Hi all, Could really do with some advice on the above post. Many thanks. Regards, Borris

Hi guys, Please, I need really urgent advice. For those who have been following, I have court on Wednesday for a redetermination hearing. The judge is expecting to hear cases from both sides in order to decide whether or not I should be paying more than 7 pounds a month against my 12k CCJ debt (restriction). However, the judge will not know that the claimant has sent a settlement figure to me on request by my conveyancer as I am selling a property, although this is looking doubtful at the moment. The judge will also not know that this settlement figure carries a shocking amount of interest. I believe now that I should have entered a witness statement to contest the hearing, but that's only if it was about the settlement figure and it's not. As the two issues are related, would i be allowed to raise it during the hearing? Will the judge be able to settle the dispute by offering him/her the original claim form, ToCs, judgment for claimant document etc, all of which are posted here. What's really scaring me is that I could possibly be exchanging contracts next week almost at the same time as the hearing, which would mean that the settlement figure on the day would have to be paid to the claimant (so says my conveyancer). I guess then I would have to bring the claimant back to court afterwards via an N244 to reclaim the interest back, that's if it's ever been done! Regards, A really worried Borris

How on earth can this be valid... 14 Repeal of existing powers to award interest The following provisions cease to have effect— (a) section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (judgment debts to carry interest); (b) section 44 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (power to specify rate of interest on judgment debts) and section 44A of that Act (interest on judgment debts expressed in currencies other than sterling); © section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (power of High Court to award interest on debts and damages); (d) section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 (power of county courts to award interest on debts and damages) and section 74 (power to specify rate of interest on judgment debts etc) of that Act. Regards, Borris

Hi CAG members, I finally received a response from Horwich Farrelly (please see attachments). This is what they use to claim interest. It looks like (see no. 14) that a lot of acts and their provisions which are quoted in this forum to support cases of debtors are now useless! Regards,Borris

Hi CAG members, Still no reply to my letter, but it would seem that my creditor could be claiming discretionary interest, which apparently places the onus on the debtor to show that interest should not be awarded. Just when I thought I was getting to grips with interest claimed either pursuant to a contract or pursuant to statute, discretionary interest pops up. How does discretionary interest fit into things? Does discretionary interest have to documented anywhere, i.e. in the P.o.C, etc.? Regards, A confused Borris

Hi CAG members, Just thought I'd bump this up because I'd really appreciate some of your views and comments on the previous post. Regards, Borris

Hi CAG members, Can anybody please give me any assistance with the following extract from my ToCs: If you are late paying the whole or part of any instalment you will pay us, if we so require, interest on the instalment from when it was due until when it is paid, at the rate of the APR shown. This applies before any judgement against you and afterwards if the judgement allows you to pay what you owe in instalments and states that this agreement should not be changed because of the judgement. I would like to know if this could be used as proof to apply any type of interest, i.e. pre-, post-, stat, cont. If the creditor is claiming interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act and it is not described/mentioned in the P.o.C, could a judge overturn this on a technicality. I read everywhere that claimants must not only mention this in the P.o.C. but must also be particular with the wording. Regards, Borris

