brought under the 1974 Act. Perhaps it's worth alerting members to its existence, before they discover that they're quoting sections of the 1974 Act which have now been repealed or amended.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but unfortunately this Bill never made it to the statute book. It had its first reading in the Commons in December 2004 and made it as far as first reading in the Lords in March 2005, but was a casualty of the dissolution of Parliament prior to the 2005 General Election. Linketty link: ePolitix.com - Consumer Credit Bill (Failed Bill 2004/05 Session) As far as I am aware, there are no plans to reintroduce the Bill.