A stay puts the claim on hold and no further action can be taken without the stay being lifted. It is however not unusual for stays to be lifted years after they were first imposed and without notice being given to the debtor prior to the event.

 

Just to clarify a few inaccuracies there:

 

They would have to make application on Notice to lift the stay so you would be served notice that the claimants intention was to lift the stay and you would have chance to respond/object.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

Nope. I've seen many stays be lifted without notice in advance.

Oh, are you the creditor in this case?

A third party debt order can only be used in relation to the debtor's assets. You cannot take money from an innocent third party who happens to be married to the debtor.

I asked the lady at the court what is the difference between a stay and a strike out and she didn't know. She did say however that even with a strike out they could still re-start a claim so I am not sure what the benefit of a strike out is. I thought it meant that the same claim could not be made.

M.

A stay puts the claim on hold and no further action can be taken without the stay being lifted. It is however not unusual for stays to be lifted years after they were first imposed and without notice being given to the debtor prior to the event.

If the claim is struck out it is brought to an end but the creditor can apply for relief from sanctions pursuant to CPR r. 3.9. If you have a look at Part 3 of the CPR you will find the court's powers to strike out a claim and the bases upon which it may do so.

If a fresh claim was issued after the original was struck out this would run the risk of also being struck out as an abuse of process.

I have had one of these before because of an old catalogue account, don't worry about it, just scare tactics.

Would you be prepared to bet all of your assets that this is just an empty threat? That is what you are asking the OP to do.

The AQ is designed to help the judge decide what track to allocate the claim to (small claims, fast or multi) and to allow the judge to give appropriate directions to enable the case to progress smoothly to trial. The intention is that the court can deal with this procedural matter without then needing to convene a hearing so it is less costly and more convenient for all.

1) I suspect that you would not be entitled to a rebate if they had to terminate the agreement due to your default and therefore it has been removed. I can however only repeat my earlier suggestion that you ask for a statement of account as without that it is just guesswork.

2) Was the agreement secured on the car at all? Is there anything in the terms and conditions which all them to fix a charge in the event of your default?

3) You *should* attend court but you are not really obliged to. If you don't then you miss the chance to go before the judge and put your case; it is always better to attend because even if you complete the forms there is no guarantee that they will be on the file for the hearing and in any event the judge is likely to be much more sympathetic if you attend. The hearing is not like on TV; there will be no wigs and gowns. You will go to the judge's chambers which is basically his office and will be allowed to speak in plain English in a relatively informal environment.

Hello

]My questions:

1. How has balance increased from 4/4/12 from£8417.33 to £9078.50?

2. Why have they put a Interest on thevehicle when its a Fixed Sum Agreement?

3. Can they serve another default noticewhen served a one previously before the 14 days have finished?

4. What will the court do? Will theydemand the vehicle back?

Sorry you've not had any replies yet.

1) You will have to ask the creditor for a statement of account to see why the balance has increased and whether any additions are legitimate. I suspect they have charges interest and fees due to your default.

2) I don't understand what you mean when you say 'a interest'?

3) I don't see why not provided that they have not terminated the agreement on the basis of the first default notice if that notice was in some way defective.

4) The court can, and frequently does, make a suspended return of goods order on the basis that monthly payments are maintained. The court can make any order it considers just and therefore can extend the term of the agreement by ordering you to pay less than the contractual instalments. The court can however order that you return the goods immediately so it is important that you engage with any court claim, file a defence and attend the hearing.

On what basis did you dispute it?

Pardon me?

This will either be forthwith (pay all in 21 days)

 

execute/enforce the judgment by any way of 3 options

Charging Order/Restriction, AoE (Attachment of Earnings) if you are employed or Bailiff (If the debt is a over £750).

Just to clarify a few inaccuracies there:

1) An order for payment forthwith, as the name suggests, obliges payment immediately rather than in 21 days.

2) There are more than 3 ways to enforce a CCJ. A third party debt order or bankruptcy can also be used (I can't remember if even that is now an exhaustive list but I can't recall any other methods).

It certainly wouldn't hurt to scan/type up the details of the SD and covering letter. Is this a debt you are already familiar with? Is it a debt you dispute?

 

Your advice leaves me pondering - I cannot fathom whether it is breathtakingly naive or cynical in the extreme.

Are you referring to my advice? If so, what on Earth are you talking about?!