Here's an interesting post which is sort of similar to mine, albeit a bit long (bits in black seem relevant)... Hi All Not been in touch for a while had a bit of a breakdown over Christmas, was my day of reckoning yesterday this is what happened: The Judge explained to me that I had to much information about certain technicalities that needed to be narrowed down, she asked both me and the Claimants solicitor to adjourn for half an hour whilst she decided what course of action she would be taking, once called back in she stated that the Claim needs to go back to the beginning as nothing has been sorted out in 3 previous hearings regarding the Issues and that all previous hearing should be struck out and that I need to now fill in a single application in numerical order for the court to consider along with a Witness Statement in support of my application, each is to have numbered paragraphs and a Statement of Truth as if I was doing it from the beginning listing all the issues I have regarding the Notice of Assignment, Statutory Interest being applied, The interest rate regarding the Original Credit agreement and the fact that this DCA did not appear to hold a Consumer Credit License for a couple of years whilst collecting this debt and why they should not vary the agreement. The background being the now Claimant Merit Finance ltd bought this CCJ debt back in 2002 from a company called Orion Asset Finance Ltd then name changed to ICF Loans Ltd who Originally called bought the debt from the Original Creditor Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd as they went into administration and my CCJ payment has always gone to the solicitor, but I was only acknowledged in the way of a Notice of Assignment a year later back in 2003 that Merit had bought this Debt from ICF Loans Ltd, Then in December 2009 I received a notice of a application for a hearing with a date time but nothing else, so I sent a letter to the Court to ask what it was about in case I needed to form a defence and could I have it transferred to a Local Court. The Court acknowledged receipt of my letter but I only received a copy of the Claimants application which was for Merit to be substituted as the new Claimant and witness statement the day before the hearing was about to take place thus giving me no time in which to form a defence so I rang the Court in a blind panic to explain this and ask could they at least adjourn the hearing giving me time to form a defence to which I was told that it would go before the judge. Two weeks later I received a letter back from the court to inform me that the substitution has been granted in my absence (furious) so I then applied for a Set aside which was granted to be heard in my local Court as allot of things came to light in the claimants witness statement that either I did know about like the first sale of my CCJ from Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd to Orion Asset Finance ltd whom then had a name change to ICF Loans Ltd which up to the now Claimants Merits witness statement I had no prior knowledge of this sale either in the way of a Notice of Assignment or any letters from the solicitor, and what is strange is the fact ICF Loans Ltd you could take in short for the Original Creditor Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd yet they do appear to be two separate companies? So all in all I wanted to question: A.The Validity of the First sale as no Notice of Assignment was received by me yet as stated in the now Claimants witness statement that it was and when I asked for a copy of it they sent me chapter and verse of the Deed of Assignment from the first sale from Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd to Orion Asset Finance ltd whom then had a name change to ICF Loans Ltd but then stated seeing as Merit were not party to the first sale that they did not have a copy of the Notice of Assignment yet you would have though Merit would have had to have sight of that document to prove everything had been done legally from the first sale before they bought this judgement debt because my understanding of the LOP Act 1925 s136 & s196 is that unless you issue the third party a Notice of Assignment then the assignment is equitable and not absolute thus meaning that ICF Loans Ltd should not have sold this CCJ without the Original creditor Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd being a party to proceedings as the co claimant. B.The validity of the statutory interest being applied to the CCJ. and another two issues since which have been brought to my attention: C. Merit bought this debt in 2002 to which they have been collecting on it ever since through their solicitor yet it appears that they only obtained a Consumer Credit License in 2003 to which also that Licence seemed to have run out in Aug 2008 and appears to only have been renewed nearly a year later in July 2009 ? D.The extortionate APR OF 50% from the Original CCA. I have no problem in doing that and the Judge seem to take on board that yes questions do need to be answered by the Claimant in relation to those issues I had raised but I need to condense them more in my Application in fact she was very nice really, Question is what form do I fill in for this as the Solicitor asked the Judge is Merit still the Claimant and she relied "yes" So, is it still a N244 that I fill in and and again ask for a Set Aside of the Substitution of Merit taking place in relation to the issues that I am raising or is it something completely different? Bit miffed that I have to pay for the Application again to as I was not given the chance to defend the substitution in the first place! Their Solicitor seemed a bit miffed by all of this and when I asked especially about the statutory Interest the Claimant was applying and mentioned about the The County Courts interest on judgment debts order 1991and therefore it seems that s2(3) of the order is applicable in my case, he quoted that only applied to grants, the landlord of a dwelling house, or the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling house a suspension order for possession as below? The general rule 2.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgmentdebt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remainsunsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which therelevant judgment was given. (2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgmentdebt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at alater date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date. (3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevantjudgment— (a)is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreementregulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974(1); (b)grants— (i)the landlord of a dwelling house, or (ii)the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includesa dwelling house, a suspended order for possession. (4) Where the relevant judgment makes financial provision for thespouse or a child, interest shall only be payable on an order for thepayment of not less than £ 5,000 as a lump sum(whetheror not the sum is payable by instalments). For the purposes of this paragraph, no regard shall be had to any interest payable under section 23(6) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973(2). But as I read it (3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevantjudgment— (a)is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreementregulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974(1); Regardless and that sec 3 (b) and 4 where Just other cases in which interest shall not be payable under this Order, the Claimants Solicitor then went on to state that the Act only applied to Judgements of £5,000 or less. The Judge stated that it did not need to state on the Original Judgment about Statutory Interest and that the Claimant can apply it under section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, but when I mentioned about the The County Courts interest on judgment debts order 1991 and showed this what I had found below House of Lords Session 2001- 02 Publications on the Internet Judgments Judgments - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSE OF LORDS Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING (ORIGINAL RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT) v FIRST NATIONAL BANK PLC (ORIGINAL APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS) ON 