Court Judgment in 2002 from Lloyds Mastercard

[TheDebtor]

Legal advice on this anyone?

 

My mother had a CCJ in respect of her Lloyds Mastercard back in 2002, the CCJ was settled/satisfied in full when she remortgaged a few months later.

 

I have got the copy statements and was wondering how I would get the charges back now.

 

Can I issue a new claim in the court or do I have to try and appeal the old CCJ in 2002 for the amount to be amended (even though CCJ is satisfied)?

 

I am not sure of the legalities of not having defended the penalty charges back when they got the CCJ in 2002.

 

Thanks for any help.

[Seminole]

If it helps I am pursuing Nat West in similar circumstances. I am unspeakably angry that they did this to me to recover an amount largely comprised of unlawful charges. I believe that given the original claim was satisfied the correct course of action is to commence a new claim against them.

[BankFodder]

Yes, why not have a go and start a new claim. See what happens.

 

How much is at stake? and is your mother OK about it as the case will have to be in her name.

 

I would suggest that that not only would you require that the charges be repaid, but also that the CCJ be removed plus compensation for the wrongful CCJ.

 

You don't have to settle for all of this, of course. The less you ask for the easier it will be.

 

They won't care too much about the money but they will care enormously about what it symbolises to give it back to you and they will care enormously about lifting the CCJ.

[Seminole]

I'm fascinated by this avenue of approach and I apologise for hijacking the topic but there is an interesting general point here.

 

I've previously posted that Nat West took me to court in 2002 for an amount that mostly comprised charges that had arisen over the previous four years. I am currently suing them for an estimated amount for those charges that arose since 2000. I would love to have gone back further but run up against the six year rule.

 

I hadn't thought of going down the path of attempting to overturn the judgement and seek compensation. If I successfully did this then I could effectively go for reimbursement of the earlier charges. It's probably too late for me to do this but it might be an avenue that others in a similar situation could explore.

 

I think the $64k question is what proof is needed to overturn the judgement if you don't have the record of the charges? Is it enough to show that one charge was wrong or do you have to demonstrate somehow that most if not all of the balance claimed was unlawful?

[simonjohn]

I'm fascinated by this avenue of approach and I apologise for hijacking the topic but there is an interesting general point here.

 

I've previously posted that Nat West took me to court in 2002 for an amount that mostly comprised charges that had arisen over the previous four years. I am currently suing them for an estimated amount for those charges that arose since 2000. I would love to have gone back further but run up against the six year rule.

 

I hadn't thought of going down the path of attempting to overturn the judgement and seek compensation. If I successfully did this then I could effectively go for reimbursement of the earlier charges. It's probably too late for me to do this but it might be an avenue that others in a similar situation could explore.

 

I think the $64k question is what proof is needed to overturn the judgement if you don't have the record of the charges? Is it enough to show that one charge was wrong or do you have to demonstrate somehow that most if not all of the balance claimed was unlawful?

 

I think the key issue here is

 

a) was a defence entered for the original claim

 

b) Did you fill out the admission to the claim

 

c) Did you do nothing and judgement was entered in default

 

If © then you have good grounds to have the judgement set-aside

 

To have any chance of having the judgement set-aside you need to prove that the outcome would have been materialy different. One way of showing this would be to show that the original claim was pre-dominatly made up of unenforcable penalty charges.

 

I think the application fee is somewhere around £65 when i find the link I will post it

 

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/judgment/payment/form.htm

[BankFodder]

I doubt whether you have any chance setting an old judgmemt aside.

 

I thnk that the best bet is to begin a new clam on the new grounds which you have discovered through this site and see what happens.

It won't cost much. You can't lose much. take it step by step.

[Seminole]

I'm already going after them for charges which fall within the six year rule but there's not a great deal of them.

 

I think I will wait for the outcome of this case before I decide whether to go after them over the judgment. Can one make an application to set a judgement aside without significant risk of having to bear the other sider's costs? If so then I would have nothing particularly to lose. The upside would be to hopefully show the way for others who've been taken to the cleaners like I was.

[pauli]

Hi guys ..not quite in the thread but very much related.

 

I just had a court judgement against me in respect of a credit card default. I deliberately did not defend the claim despite the fact that it includes a number of late payment and overlimit fees.

 

I am now intending to ask for a variation order but will also explore the possibility of having the judgement set aside on the basis that the judgement debt includes monies that has been unlawfully charged.

 

Effectively the County Court will now have to make a decision on the legality of the charges?

 

If the judge agrees to set aside the debt he is effectively ruling that the charges are unlawful...yes??

 

Or am I missing something crucial..any help would be appreciated in respect of the legal argument

 

thanks pauli

[simonjohn]

Deleted

[BankFodder]

If you wre granted a setaside, it would be on condition that you file a defence within xx days judgment to be restored in default.

 

And this discussion is hijacking someone else's thread.

[TheDebtor]

Well the only thing to lose is I worry that if they got it thrown out on the technicality of the previous judgment then pursued for a few hundred quid solicitor's fees.

 

I really hate these Lloyds people!

 

My mother was in her 60's and was having a hip replacement. I defended the CCJ as a litigation friend. I appeared at the court 5 times.

 

Everytime Lloyds solicitor showed up they had no documents with them and just kept getting it adjourned by claiming they thought it was a directions hearing. They eventually had to pay me for my travelling costs and lunch (the judge ordered them to). I wasn't defending the penalty things as who knew about that back in 2002.

 

Anyway some of the balance was the fees and it's all those fees racking up that push people over. I haven't added it all up yet.

 

It got worse, after the CCJ for this UNSECURED credit card debt, they charged 4 times the base rate for. They then got a charging order on her house. All this after a payment schedule was agreed and a variance order agreed. The charging order meant that her husband was informed of the debt, as the court send all details to all the owners of the property.

 

So basically they charge 4 times the rate of a secured loan, for what they keep saying is an "unsecured loan" advertising it as "UNSECURED" and not putting any warnings like "YOUR HOME COULD BE AT RISK", but convert it to a secured one anyway!

 

I think the OFT is looking at this. If their intention is to secure the loan in the event of default they should warn people their home is at risk in my opinion.

 

Never bother with unsecured stuff, you pay through the arse for it and it will be secured anyway if you have a property these days.

[BankFodder]

I can't see that you have identified the amount at stake.

If it is less than £5000 then you should be allocated to the Small Claims Track - in which case you don't need to worry about costs.

 

On the other hand, the fact that it has already been heard on other grounds could raise legal issues which cold persuade the judge to allocate it to another Track.

 

You need to start reading up on "Res Judicata"

[TheDebtor]

This topic was closed on 03/06/19.

If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there.

If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened.

- Consumer Action Group