TOMLIN: Nickij v Natwest/Irwin Mitchell - SORTED !

[Nickij01]

Re: Nickij v Natwest/Irwin Mitchell

Hi Ame, Ok an update again that I am not particularly happy about and confused too, as you know, the last thing that happened was we stuck with putting in our submission anyway even though Rob received yet another stay application from Irwin Mitchell.

Last week we received communication from the courts as follows:

General Form of Judgment or Order (N24 form)

6th April 2010

"Before DISTRICT JUDGE AINSWORTH sitting at Winchester County Court, The Law Courts, Winchester, Hants, SO23 9EL

Upon reading the file

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. List for hearing on the first available date after 14 days notice to the parties. Time estimate 15 minutes. Where the court wil consider under its case management powers what defence, if any, there is to the claimant's claim and to deal with payment.

2. Defendant to file and serve a list of capital and debts, income and expenditure within 7 days of service of this order.

Dated 29 March 2010"

Then attached to this is a Notice of Hearing

"TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing will take place on

27 July 2010 at 2:00PM

at Winchester County Court, The Law Courts, Winchester, Hants, SO23 9EL

When you should attend

15 MINUTES has been allocated for the Hearing

Please note: This case may be released to another Judge, possibly at a different Court"

I am a bit worried that the 7 days is taken from 29th March in which case we have totally missed the deadline, if not it still needs to be in today or tomorrow. What confuses me is that with everything we submitted to the court was included a list of debts, income and expenditure, we have no capital unless they want to know about the 46p in one so called ISA and I think 25p in another, will they want to know about cars owned, are they capital?

I am also confused about the application for another months stay and then this, do you think it is likely the stay has been rejected? The other thing that worries me is that what we submit now will obviously be very different in July so do we submit the information requested with additional details only repeating ourselves of what has already been submitted?!?!?

Why is it never simple, sounds very bureaucratic to me.

Whilst I await your response Rob and I will be collating together the information requested but any advice or suggestions, as usual would be most helpful and gratefully received.

Thanks NJ & Rob

[Amethyst]

Re: Nickij v Natwest/Irwin Mitchell

Hi Ame, Ok an update again that I am not particularly happy about and confused too, as you know, the last thing that happened was we stuck with putting in our submission anyway even though Rob received yet another stay application from Irwin Mitchell.

Last week we received communication from the courts as follows:

General Form of Judgment or Order (N24 form)

6th April 2010

"Before DISTRICT JUDGE AINSWORTH sitting at Winchester County Court, The Law Courts, Winchester, Hants, SO23 9EL

Upon reading the file

IT IS ORDERED THAT

1. List for hearing on the first available date after 14 days notice to the parties. Time estimate 15 minutes. Where the court wil consider under its case management powers what defence, if any, there is to the claimant's claim and to deal with payment.

2. Defendant to file and serve a list of capital and debts, income and expenditure within 7 days of service of this order.

Dated 29 March 2010"

Call the court and tell them you have only today received the order and will submit the required information by Friday and ask them to note that on the file.

Then attached to this is a Notice of Hearing

"TAKE NOTICE that the Hearing will take place on

27 July 2010 at 2:00PM

at Winchester County Court, The Law Courts, Winchester, Hants, SO23 9EL

When you should attend

15 MINUTES has been allocated for the Hearing

Please note: This case may be released to another Judge, possibly at a different Court"

Thats good

I am a bit worried that the 7 days is taken from 29th March in which case we have totally missed the deadline, if not it still needs to be in today or tomorrow. What confuses me is that with everything we submitted to the court was included a list of debts, income and expenditure, we have no capital unless they want to know about the 46p in one so called ISA and I think 25p in another, will they want to know about cars owned, are they capital?

By Capital they mean primarily Property. Yes you could put the cars down but make clear they are required for work etc. basically anything you'd have put on your payplan IE sheets (they'd have asked about capital as well) I wouldnt worry about the ISA's.

I am also confused about the application for another months stay and then this, do you think it is likely the stay has been rejected? The other thing that worries me is that what we submit now will obviously be very different in July so do we submit the information requested with additional details only repeating ourselves of what has already been submitted?!?!?

I dont think theres any need for a stay really - was a daft form for them to send out in this case.

I'd submit your Income Expenditure sheet as things are now, and also a projected IE sheet for after the change in circumstances and put a brief witness statement with it outlining the issues.

Why is it never simple, sounds very bureaucratic to me.

The court want to treat you both fairly and the bank will be pushing to get as much as possible out of you and I'd guess the court can see you cant manage it so wants to make sure it is right.

Whilst I await your response Rob and I will be collating together the information requested but any advice or suggestions, as usual would be most helpful and gratefully received.

Thanks NJ & Rob

WIll have another look back a bit later. Interesting the court mentions ''defence, if any'' when our WS was a simplew admission and offer to pay. Things may well change with the charges situation by July so nice they have kept it open till them. Just keep up the payplan payments in the meantime.

[Nickij01]

Re: Nickij v Natwest/Irwin Mitchell

Well more news Ame! I have to say that after passing over to Rob to do most of the hard work he has done well, much better than I expected.

He has been communicating with Natwest directly a lot and seems to be making positive progress to the point where a Tomlin Order is being drawn up to cover 6 months, back dated to January when the new payments started and then to be reviewed. Obviously they want to know some idea of how much of a change is likely so we will be working out all our costs and income at the time but I reckon, hopefully it will just go back to what we where paying before the increase with any luck and although its a substantial drop its still a good £130 odd a month.

Rob then called the courts to tell them the paperwork will be delayed and give them a heads up on what is happening, they agreed it looks promising that legal proceedings will likely be stopped but until that time to continue to file what we need, they gave us till Thursday to do this.

So Rob is staying on the Natwest's case, he will ensure that Irwin Mitchell are updated as they are only following instructions from Natwest right? If Natwest are happy with this agreement then there is no requirement for the continuation of legal proceedings at this time. If we get it all agreed and in writing covering us for the next 12 months in total as a start thats good.

Thank you for your help, I am not counting my chickens though, this situation has been a pain in the butt as you know so I may well be back for more advice but would like to keep you updated on how it goes.

NJ x

P.S. I haven't been keeping upto speed on the bank charges thing, where should I go for an update, is something happening?

[Amethyst]

Re: Nickij v Natwest/Irwin Mitchell

Fantastic Good on Rob. IM are okay with Tomlin Orders, will keep the case sitting in court so they can pick it up anytime if the agreement is broken (but then so can you pick up defence), they do usually ask for a charge on property etc tho as security, but as you are, and have been, paying more than the contractual amount anyway I cant see any reason why they will need it as its obvious you are trying your best to keep up repayments.