25 OCTOBER 2001 [2001] UKHL 52 LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL My Lords, 1. First National Bank plc ("the bank") is licensed to carry on consumer credit business. It is a major lender in the market and has lent large sums to borrowers under credit agreements regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Such agreements are made on its printed form which contains a number of standard terms. The Director General of Fair Trading ("the Director"), in exercising powers conferred on him by regulation 8 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3159) ("the regulations"), sought an injunction to restrain use of or reliance on one such standard term on the ground that it was unfair. The bank resisted the Director's application on two grounds. The first, rejected by Evans-Lombe J at first instance ([2000] 1 WLR 9 and the Court of Appeal (Peter Gibson, Waller and Buxton L JJ) ([2000] QB 672), was that the fairness provisions of the regulations did not apply to the term in question. The second, accepted by the judge but partially rejected by the Court of Appeal, was that the term in question was not unfair. In this appeal to the House the bank again relies on both these arguments. The Director seeks to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal but contends that the term was more fundamentally unfair than the Court of Appeal held it to be. Thus there are two broad questions before the House: (1) Do the fairness provisions of the regulations apply to the term in question? (2) If so, is the term unfair and, if it is, on what ground? 2. By its standard form of regulated credit agreement the bank agrees to make a sum of money available to the borrower for a specified period in consideration of the borrower's agreement to repay that sum by specified instalments on specified dates with interest at a specified rate. Condition 4 of the bank's standard form provided that: "The rate of interest will be charged on a day to day basis on the outstanding balance and will be debited to the Customer's account monthly in arrears . . ." and provided that the rate of interest might be varied. Condition 8 of the agreement was in these terms: "Time is of the essence for making all repayments to FNB as they fall due. If any repayment instalment is unpaid for more than 7 days after it became due, FNB may serve a notice on the Customer requiring payment before a specified date not less than 7 days later. If the repayment instalment is not paid in full by that date, FNB will be entitled to demand payment of the balance on the Customer's account and interest then outstanding together with all reasonable legal and other costs charges and expenses claimed or incurred by FNB in trying to obtain the repayment of the unpaid instalment of such balance and interest. Interest on the amount which becomes payable shall be charged in accordance with Condition 4, at the rate stated in paragraph D overleaf (subject to variation) until payment after as well as before any judgement (such obligation to be independent of and not to merge with the judgement)." Emphasis has been added to the last sentence of this condition, since it is to that sentence alone that the Director's objection relates. I shall refer to this sentence as "the term". 3. The bank's stipulation that interest shall be charged until payment after as well as before any judgment, such obligation to be independent of and not to merge with the judgment, is readily explicable. At any rate since In re Sneyd; Ex p Fewings (1883) 25 Ch D 338, not challenged but accepted without demur by the House of Lords in Economic Life Assurance Society v Usborne [1902] AC 147, the understanding of lawyers in England has been as accurately summarised by the Court of Appeal at p 682 of the judgment under appeal: "It is trite law in England that once a judgment is obtained under a loan agreement for a principal sum and judgment is entered, the contract merges in the judgment and the principal becomes owed under the judgment and not under the contract. If under the contract interest on any principal sum is due, absent special provisions the contract is considered ancillary to the covenant to pay the principal, with the result that if judgment is obtained for the principal, the covenant to pay interest merges in the judgment. Parties to a contract may agree that a covenant to pay interest will not merge in any judgment for the principal sum due, and in that event interest may be charged under the contract on the principal sum due even after judgment for that sum." 4. To ensure that they were able to recover not only the full sum of principal outstanding but also any interest accruing on that sum after judgment as well as before, it became the practice for lenders to include in their credit agreements a term to the effect of the term here in issue. If such a provision had not been included, a lender seeking to enforce a loan agreement against a borrower in the High Court would suffer prejudice only to the extent that the statutory rate of interest on judgment debts at the material time is lower than the contractual interest rate, because the High Court has, since 1838, had power to award statutory interest on a judgment debt until payment. 5. But a lender seeking to enforce a regulated credit agreement is in a different position. He is obliged by section 141 of the 1974 Act to sue in the county court. Until the Lord Chancellor, exercising his power under section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, made the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1184), the county court lacked power to award statutory interest on any judgment debt and, when such a general power was conferred by the order, judgments given in proceedings to recover money due under agreements regulated by the 1974 Act were expressly excluded from its scope. It was further provided in the order: "3 Where under the terms of the relevant judgment payment of a judgment debt - (a) is not required to be made until a specified date, or (b) is to be made by instalments, interest shall not accrue under this Order - (i) until that date, or (ii) on the amount of any instalment, until it falls due, as the case may be." 6. Thus a lender under a regulated credit agreement who obtains judgment against a defaulting borrower in the county court will be entitled to recover the principal outstanding at the date of judgment and interest accrued up to that date but will not be entitled to an order for statutory interest after that date, and even if the court had power to award statutory post-judgment interest it could not do so, in any case where an instalment order had been made, unless there had been a default in the due payment of any instalment. The lender may recover post-judgment interest only if he has the benefit of an independent covenant by the borrower entitling him to recover such interest. There is nothing to preclude inclusion of such a covenant in a regulated credit agreement, unless it falls foul of the fairness requirement in the regulations. 7. Section 71 of the County Courts Act 1984 conferred a general power on the county court, where any judgment was given or order made for payment of a money sum, to order that the money might be paid "by such instalments payable at such times as the court may fix". The 1974 Act also conferred on the county court three powers relevant for present purposes. First, the court was empowered to make a time order. Sections 129 and 130 of the Act, so far as relevant, provided: To tell you the truth after them reading the above, I don't think nobody neither the Judge Or the Claimants Solicitor new then whether or not this 1991 Act applied to my Judgment or not Which reading it I think it definitely does, after all mine is a regulated credit agreement and I am at a loss as how you could read it any other way, what is anyone take on this please hard facts if possible. Got the Impression I hit a nerve or two with the questions I raised, especially in relation to the The County Courts interest on judgment debts order 1991 regarding Statutory Interest you pointed out to me, not to mention the other issues,also got the impression though that their solicitors will try and do there best to come up with a reason why this act does not apply to me, but at the end of the day as I said to their solicitor it either does or it does not full stop. Regards

