Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There are two things to immediately clarify. Firstly, why did court papers go to the wrong address?  In 99% of backdoor CCJ cases here the person moves and doesn't update the vehicle log book address.  Or they move and they don't inform the parties who they are in legal dispute with of the new address.  Does either of these apply to you? Secondly, given this has been going on for over three years without presumably any ill effects on you, how important is it for you to have a clean credit file?  I ask as, if you do absolutely nothing, the CCJ will disappear in April 2027.
    • Sorry to ask, but I know I had SB template on PC, but can't find it. Also any search for template\SB letter takes me back here.  Any help to get to SB letter would be appreciated. I know I used it on a car HP co that wouldn't honor my FCS refund and after 6 years came threatening ( or rather their DCA). Worked a treat. Thanks in advance
    • Received this letter today after all this time !! Doesn’t sound like just a threat any advice please  Thanks  Photo.pdf
    • Good evening. Hoping to keep this short and concise. Any help really appreciated! Sent originated from council tax in 2019.  I moved address for a new career 240miles away in December 2019 and have lived here ever since.  A distant friend resides at previous address.  A CCJ was filed regarding this debt in January 2020 but no correspondence was received my end or at the old address.  Move forward to this year; early April I learn of a letter received from Bailiff - Notice of Enforcement dated 13/03. Stated I had ten days to settle a payment/payment plan or £75 will be added after ten days from 13/03 and bailiff instructed to visit.  Obviously I was unaware of this letter till well after the time period passed. Attempted to contact Dukes via email but zero response. Asked for breathing space in order to check the original debt with the respective council (I wasn’t awarded a week of Housing despite being on UC for a short period due to a contract date given by the old employer).  29/04 a note was left at the old address stating a bailiff had visited. New balance £310 more than original outstanding.  I’ve since contacted both the council and the bailiff agent to state I’m more than happy to settle the original debt over a payment plan but at this stage they will not remove the fees despite all correspondence not being sent to me and obviously me only seeing them much later than one would have expected.  Tried live chat today with the company and firstly was told the fees will remain because I spoke to the enforcement agent - I have never spoken to him/her.  secondly told the fees would remain because “I tried to use their web chat service to complete an income form” - I have zero recollection of doing this and I also wonder if it’s another tactic? any help on where I stand with the fees added would be incredible. Thank you
    • the evidence you have from Mercedes is perfect. simply write to both the finance company and the dealership that sold you the car, stating under the consumer rights Act 2015 should a fault appear outside of 6mts, it's for the consumer to prove the fault was present at time of sale. Please find enclosed a copy of said report from Mercedes at XXXX stating quite clearly that the windscreen was replaced on Date , some xxx months/years BEFORE my purchase on DATE. there is a bill to pay of XXX to XXX , i expect you to sort this out between yourselves , i am not liable for this. something upon those lines anyway.  
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Ccj Behind My Back Now Natwest Want A Charging Order On My Home


deviousbank
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5298 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi all - Can anyone please give me some advise...

 

Having had a CCJ entered against me behind my back by natwest -

They have now - 2 years on - applied for a re-assessment -

Fair enough one might say.

However -

The CCJ was for a joint debt - for that of me and my ex partner some 8 years ago.

Also - the CCJ was only entered in my name

Only I have been making repayments for the last 2 years

And now - they are applying for a charging order against my home -

 

Would I be correct in thinking - that as I have not defaulted on even one payment- that they are unable to apply for a charging order - and also -

that they can not apply for a charging order for the sum of £11,000 - against my home - when this is a joint debt!! -

that only I have been making repayments on!

 

They say in their letter to the court that the reason they want a charging order is that the debt is unsecured and that at my repayment rate - that the debt will take 20 years to repay. (I pay £50/pm)

 

What they dont say in their letter to the court is that this is a joint debt - that I am the only person who is making repayments.

The did actually recently send a letter to my ex partner - to my address !! - which I have passed onto him - however - I dont have a home address for him - so I have no address details to give to the court which I happily would do- come the court date in one months time.

(If i did have his address - I would have given it to the Child support agency !! as Im battling that also.)

I am also heavily pregnant - and this is really stressing me out.

I am a single mother - I work might I add - however - my wages dont even cover my bills !! I rely on tax credits to make ends meat.

 

All advise welcomed!!

