Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
At a recent hearing a bank rejected my offer of monthly payment on a CCJ and asked the judge for permission to apply for a charging order against my property.
This was granted by the judge who then directed me to provide the bank's solicitors with details of my debts to other creditors (amounts, account numbers, etc). She said this was in order not to show preferrence to the litigant bank.
On reflection, l have come to wonder if this is legal (it is certainly not fair).
I am not involved in legal action with any other financial institution at present and to give the bank in queston details of other debts would only allow them to contact other creditors who might then form a queue to apply for charging orders against my property. This would effect severely my financial position and, therefore, it seems to me that the judge is acting beyond her county court authority ???
I do have ongoing issues with several creditors over bank charges, some in default over CCA requests, but l have not gone to court yet and none of them has sued me yet.
Any thoughts or information on this would be much appreciated
Hi Gizmo...thanks for replying. Seems like there's no other interest, but l think there is something very odd here.
No default on CCJ. It has only recently been granted by the court.
I screwed up on the original court action response forms and asked the original judge in court for time to pay. He gave me two weeks to present my budget/proposals.
At the second hearing l presented my personal budget (income/expenditure) and this was rejected by the bank's solicitor (A&L by the way) on the grounds that it would take too long to pay off the debt.
It amounted to approx £30.00 per month from a provable disposable income of £100 per month. I am working hard but am totally strapped for disposable income and thought the rule was that a judge cannot order one to pay more than one can afford? Obviously not true in Sussex!
Despite the fact that l offered the most l could afford monthly and informed the Deputy District Judge that banks regularly sell on such debts to third party DCAs for 15-25% of their total value, judge gave solicitor permission to apply for charging order.
l declared to the court (maybe foolishly, but in an attempt to be honest) that l have other debts to other creditors. None of these are currently involved in legal action with me (either suing or defending), though they might possibly be in future. There again, they may not be.
My point is, this is a single legal action by A&L against me. From the outset l have told A&L they are not my only creditors and have made offers of payment based on my income/expenditure. They have been negative & obstructive throughout. Why then should l be required to give them info which will help other creditors - nothing to do with THEIR claim against me - perhaps apply for charging orders against my (jointly owned by innocent partner) property???? This is A&L v Valdez, not A&L and various-other-creditors-with-help-from-the-court v Valdez.
I am going to fight their charging order request tooth and nail and have a very good argument. I can't, surely, be ordered to supply A&L with free 'ammunition' against me?
I just can't see how the court/judge has the authority to order this when no other party is involved in legal action and may never be. All the other accounts are in dispute - most in default over CCA requests.
I think if A & L were to start contacting other creditors leading to exchange of information, that would have serious data protection and confidentiality implications.
May be you can request from the judge an explanation of the need for this additional information and what limitations will be put on its use.
Actually, I think the judge may be trying to help you on this. One of the main factors in a judge refusing a charging order is that it would put that creditor in front of other creditors in the queue. Clearly this would not be fair on those creditors.
As far as the other creditors are concerned, they would be in breach of the Data Protection Act if they were to provide any information without your consent. I would suspect that it is more to do with the judge wanting to feel confident that the information is correct - rather than an intent for that information to be used by A&L.
Indeed, I would say that A&L would be in breach of the CPR on use of documents obtained during the court process, if they were to use that information.
However, I would certainly have a conversation with the court manager over this - but I do think it is more down to the judge wishing to go along with your offer for instalments, rather than acceding to the banks application for a charging order.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
Alan, Derby, UK.
PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING
EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS
Or you may wish to buy one of these great resources:
Click on the above link to place your order - payment by Paypal.
_________________________ _______
Sorry, but I cannot deal with your case by PM - please ask questions in your own thread. If you do not get a reply within 48 hours send a PM, with a link to the relevant thread, to any Site Team Member.
DO NOT SEND QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR CLAIM TO ADMIN, or our WEBMASTER - YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE A REPLY.
Advice given is purely my opinion, and is not based on any legal training.
Coumty Court Judge Out of Order??
authority ???
Reply With Quote