The trouble is Andy, I don't think there's enough time to force the issue and get them to change the settlement letter because they won't roll over and except it that easily, especially as they know the house sale is imminent.

Just checked the P.o.C box on the claim form and it only states: THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS MONEY DUE UNDER AN AGREEMENT BY WHICH THE DEFENDANT AGREED TO REPAY A LOAN WITH INTEREST BY INSTALMENTS BY REASON OF THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULT IN PAYMENT THE UNPAID BALANCE IS NOW DUE I've just read this... Using the judgment interest figure The appropriate simple interest rate for judgment debts is prescribed under section 17 of the Judgements Act 1838. Section 35A(5) grants a specific power to prescribe a rate for pre-judgment interest that is linked to post-judgment interest, but this has only been used in relation to default judgments. The Civil Procedure Rules state that interest may be awarded on default judgments provided that it is claimed in the correct way and that “the rate is no higher than the rate of interest payable on judgment debts”.4 At first sight the Civil Procedure Rules do not appear to require interest to be granted at 8%; they merely state that it should be no higher than 8%. However, default judgments are made without judicial intervention, as a routine administrative procedure. The court will not exercise a discretion over the rate: if a claimant claims interest at 8% in the correct way, it will be granted. Although the link between pre- and post-judgment rates in default judgments is quite limited, it has an important influence on court practice. When a claimant first completes a claim form they will not necessarily know whether the claim will be defended. As far as interest is concerned, it would be sensible for claimants to assume that the case will be dealt with as a default judgment and to claim interest at the highest rate available. Thus the Court Service’s information leaflet, How to Make a Claim, gives advice on interest in the following terms: If you want to claim interest, you must include it in your ‘particulars of claim’. Write your claim in the following way: ‘The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [date you are issuing the claim] of £ [put in the amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest].5

