Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hatesdebt

  1. Hi Cleo, Was there any particular letter / wording used that made them give this reply?
  2. It's actually up to Cabot to chase City for a copy of your original agreement, not you. But, I'd be inclined to cca City themselves anyway. Reason being, they will almost certainly not have the agreement, and they quite often state as such in writing. Once you have this in writing, you can smugly wave a copy under Cabot's nose. The recon may comply with the sec 78 request, but to enforce the debt - NO, so all they can really do is the usual willy waving....
  3. Don't take me at 100% on this though Gail. The problem is, all legislation is written in the usual gobblygook rubbish and therefore hard to decipher, but that's the way I see it. If the sec 130 notices do apply in Scotland (and I "think" they do), as they have not been issued, they have lost all rights to either charge or claim the pji anyway.
  4. If a lender applies for pji, a judge can grant it at their discretion and it will be stated on the judgment. The point is, it doesn't merge with the judgment debt and has to accrue separately. So, if the judgment for example says judgment amount of £5k + interest, you only need to pay £5k to clear the judgment. They were granted the pji yes, but as it does not merge and form part of, they need to bring separate proceedings to claim it. Anyone else?...
  5. Hmm, I can't find anything that says sec 130a does not apply in Scotland - unless anyone knows different. In any event, it states quite clearly in the original terms that the interest shall not merge. This means it cannot form part of the judgment debt and other proceedings have to be brought. Personally, I'm still of the view that all you had to pay Link was the outstanding balance of the the judgment amount at the time. This I believe was around £2224
  6. Gail, Look back at posts 29,66 and 71. Your extract from the terms state that the interest does not merge with the judgement amount. As I said, this means the pji accrues separately and the owner of the debt has to take you back to court with a completely separate action to recover the same. Link can't just make things up as they go along. They need to substantiate their right to claim additional interest. As far as I see it, they had no legal standing or lawful right to demand the extra interest. They have to be able to PROVE they were able to lawfully do so. Also, no sec130 notices were served. You should mention all of this to the fos. Did you ever include in your letters (as I advised).... "Please can you send copies of the paperwork / legislation upon which you have relied to charge this interest"....?
  7. Another nail in the coffin then - LOL!! I'm off now, but will keep an eye on the thread. You could also send a pm to a member called "ford" - he's pretty good at this pji stuff. Ask him if he can be kind enough to look in on the thread.
  8. Gail, Look at post #71 - did you ever receive such notices? Anyway, We may as well leave this now until you get a reply from your letter sending on Monday and see what the sar turns up. Otherwise it's guesswork. Anyway, I need a glass of wine and a fag......
  9. I don't agree DX, If we can prove that Link had no right to those extra funds, then a claim could be brought, be the conversation be by phone or otherwise. No court would believe that someone would just willy nilly hand over all that extra money without being coerced in some way. Oh BTW, Regarding sec 130a notices....... "Once the CCJ is in place, your creditor must send you a notice to say they intend to charge interest on the judgment. They are not allowed to add interest until they have sent the first notice to you. The notice must tell you the outstanding balance on which interest will be charged. It must also tell you what the rate of interest is and what date the interest will run from. It must also tell you that you can ask the court to change the interest rate and the instalments you pay. The creditor has to send you a new notice every six months if they want to keep charging interest. The notice must tell you how much interest has been added and the interest rate. If the creditor does not send you a notice within six months, they are not allowed to charge interest until a new notice is sent. They are not allowed to add interest back in for the time they have missed."
  10. Hi Gail, Yep, that's exactly what I meant. We need to see what turns up, but I think Link are stuffed on this tbh.......
  11. Absolutely, it needs to be in the original terms. Not only that, but it can't be claimed unless protocol is followed such as the sec 130 notices for example. Recently, it also has to be stated on the default notice as well....
  12. Gail, Do as DX says and ask about the decree. At the same time, tell them you require a copy of the documentation / legislation upon which they have relied to charge such interest. If they can't supply such documentation, or what they send is rubbish, they could be dead in the water should you bring a claim. After all, that is what they would have to rely upon in court. Do it tmrw / Monday..... We'll also wait and see what the SAR turns up.. .....All of the above in writing - don't call them.
  13. I think I'd stop worrying atm and see what the SAR turns up. We can go from there.....
  14. Don't worry about that. All that really says is that creditors can go for pji if they wish and is not necessarily deemed an unfair contract term. Collecting it is another matter entirely....
  15. All is not lost, don't worry. Just trying to get our facts straight. The main thing we need to know is if Scottish law is the same as English when it comes to pji. If it is, then you have a good case..
  16. Cerb, If that's the case, then that's post judgement contractual interest. I'm unsure of scottish law, but in the uk, the pji would accrue in a separate pot and require a separate action to be claimed. In other words, that decree is saying they have to pay the judgement amount + whatever % interest pa until cleared?
  17. Just to add, Gail, don't worry about a mushy head - I have one all the time.... As far as I see it, the judgement was 5283 which seemed to include contractual interest until point of judgement and costs. All you should have owed Link at the time they purchased the debt, would be 5283 less the amount you had paid toward the debt until the date of purchase. Anything they had over and above this, they tried it on and need to be challenged asap.
  18. DX, You're correct. If a CCJ is sold, the purchaser has to abide by the order. They have to go back to the courts to change any amounts or payment terms. Personally, they are trying it on and need to be challenged. Gail, take note of the 2nd paragraph in post #29....
  19. My take so far is this... Link were only due the value of the judgement less what you'd paid toward it, so the remaining balance that you thought was due was probably correct. Trouble is, you have to prove that they were not due the extra you paid them. Thereafter, you'd have to take THEM to court to recover those funds. Anyone else???
  20. Thanks Gail, Blimey, that doesn't look very official does it!! No interest rate as you stated and wrong spelling..
  21. In the absence of more info from Gail, it seems FN added contractual interest until point of judgement. Even if they requested and got pji, it still has to accrue in a separate pot and cannot be part of the judgement debt per se. The creditor has to bring separate proceedings for the pji. It seems that link have just "decided" to add it within their own accounting - which they can't do. It can't be claimed unless sec130 notices have been issued anyway, and then it's not retrospective. I'd be asking Link for a copy of the documentation / legislation upon which they rely to add this interest and where the rates came from.
  22. Gail, As requested, can you remove personal details and post up this judgement?
  23. I'm still not getting some of this. What do you mean when you say they enforced the ccj? This normally means you have not made the agreed monthly payments toward the ccj after judgement, so they have to enforce the payment(s) in another way.
  24. As above, There should be something about a co being granted if this debt has interfered with the sale of the house. Other stuff I'm not getting here as well. Who has the ccj, fn or link? If this debt was sold for £2312, why is the judgement saying £5283? Can you get a copy of the judgement and post it up? (remove personal details first) This is wrong on many levels, the judgement has to allow for post j interest for a start. That has to accrue in a separate pot as it can't form part of the judgement debt and sec130a notices will need to have been sent.
  • Create New...