It depends on the circumstances of the judgment Andy and "should" is the operative word there. forthwith judgments given at a hearing and paid in 28 days should not be registered, default judgments and, as my case demonstrates, instalment judgments given on defended claims are registered as are any judgments that are subjected to enforcement action. Registry Trust confirms "Registry Trust Ltd (RTL) is contracted to the Ministry of Justice to maintain the statutory public Register of Judgments, Orders and Fines for England & Wales, one section of which includes details of county court judgments. Most CCJs will appear on the register but there are some that don’t. To be capable of being registered the judgment must either have been issued in default (i.e a judgment without trial where no defence was entered) or else defended and payment is by instalment order or where enforcement action is being taken."

Looks like the court or smc have dropped the ball and the case has fallen into a black hole. Having caught up with the thread, given that OP confirms at post 3 that he received the NOA and Default Notice, it is surprising that this was not picked up by members reviewing the defence. Notwithstanding the obvious issue of misleading the Court (lets hope that cant be demonstrated by the Claimant - Les did you respond or have any contact with the original creditor regarding receipt of the Default Notice or with the Claimant about Notice of Assignment? if you did then if the Claimant produces it, at best, your credibility as a witness is going to take a beating. Notwithstanding, if you received it, we know it exists and if it existed then, whilst it may take time to produce it or may need to be reconstituted it is highly likely that either a copy or a reconstitution will be available. As to reconstituted document they are not on their own of evidential value but if they are backed up by compute records confirming the details that is a very different story and the Judge would likely prefer that evidence to "I didn't receive a default notice sir", particularly given (a) that appears to be false and (b) the test is service and not receipt (see S176 Consumer Credit Act 1974). Also, a default notice is only a pre-requisite where there is accelerated recovery, so the statement above that a lack of a default notice is fatal to the claim is not strictly correct as it is a statutory bar that only applies where the statute says it does. If the full balance is in arrears due to non payment then they could argue that S87 does not bite (that's the point I lost on a few years back, it was found that no default notice was served (so I thought happy days this is in the bag but the judge reserved judgment on the point of whether s87 applied to consider it further and came down on the side of the debt purchaser, he also mentioned woodchester v Swayne and said that even if S87 did bite he would grant judgment for the arrears as there is no bar to this) It looks to me as though S78 defence may be your best defence if there has not been full compliance as yet but bear in mind that as confirmed in the Carey decision the creditor can satisfy that by provision of reconstituted documents and that in fact they are only required to give you "true copies" of your agreement, the original terms and conditions, a copy of the terms and conditions as varied and a statement of conduct of the account (this is not necessarily a statement of account). Also the creditor can give a compliant s78 reply on the morning of the trial and that's you sunk, you could argue that there should be no costs or interest on the basis of the conduct but the judge is going to give judgment for the principal debt in all likelihood.

a judgment paid outside of 28 days from when it was made requires the debtor to apply to the Court for a certificate of satisfaction, if that has not been done, then unless the creditor has a process in place to notify the court then the Court and thus registry trust would not be aware the judgment has been satisfied. If it was paid inside of 28 days a debtor can apply for a certificate of cancellation (which removes any reference to the judgment), I'm sure I recall paying a nominal fee for mine when I lost a challenge a few years back.

DX, not wanting to cause any hostility but it needs to be said that, other than further venting your clear opinions on the firm mentioned, which are quite colourful (read as potentially libellous and in breach of the forum rules) that response is about as useful as a chocolate teapot to the OP.

Im sure Natwest will have been a little slower to refund me if we were talking about several grand, in my case it was only about £400.00 and they didn't bat an eyelid. You can still raise an action against the bank, but on one claim settling, the other should automatically fail and you could be exposed to costs (unless you can get around that by consolidating the proceedings), it may be worth looking to enjoin the bank into the existing proceedings if the complaint is not upheld or responded to. As an aside, creditors are bound by FOS adjudications - consumers are not. If the Bank do not answer your S75 Complaint, sadly it does amount to an admission of liability or acceptance of a claim and as you say there is no time limit on it (save the FOS guidelines) what sticks out for me is that they do not appear to have even given you an update such as we have raised your points with the supplier and are awaiting their comments). S75 imposes a statutory liability but than can only be enforced by litigation where it is not accepted and settled by the creditor. As such, otherwise than pants customer service and cause for complaint as to pre-action conduct (which can then go to costs) in that regard, sadly it doesn't prevent them from filing a defence to Court action and thus contesting proceedings but as you say the bank has the Wonga (perhaps an inappropriate phrase now lol) whereas the trader may not be flush with cash. Obviously if you do raise a claim against the bank they will put it in the hands of their solicitors instantly and that is something to be kept in mind, not sure who they would instruct from a their panel but they wont be cheap

Presuming this is on the basis of a complaint and not two separate legal actions, you should always approach the trader in the first instance, if they refuse pursue S75 (the creditor may well agree to pay out on economics and/or place pressure on the trader as they did for me with regards to a flooring company without going anywhere near a court action). If in respect of two legal actions, you cannot be placed in a better position or see a double recovery and it may be worth looking to consolidate the proceedings. Under a S75 action you may find (dependent on the value of the claim and economics) that the creditor enjoins the supplier into the proceedings anyway which, if the action for any reason fails could be very costly to you as there are costs from two parties. As above the creditor's liability is statutory and does not hinge on the creditor receiving payment from the retailer. It does however hinge upon you proving your case to the satisfaction of a Judge where the claim is contested.

The Particulars are likely generic being through the Bulk Centre and so in respect of loans that permit post judgment contractual interest it is likely that it will be pled in every case barring some error. Also they will likely have sent notices where they are pursuing the interest post judgment, you may not like them (Dx appears to have a particular dislike) but they are not idiots, they will have sophisticated systems and processes and will be well aware of their rights to post judgment interest, probably more so than most. It is probably well known but Link purchased GE consumer, who purchased FNB who the OFT attempted to haul over the coals on this exact point. OFT V FNB [2001] UKHL 52 - it didn't go well for the OFT, Lord Millets judgment is quite clear and, ultimately the opinions of the HoL hold significantly more weight than opinions here and confirm an enforceable contractual right. From the OP's scenario, the only amount secured by the Charging Order is £6,895.00, there may be a fee for admin work in removing the charge on top but the interest is a separate matter that hadn't fallen due at the date of the judgment, so as above cannot be included, but they do have cause of action for that interest, the OP is contractually liable for it and they already have a judgment on liability. Given there is a HoL precedent confirming the term is fair what would you challenge a claim on if they sued?. I know this is perhaps not normal style here but my suggestion to the forum , as opposed to telling them to swing for the interest element as others espouse and risking further proceedings (at who knows that level), is it not worth being pragmatic and approaching them setting out the scenario in which the interest has accrued, along with an offer to settle the matter off along the lines of we will pay the secured sum of £X plus £x in settlement of any claims for contractual interest. Discuss Any information I post is purely opinion and should in no way be considered as legal advice. Public forums are never a substitute for professional legal advice.