Hi Andy, Thanks for the information. The guy at Horwich Farrelly is obviously using statutory interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. Am I clutching at straws in thinking that the claim of this interest on the money owed must be included in the particulars of claim, i.e. 'The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [the date you are issuing the claim] of £ [put in the amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest]. Here's the timeline from the letters I have filed: 16 April 2004 - Capital One Letter - loan approval 20 April 2004 - Signed Capital One Credit Agreement 22 April 2004 - Capital One Letter - notice of direct debit payment details 30 April 2008 - Captial One Letter - informing of non-payment 07 July 2008 - Captial One Letter - default notice 19 November 2008 - Capital One Letter - sale of debt to Robinson Way & Co. 17 March 2009 - Claim Form 06 April 2009 - Interim Charging Order 12 August 2009 - Judgment for Claimant (in default) 06 October 2009 - Full Charing Order 09 October 2009 - General Form of Judgment or Order (The Defendant's application to vary an Order is dismissed.) Regards, Borris

Hi CAG members, Does anybody know what my chances would be of pursuing a counter claim if I'm forced to pay the settlement figure given by Horwich Farrelly? I've had some bad news this afternoon in that my buyers buyer has had enough of waiting and wants to pull out of the sale. Horwich Farrelly will just drag their heels, even though they know must of the contents of the letter. They don't seem to be worried even though they may be in the wrong. I think they go through this often and know how to play the game. Can anybody please provide some guidance on what to do. I'm at my wits end with this now because it will be the second time I have lost my buyer, although the first time was for less complicated issues. Regards, Borris

Hi CAG members, I just rang Horwich Farrelly ahead of the letter reaching them! The guy again confirmed that it is post statutory interest that has been applied, but this time he said 'at the claimants discretion' and to look at CPR rules. I ran through the contents of the letter, which took him off guard a bit. He then said that I was obviously unhappy with the figure and the amount of interest, and that I could make them an offer in writing. Regards, Borris

Hi all CAG members, Some further advice would not go a miss in this instance. I'm really getting nervous regarding an upcoming court hearing, the details of which are attached in a previous post. I've prepared a financial statement, a letter to the judge and will attend in person. What's really concerning is the fact that the DCA in question knows that my house is being sold and has given a settlement figure to my conveyancer, which is being contested. So, what are they trying to achieve hauling me back into court? Are they trying to false me to default on my payments in some way by asking for some extortionate monthly payment? Are they trying to change the current judgement order to justify the interest charged in the settlement letter? It seems odd that after all this time of paying regularly each month and being left alone by them that they should drag me to court even when they know they could get paid out shortly. I can't help but think that it's all a bit underhand. The form says: What order are you asking the court to make and why? 1. The Judgment dated 6 April 2009 is varied. 2. This application be dealt with at a hearing; 3. The Defendant do file with the Court and serve on the Claimant's solicitors at least 7 days prior to the hearing data a financial statement of his income and expenditure for consideration at the hearing to enable the Claimant and the District Judge to consider a variation in the current instalment order. 4. In default of the Defendant filing and serving the financial statement set out at paragraph 3 above, the judgment be varied to be payable forthwith. Regards, Borris

WOW, knowing my luck I bet this is how my situation will run, talk about a similar case... http://www.google.info/forums/showthread.php?15157-Charging-Order-Bryan-Carter-claiming-interest-due-Anybody-help Regards, Borris

Hi Andy and all CAG members, The response to the settlement figure went off today, recorded delivery. I was wondering, are Robinson Way & Co. allowed to add my other debt I have with them to the settlement figure relating to the restriction? It's just that when I add the two figures together it's not that far off the figure given in the letter, plus if they felt justified to add some interest of sorts, it could be a possibility. Kind regards, Borris

Thanks Andy; and no signature either? Kinds regards, Borris P.S. I have another debt with Robinson Way & Co., but there is no order against the property. It will be interesting to see the breakdown. I'll report everything back to CAG in order that it may help others in similar positions.

