Third party debt order

[anterenea]

New poster, long time lurker-I need some advice about third party debt orders please! My partner has been issued with an interim Third part debt order and I cannot find any information on TPDO that have been issued against individuals, not banks or companies.
He divorced his wife in February 2010, she had engaged a London firm of solicitors who have since billed her in excess of £30,000. She was unable to pay and they took her to court and obtained a charging order against her property.
When the divorce was granted my partner was ordered by the court to pay her a lump sum of £25,000 which he has been paying in installments after reaching a written agreement with his ex wife. The lump sum is now down to £17,000. The London firm are trying to issue a permanent debt order and he is trying to fight this, what are his chances realistically?
Hope my (long) explanation made sense, any help/advice greatly appreciated :)

A Third Party Debt Order will freeze the Defendant?s bank accounts. The bank will then write to you with a list of accounts held by the Defendant together with the amount currently held in each account. If there is a credit balance then this will be frozen. There will then be a final hearing where normally the Court will make the order final if all the formalities have been completed. The credit balance up to the value of the judgment debt will then be paid to you directly to the creditor by the bank.

You will be given at least 28 days notice of the court hearing and you should attend in person.
Below is a list or arguments you can make to the Judge to try and ensure that the third party debt order is not made final:

1. Your money is in a joint account and the other accountholder does not owe the debt. Forcibly taking money from a joint account could be an illegal act especially if it was paid into the account by the other joint account holder.

1. The debt is for a small amount. You can argue that a third party order is too serious a step and the debt could be paid off quickly by instalments. A judge can refuse to make a third party debt order final if they consider that the sum owed is too small to justify it.

1. Making the order will cause a lot of hardship to you or your family. Where this is the case the judge may refuse to make the order final and instead suggest that the creditor uses other means to recover their debt.

1. The money in your account belongs to someone else. If you can successfully prove that you are simply holding the money in your account on behalf of someone else, the judge may then not make the third party debt order final.

1. your money is in a building society or credit union account and you'd be left with less than £1 if the debt were paid. This doesn't apply to other bank accounts.

Thank you Keli, however the third party is a person not a bank-I was wondering more about what they could ask from him, eg assets?

they will freeze his accounts and the bank will pay the creditor the money it applies to individuals as well

My understanding is that the ex owes money to this firm. Your dh owes money to the ex. The firm is trying to get the money paid direct to them. So your dh is in the position that a bank would be if someone was trying to get money directly out of an account. What exactly have you heard from the court, is there a hearing date?

Keli5325 - if the money is only normally paid to the debtor in installments, how would that work in a Third Party order? Would the dh still be able to pay by installments, but just to the firm?

They won't freeze his bank accounts at all.The order just means that when the next instalment is due he'll have to pay it to the solicitors rather than to her. As it's an order "nisi" he should just hang on to the money for now. there will be a hearing at which his ex can argue why the order shouldn't be made. When the order is made final he should pay all sums due to the solicitors rather than her. If he tries to pay her the money the solicitors can still sue him for what he should have paud to them.

Keli5325 has posted as if OP's partner is the original debtor, which he isn't.

Thank you LisaMed and Collaborate, that sounds good. He was worried there would be an order for the whole of the balance payable forthwith. If the order is for the installments to be paid to the solicitor instead of his ex and no danger of charging orders and third party debt orders against him then that is fine. The hearing is on 13 March, we will let you know the result.

He doesn't even need to go to the hearing. The creditor will serve him with the order when it's made.

I think it would be in his best interests to write to the court and both parties in advance explaining about the agreement, and to go to the hearing, otherwise ex-w's solicitors might well be asking for the whole balance in one lump sum.

It might also be worth considering whether to ask for a variation to the final divorce order, to get the instalment agreement incorporated into a court order, just in case his written agreement to pay ex by instalments is challenged. There is usually a paragraph in a financial order saying 'liberty to apply in respect of implementation and enforcement of the order' or something like that.

If the lump sum order was payable by instalments then the court can't bring forward the time for payment. Only the divorce court can do that.

Of course the position is less clear if the LSO was for payment in full, but by a side agreement it became payable in instalments. If agreement was reached subseqent to the order for it to be paid in instalments then if there is consideration (lawyer speak - basically means he gets to delay the payments but she gets something in return, which isn't something he had to do anyway), the instalment part is enforceable. I'd agree that perhaps he should attend if the LSO didn't say payable in instalments. Otherwise no need to attend.

Also it is a useful lesson to those divorcing - husband ordered to pay ex wife £25,000. Legal costs ex wife due to pay £30,000 (and presumably she also got some equity in or a house). Try to reach agreements without racking up huge costs where you can.

As collaborate says it sounds like the instalments were agreed by the husband and wife later so that may need to be approved by the court. Don't let him pay the ex wife a penny more otherwise the husband may have to pay out twice any money paid now to the ex wife and the same again to the law firm.

To be fair, the lump sum may be but a small part of the order - properties, pensions, shares/investments all get taken in to account.

£30,000 seems like a hell of a lot though

Hi and thanks again Collaborate, yes the LSO was originally for payment in full and the agreement between my partner and his ex wife was reached privately and after the order was issued. The judge has since then agreed it is fine and enforceable.
You are right in that beside the £25,000 lump sum my partner was ordered a weekly maintenance of £280/week for life, which I understand is fairly unusual these days. I think the judge must have believed her chances of finding employment were close to zero-we live in area of high unemployment in Devon. The ex wife's property is in negative equity as well.
£30,000 is indeed a lot of money but she was introduced to one of the partner privately and was perhaps flattered that a London firm of solicitors took an interest in her case?