Many thanks in anticipation of your help and advise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at this and see if it helps, if not, get back.

 

Dogs

I do very little but I do it very, very well :cool:

 

If I've helped give my scales a click

:smile:

 

I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do very little but I do it very, very well :cool:

 

If I've helped give my scales a click

:smile:

 

I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou for the link.- was very informative.

I will write to both the court and Natwest and notify them of my intention

to attend and as to why I dispute their application.

 

Will now look into the case of Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Ellis 1987

and arm myself with comparrisons to quote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They issue an interim charging order following the first hearing then the full job later.

I do very little but I do it very, very well :cool:

 

If I've helped give my scales a click

:smile:

 

I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with this, it is a matter close to my heart. Get back and let us know what the outcome is.

I do very little but I do it very, very well :cool:

 

If I've helped give my scales a click

:smile:

 

I have no legal experience and all advice given is based on the knowledge I've gained from this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well, having been to court today, the judge has decided to make the order 'forthwith' as per natwests request ! - a change of the terms of the initial ccj.

However, as I cant magic 11k they have therefore decided to grant natwests application for a charging order!

Even having quoted case law on the above - Even though the Judge herself said the law has not yet changed - but it is going to change to where a charging order can be made even though you havent defaulted on any ccj repayments - so she's granted their application even though the law does not yet allow it!

 

I now have to wait for a new court date where I can only again battle my case - seemingly on deaf ears.

Also, as this is a joint debt - Both natwests snotty solicitor and the judge have said that the debt was 'joint and several' and that they are satisfied by just chasing me for the whole debt. -

I said how can this be fair and just as per the civil procedure rules!!

to no avail.

They again quoted that at my payment rate the debt would take 20 years to repay - and I reminded them that if they bothered to go so far as enforcing payment from the other may i add jointly liable party that the debt would be repayed at the most in 10 years.

But no, they just want a charging order against MY house for the full amount to secure a Joint debt.

The judge then said that she would make a remark on the order that Natwest have said that they are not looking to enforce sale of my property - that the order is for security purposes.

 

So, because I am law abiding , because I had my mail rediredcted tome having moved almost 3 years ago - having kept natwest upto date with my contact details, having made payments myself alone for more than 2 years, now they are lumping me with the whole debt, and should i then not pay like my ex partner - then i will lose my home - unlike my ex who loses nothing!

 

Where is the justice in this land -

I wish this case today had been heard by a magistrates judge - they are 'lay' people - and supposidly use their common sence - as oposed to district judges who in my oppinion have none.

Angry, dissapointed, frustraited, and out of pocket for a joint debt that i didnt even run up, as i had no control over the finances in the domineering relationship i was in at the time.

 

And, to put the cherry on the cake - !!!!!!

The ccj was only entered against myself,

a ccj being for a set sum.

I have received 2 letters from a debt recovery agency addressed to my ex partner at my home address -

and , the payments i have made for the last 2 years - it would appear have been for nothing - as the letters state the debt now stands at over £13k!!!!!! over 2 thousand pounds in charges have been added to send 2 letters -

charges added to an amount previously determined by a judge.

I am at my wits end I really am.

Now Natwest will just sit back for the next god knows how long - waiting for me to forget to make a payment - or to make a payment late - so that they can pounce and take my home from underneath me.

 

Who can i turn to for help with this?????????????????????????????????????

Anyone???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Link to post
Share on other sites

also, the judge said that if i want my ex to make repayments to this debt - then it is for me to chase him to make contributuions

this whole matter is past farsical!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly I suggest you make a full SAR this will determine whether Natwest are applying post judgment interest. Secondly, Send a CCA section 77 request this will determine whether they are entitled to apply such interest. I take it your account is at Telford?

 

Paul

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Hi,

The account is indeed held with Telford.

I am going to the charging order hearing this afternoon.

 

It would seem that there is absolutely nothing I can do

(except enter the court - bend over and assume the position )

while I get well and truely shafted.:eek:

 

All I can 'respectfully ask' is that they dont enforce any order of sale untill my youngest child is 18. That gives me 17 years and 8 months to get this paid off.

 

I am of the conclusion that there is no justice in this country.

