I had an agreement with a Payday Loan Company for a payment plan after being served with Court Papers. I had set up direct transfer every 2nd week from my account to theirs. I then received Default Notice court papers saying they haven't been getting the payments. As per the Default I contacted them immediately to confirm the payment arrangements and find out why they hadn't been getting the. It turns out when the bank set up the payments they did it for 1 month instead of unlimited. They company advised they were going to seek a wage garnishment in Court. I went to the Courthouse and filed a Motion requesting a trial date to a) have the garnishment stopped (though it had yet to be filed, b) reinstate the payments and I served the payday loan company. The trial is set for July 9, 2010. My question, can they still proceed with the Garnishment even though we have hearing set? When I went to the Court the Clerk advised that I followed the proper procedures as set out in the Default Judgment by calling them to rectify the situation immediately. Thankfully I have everything documented via email showing that I did contact them greater than 8 times upon receiving the Default before they responded saying they were proceeding with the Garnishment. Many thanks!

I'm afraid to guess as to procedure in Canada. But I have a question for you: Why not simply have the bank correct their direct transfer so that it continues indefinitely?

To AK Lawyer - I DID do that AND I sent confirmation to the PayDay Loan Company. The have refused to accept payments and want the FULL balance immediately.

To AK Lawyer - I DID do that AND I sent confirmation to the PayDay Loan Company. The have refused to accept payments and want the FULL balance immediately.