You are correct Ford, the J is clearly looking at the Interpretation of the Term in the Contract. If my argument that the Interest cannot form part of the Judgment Fails, then; Paul, as the Judge has indicated that he agrees with the interest, would my application ask for the interest rate be varied and even reduced over what has been charged (London North Securities v Meadows Liverpool) so to be just to both Parties and not allow the Debt to run for to long. Could i also ask for a application for a time Order be heard at the same time? again trying to cover every eventuality, I felt the J was amazed at the Interest Rates and figures paid so if i proved he could vary i feel he would.

Anyone have a SAR template in my case to use. Thanks

Yes Can do, but the J had already accepted the Interest Arguments and when i raised that could the Interest Claim even be heard as this was a Charge Hearing to a Judgment debt that had been paid, i received a blank expression and he simply accepted that as the Contract states "Before and after Judgment" that it was correct that this point of Interest was applicable Post Judgment. I raised the Interlocutory argument and at this point he then Adjourned to allow further submissions on this point. So he is expecting both defence arguments next.

Think enough time as last hearing took well over 40days. Need to now look into the "Unfairness Arguments" Maybe Andy can point me where to start? To see if Setting aside the Judgment is a possibility, even if not, the way the J implied i know he would consider these points anyway at the next hearing.

Yes Possible and suppose if i knew of any missing, i could ask the J to allow Disclosures.

Thanks Andy,Sequenci, hi Ford, i Yea Good idea will do, but lets not forget 100 per cent the Notices were never sent, so if the claimant is willing to lie, he will obviously remove any relevant parts he can!!

I really didnt expect the Judge to not have even looked at my Rejoinder to the Claimants WS, if he had there were several Exhibits from Quarterly and Adviser documenting this issue. At least after i raised this and he browsed at "Interesting after Judgment" he at least back tracked and has afforded me more time on this issue, but before rather concerning adding "i dont know what you mean!" Anyway pick up brush off,head up and start again.

He simply accepted they must have been sent at the correct time, stated "the possibility of not receiving one is possible but not all Four", he obviously again didn't understand the relevance of the First one (1st required Notice) anyway. Yes representation is viable and/or further opinion on the original Judgment (and/or unfair relations) and on the issue of PJI not being part of the Judgment. If my representations had come from a Barrister i feel would now be writing a complete different account!!

Definatley need to look at my tact, must consider either representation or another opinion to assist. But last opinion one was not as in depth as all your advice and what i have found!

None, they sent them by post!

He also noted it to be himself take next hearing

Quick other point by us LIP it didnt seemed to help, as the Judge wanted to be guided and was dubious of my arguments. Maybe i get representation to speak for us next time or attach a opinion? Other point when i type up and space it is fine but once uploaded it is not doing?

Had the Hearing. Not gone too well. The Judge hadnt seemed to have read my Rejoinder gave time to only two of my arguments. 1. That the creditor misled the court in the charge application when he never informed them of a massive £123k payment was made. and 2. That he has no claim for PJI because he never supplied the 130a notices, if you recall these turned up on the day of the last hearing and claimed to have been sent, my relatives partner swore on oath that they never had arrived, and i raised that it was telling that they were not in the charge application as PJI makes up a considerable amount of this. But the judge dismissed both arguments. I supplied in my rejoinder arguments that interest cannot be part of the judgment sum as interest cannot accrue until section 130a are served post judgment and should be claimed seperatly.etc I supplied several articles by P Magde, adviser and quarterly account. The Judge never even viewed these and started to sum up, i raised this then and he said i was mistaken in my assumptions. Also he believed that stat interest could also be charged, even though i supplied the section of the 91 act stating no stat interest on a CCA 74 regulated debt. So he has adjourned to to afford me time to supply more info on these points (but they were in front of him) One point he did raise that he was astounded at the Interest Rates and said should i consider to apply to set the judgment aside if there was a Unfairness,extortionate rate argument. One problem i have is that as each hearing passes interest is still accruing is there anything i can do, they have sent an arreas notice so i could apply for a time order and try and have the interest frozen, but how can i do this when it is in dispute?

Hearing shortly One question if it goes against us what are my choices? Can i request to appeal? Can i request a time order to pay the debt in instalments and ask the Judge to freeze, vary and reduce the interest? If he accepts instalments that no order of sale unless in de-fault.

Just tweaking my response. One point the Claiment has responded to my point that my Interest here cannot be secured by way of a charging order, he responds with "THE FACT THAT CONTRACTUAL INTEREST AND A JUDGMENT DEBT BECOME MERGED IS SETTLED LAW." he simply then quotes and attaches the FNB case (Lord Bingham extract) Now we know that the S17 2006 Regs changed this, but could i use this and agree with them because if then my Post Interest is Merged then no debt. or would i be seen to be taking advantage of his mistake and it backfires.

All, 2nd hearing a short time away, have my reply in hand, i understand now the one point they raised where they claim that "Contractual Interest" can be applied in the Charge Order, but they are incorrect as this reference to Stat Interest and this will not apply in this case. I have been trying to find cases similar to assist mine, have been searching Baili but without success any ides for ones reported or not?

I havent found the "Quartely Account, Mary Sullivan 1999" it quotes yet, but assume the position of the OFT was reversed by the findings in the FNB case ?

Thanks, have used this in my defence last week. I now move on and i need to still raise 2 defences; to raise doubt that the 130a Notices were ever sent, and if they are reliant on the 130a notices then PJI Interest must be separate as the creditor can charge PJI only after Judgment and after the "First Required Notice" is given and thus PJI cannot form part of the judgment as he would have no entitlement to PJI at that stage, even if it was in his POC. The Prescribed words "Interest will be charged from the day you were given this notice (i.e. when the notice is deemed to have been delivered to you in the ordinary course of the post) onwards . This means that......." is very clear by this wording that PJI does not form part of the Judgment. Its took me a while but with all your help on here i am not just replicating what i read but am gradually understanding it. Thanks

Thanks Paul, good reading. Can i source in more detail from the OFT? I am also trying to source any cases that can assist mine. Thanks

I do understand your comments, and i am aware of the wording which exists in my contract which the claimant could argue is a clear Express Term.

Hatesdebt-With regard to there claim for pjci this is they state, to be covered by the wording in the charge application N379 s2 "which includes further interest payable on the judgment debt". Ford- You are correct with regard to the meaning of the Covenant which was debated over in the FNB case "independent and not merged" and i will raise this. I am determined more than ever after looking the claimant in the eye when the 130a notice requirements miraculous appeared in the w/s. Why were these not attached to his original charge application which would have been the norm when your debt that you are requiring to secure under a charge is PJI. So obvious.

Is the reference to "Further Interest on the Judgment Debt" on the application N379 s2 a reference to Stat Interest?

I believe it was considered by the Judge, as he referred to one part of it.

I understand what your saying but would i not be seemed to be unreasonable to ask for it to be disregarded, as the judge has adjourned for a future date? Thanks

Thanks. One point, there Witness Statement was supplied minutes before the hearing, i didn't have time to digest it, the Judge asked if they had anymore to add for the next hearing they answered no. We were not asked, i need to reply to this now, do i need permission to do so? From Whom?