I'm sorry you feel a personal animosity towards creditors which is preventing you from being objective or polite and I'm sure you're not alone but let's not play with other people's lives here.

Perhaps we should just copy and past the above few posts into every thread as, sooner or later, these exact same points crop up

You can't go into a mediation demanding that the claim be thrown out, the mediator has no power to compel anyone to do anything and cannot make any orders. The point of mediation is to try to reach a negotiated settlement as an alternative to court. I would suggest you do a bit of reading up on mediation as a concept so that you know what to do when you get there, otherwise it will be a waste of time.

If a solicitor sends a letter saying their client has instructed them to issue court papers if no offer is made,does that constitute a Notice of Intended Litigation?

Yes, that would probably be sufficient if no response is then received. There's no need to send a formal 'Notice of Intended Litigation' but a letter before action is expected. However, this is only a requirement of the pre-action protocol which does not alter the legal position between the parties or prevent a claim being issued if it is not followed, it is only relevant to costs where it is relevant at all.

I understand why Link are doing it but will there be any complications with selling whilst there are charging orders on the property? Will the purchasers of the property be notified of these Charging Orders and would that put them off buying?

I cannot imagine that it would complicate your sale any more than a mortgage would. The buyers will be aware of the restriction and it will almost certainly be a condition of the sale that the charge is redeemed, i.e. that Link are paid (which is why, as an aside, the apparent difference between a charge and a restriction is purely academic), but that is true of a mortgage as well.

I'd duck for cover if I were you...

Agreed, but I have no particular axe to grind and I try to give specific help tailored to each case rather than starting from the presumption that everything a creditor does is bad!

Forgot to ask-if I make an offer to pay a creditor,can they apply for a CCJ anyway??

Yes, basically. An offer to pay does not prevet the issuing of proceedings with a view to obtaining a CCJ.

A CCJ is needed.

It could be construed that Link are acting unreasonably in requiring this restriciton, in that they are seeking to be treated more equally than your other creditors. Guidelines state that debtors should be treated sympathetically, debtors are required to treat all their creditors even-handedly. Do not concede to their request.

Can someone be treated "more equally" than someone else? I can't really see what Link are doing that is unreasonable; they're accepting basically nothing in payment, they're waiting for the sale of the property and not issuing a claim, they haven't petitioned for bankruptcy, they just want some security pending sale and if the OP does indeed intend to pay Link from the proceeds of sale what is the harm of having a restriction in place to ensure that occurs?

I'm inclined to agree with Andyorch but beware that if they take you to court, get a CCJ and then enforce it with a chargingborder you will find yourself with a charge anyway but not only will it secure the amount you owe but probably a few thousand pounds extra in costs.

As Link are accepting £1 without a CCJ it isprobably because you have a property and they know that there is an asset to enforce against if necessary, and of course you have said that you will pay them from the proceeds of sale. As you have said that you are selling the property they probably want a guarantee that they will be paid and a restriction would stop you changing your mind!

I have to say that Link do seem to have acted pretty reasonably here and I can see where they are coming from.

I have court case against lowell to do with SD, which is due in May any advice ?

You would need to divulge the details in order to get any meaningful advice.

I assume there is already a CCJ in place?

If there is then the creditor is entitled to enforce the agreement, reject payment offers and generally make life difficult for you. The effect of the charge would be that Link would be paid from the proceeds of sale of the property before any money came to you (although prepare for another forum member to say that is not the case).

Only you can really decide what factors are of greater or lesser importance but this seems like a way of dealing with the CCJ without having to face any intrusive enforcement action.

You will get a range of different opinion on this forum regarding charges. I am on the side of them really not being too bad a thing when you consider what the other options for the creditor are. Others here would rather be taken out and shot than have a charge on their property and the majority fall somewhere in the middle. Take the views on board and then form your own conclusion based on your specific circumstances.

I am not talking about issuing proceedings, I am talking about TERMINATING THE AGREEMENT.

Fine. If you're going to shout I'll stop trying to highlight the issues and instead leave you to it. Bear in mind that a District Judge has concluded that your arguments are wrong and you may want to be receptive to the idea that he may be right. You *will* have to turn your mind to the points I have repeatedly raised if you actually want to win your case and I had hoped that by raising the likely arguments for the creditor you would see that I am trying to get you prepared to defeat them. However, that does not appear to be the case.

I wish you good luck with your case and I will keep an eye on your progress from afar.

Who said anything about Default Notice?

All of Vint's recent posts have been on that point.