Hi Andy, Sorry to bother you again, but should I sign the letter and add “Without Prejudice” at the top? Kind regards, Borris

Thanks Andy, you've been absolutely brilliant throughout this, offered so much information and advice, which has really got me into gear! Let's just hope Robinson Way & Co. don't put up to much of a battle! I'll speak to my conveyancer now and see if he wants to get involved. They've been a bit reluctant to date, mainly because they do not have any of the documents or know the history. I suppose it's their job just to send out standard letters requesting settlement figures. Regards, Borris P.S. I have one more restriction to deal with and I hope I can use the same process (Egg Banking c/o Shoosmiths moved to Barclaycard; waiting for settlement figure but dragging their heels).

Hi Andy, Thanks for getting back to me, especically with such nice information, it's really encouraging. So, as I understand it, as no post statutory interest or contractual interest was awarded by virtue of the court order, and the fact that I have no documentation from Robinson Way in relation to post judgment interest, means that they cannot add anything to the judgment debt or should I say in this case settlement figure. My question now is, if you don't mind assisting further, how do I go about getting Horwich Farrelly / Robinson Way to review and send out a revised settlement figure? Is the letter in my previous post adequate? Kind regards, Borris

Hi CAG members I would really appreciate any feedback regarding my proposed letter (see below). Dear Sirs, I am writing in response to your letter dated 11 November 2012 regarding the redemption charge of £XXXXX in favour of your client Robinson Way & Co Limited. Firstly, would you please kindly provide a breakdown of the above figure showing the number of repayments made to date towards the reduction of the judgement debt and the calculation used to determine the amount of unsubstantiated statutory interest. Secondly, I refer specifically to statutory interest that has been applied to the post county court judgment debt in 2009 and which I now believe to be wrong. The county court judgement did not allow for statutory interest to be added and as far as I am aware there is no provision in law for it to be added. The original loan taken out in 2004 was subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and this continued to apply at the time of default in 2008. Under the County Courts (Interest on Judgement Debts) Order 1991, any agreement subject to the CCA 1974 would not accrue any statutory interest post judgement. Please refer this matter to your legal and/or compliance manager, so a proper response may be provided. I am expecting any statutory interest added post judgement to be removed or a proper legal explanation as to why you consider the above argument to be incorrect. You will be aware that I consider the debt to be in dispute as a substantial amount of this sum is made up of disputed charges and interest charged thereon. I await hearing from you. Yours faithfully Regards, Borris

Hi all CAG colleagues Ref. last two posts. Is there any particular legal text that you should use in a letter to a DCA when contesting statutory interest? Is there a template available? Kind regards, Borris

Ref. last post and all attached documents. Do you think it's time to write to Robinson Way & Co. regarding the statutory interest that has been applied to a post county court judgment debt? The county court judgement did not allow for statutory interest to be added and as far as I am aware there is no provision in law for it to be added. Regards, Borris

Hi Andy, Thanks for the info. I spoke to Robinson Way's solicitor or at least some legal assistant and again she confirmed that they are adding 8% statutory interest. I requested another letter with this to be included instead of just a single figure. This is not mentioned anywhere in any document or been judged upon in my view. So, Robinson Way is applying the statutory interest via The County Courts interest on judgment debts order 1991 However, the judgement (attached previously) states: To the Defendant You have not replied to the claim form. It is therefore ordered that you must pay the claimant £11979.03 for debt (and interest to date of judgment) and £320.00 for costs. You must pay the claimant a total of £12,299.03 forthwith. So if this is the case, I will quote s2(3) of the order, which is applicable in my case: The general rule 2.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgmentdebt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remainsunsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which therelevant judgment was given. (2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgmentdebt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at alater date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date. (3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevantjudgment— (a) is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreementregulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974(1); (b) grants— (i) the landlord of a dwelling house, or (ii) the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includesa dwelling house, a suspended order for possession. (4) Where the relevant judgment makes financial provision for thespouse or a child, interest shall only be payable on an order for thepayment of not less than £ 5,000 as a lump sum(whetheror not the sum is payable by instalments). For the purposes of this paragraph, no regard shall be had to any interest payable under section 23(6) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973(2). Regardless, the solicitor is still saying that the Act only applies to judgements of £5,000 or less. Regards, Borris

Just read this particular thread: A 'clause' in an agreement is not required re post Judgement 'statutory' interest. The application of post J statutory interest is enshrined in statute (s74), subject to the 91 Order. How is the above contested and dismissed? A clause in an agreement is required for any post J 'contractual' interest.