Bump, Any news Flint??

Good luck. That may stop them in their tracks. You may simply get no reply from them at all and collection activity will just seem to cease.

As per Coledog, you need to do a sar. It's pretty much zero they can't do what they have. The original terms need to have allowed it. It should have been on the poc. It should have been allowed for on the judgement. Notices and interest statements should have been sent. You were liable to pay the judgement amount of £4500 only.

Any updates Dotty - did you send the cputr?

I've not heard from Cabot since sending a CPUTR 2008 request. Have you sent one yet?

..............:lol:

Hi Rock and DD, I think I'd just await their next move and then tell them to go and make the proverbial sexual move with a duck....... I've only been through Mercers, calders, DM and then NG. I didn't even bother to respond to NG, just filed it under dog poop - they are just a £3 a letter rent - a - sol. I sent a letter to BC pretty much inferring that I know the "agreement" is a c&p and that a judge would probably be quite interested in having a look over it. After all, isn't it strange that so many MSDW agreements of the exact same era are different??

I can't remember if this was posted before (sorry if it was) Many creditors seem not to add the post-judgment interest to the original judgment, instead they state that the interest would accrue separately and that they can bring separate action to recover it at a later stage. The Lords in the First National case assumed it was possible to do this although that particular technical argument was never discussed as part of the case. Rule 7.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that a single claim should be used to cover all legal arguments; this would allow everything to be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The overriding objective also states that all parties should present the court with all issues to be dealt with in one action. Any failure to comply with this should be argued as an abuse of process and the case dismissed or struck out. ...Abuse of process and unfair contract term.

I suspect that C1 may now send you a recon, that's what they done with me! However, it was not a recon (although that's what they called it) - it was just current t&c's. The only info they had appeared to have was the year I took out the account - not even a day or month?

I may have missed a point, or making this too simplistic but, would they not need to have been awarded pjci to make any form of claim for it? It was in the poc, but it was not on the judgement, only the principle sum was awarded. Even if it was awarded, it would still accrue in a separate pot anyway. Am I barking up the wrong tree, or would this make a difference?

@ Ford... So basically, the judge made the correct decision! It's probably best that this is the case, otherwise you would find that the debtor would be making monthly payments forever!! - and the whole point of the CCJ is to draw a line under it. Flint, good luck with this - I'd be VERY surprised if you lost......

Interesting, It seems their original terms DID permit, but the judgement DIDN'T.......!! Thanks Paul.

An interesting one this Paul, Would you not agree that as interest was not awarded on the judgement (despite being in the poc), that they would not even have the entitlement to even sue for it?

Another thing. Do I not remember that despite pji being mentioned in the poc, it was not mentioned on the actual judgment? I would assume that it would have to be mentioned on the judgment, ie; judgment for the plaintiff of £xxx + interest?, otherwise it hasn't actually been awarded in the first instance? Thoughts?

If Varde are an offshore company, then how can they litigate and win though a UK court?

Thanks, I didn't read that carefully enough.... Hopefully the J will see sense on this one...

Thanks Paul, I can't see anyone wanting to sign an " independent covenant " for PJI and I don't see it as the case here.

As Ford and Andy, The judgement debt is now settled (good move as it makes things slightly simpler) The Judgement does not mention PJI, just a fixed sum, so I can't see why the court would refuse a cert of satisfaction. As we already know, it accrues outside the j debt and not part of it, so I cant see how they can get the CO. How can a CO be given against a debt which has not been subject to litigation per se and has no ccj pertaining to it? It goes back to the fact they would need to bring a separate action for the PJI, win and then get a ccj to go for a final CO. Using points previously mentioned IMVHO, I don't think they would succeed.

I think I'd go with Ford per post #92 and elaborate items 1 through 3. It's almost the same as your plans in #93. Would be nice if Andy popped in though.

Nice one, You must be relieved - CAG strikes again!!

Ford, Would you agree that the best way forward here would be to settle the judgement debt (which has to be done regardless) and then see what they do about the PJI and tackle it as a separate issue?, otherwise we are just guessing at their next possible move?

The way I see it is that they can't add PJI on the CO application as it is not part of the judgement debt per se. It's completely separate and has not yet been subject to litigation. They would need a separate action, then a defaulted CCJ (or a forthwith) before they could even think about doing it?

Flint, You're right on both counts and the correctly prescribed wording MUST be on the DN's as per the new legislation. It would be wise to get that letter off re the loans as well, another possible weapon.

Ta mate.

Thanks for popping in Ford, I was starting to feel alone............. Do you have any reference / links to the above? That could be a complete defence in it's own right?