While I , a law abideing citizen , having always advised Natwest of my location, am now 'lumbered' with this very large black cloud over my name and house.:mad:

 

In all honesty I wouldnt feel so bad if I had actually got to spend any of this money !!!!!!!! it would be 'a fair cop as such'

but it was spent by my domineering and controling ex partner, who has never advised Natwest of where he lives hence - he has 'escaped this debt in full'

 

If it is a financially viable option then I am fully prepared to pursue my ex partner though the courts to make him contribute to this debt. (total value £12.000 approx)

Thoughts on this and similar experiences most welcomed !!

 

 

Im so angry about all of this

AAaaarrrghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

 

Hopeing for a miricle this afternoon!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

MIRACLES CAN HAPPEN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Well, I attended court this afternoon - However, Natwest did not ...

This resulted in the judge striking out Natwest's application for the charging order, and the judge confirmed to me that the land registry will be notified and the interim charging order will also be removed.

 

I am simply to continue making my repayments as per the CCJ.

 

This does not however stop Natwest from re-pursueing this through the courts once again. The judge did say that each case is taken on its merits - so should they re pursue this charging order, then their non appearance today will be taken into account.

 

 

-

I was going to question Aprils interim hearing - where the terms of the CCJ were varied (forthwith) - and the fact that the interim charging order was granted , as I have read on another website ((Having frantically searched the internet this morning looking for a last minute answer to all my prayers-)) that these 2 items should take place at seperate hearings and not at the same time ?! -

- also a few days after the interim hearing I spoke to the court clerk as I had received the interim order through the post - with errors -so I had those ammended - and she at that time informed me that it would be resent to myself and Natwest - she made no mention of my mortgage lender being notified - as it is my understanding that all parties that have an interest in the property should be advised -

 

Will my mortgage lender have been advised about all of this ??

Will this affect me once my fixed term comes to an end and I need a new mortgage deal?

 

 

My next move however will be to seek legal advise re the initial CCJ and the manner in which Natwest ensured I received it !!

 

Absolutely gob smacked.

1 - 0 to the little man!!!!!!!!! (for now anyways)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Have received a letter from the land registry today ...

shoesmiths on behalf of Natwest have obtained an interim charging order and it has been duely placed upon my property.

its dated the 30th oct - 1st ive heard about it

Ive received no documentation from natwest or the court!!!!!

 

Ive rang the court and they tell me the whole battle is to recommence on the 17th Dec

These people are relentless!! - Just before christmas - Merry Christmas hey !!

 

Ive got a letter from the court dated 12.10.09 saying charging order to be struck off etc - but due to non attendance from either party - I was there!!

So now Ive got to write to the court telling them the details from the judge was wrong - get that order ammended and hope the newly ammended order stating last times interim charging order was struck out due to natwests non attendance

(the judge said to me at the time that their non attendance will be taken into consideration should this return to court - so i think its imperative i get that resolved asap -and wave the new one around on the 17th)

 

 

......mentally exhausted by this whole thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

The CCJ came from 2x overdrafts and 1 x loan.

which may I add still to this date I have not defaulted on.

The CCJ was altered to forthwith in October.

 

As this debt stems from joint backaccounts -

having some understanding of the law in this area I now understand that they can put the whole debt onto me alone (very unfair) by means of this charging order.

 

however - Can they legally origionally have just issued one party to this debt with the ccj and defaults ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DB,

What a nightmare, I thought I had been harshly treated when I got my CO but yours is miles worse.

The crux of the matter is as you say can they issue proceedings, ccj etc to one party when clearly this is a joint debt. I am afraid I don't know whether they can or know any case law but surely if they are succesful it can only be for 50% of the debt.

You can pursue your ex through the courts and it seems that is what you need to do if they are succesful in obtaining the CO.

If I were you I would click on the red triangle and ask the site team if they think this thread would be better served in the legal forum as you would benefit from the legal 'caggers' in building your defence

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so sorry about this deviousbank. It underlines something I have thought for a long time. They go for the easy targets, and as you describe yourself, the law abiding citizens. Some people might be tempted to draw a moral from all of this that might read 'Dont tell them your new address, dont send them any money, dont admit you owe them any money, dont own property but rent,, and never take out a joint loan. Of course this is no help to you.You are in the right place for help and I will take my bleeding heart elswhere. Listen to 42Man he's good!

Edited by DeRichleau
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DB,

What a nightmare, I thought I had been harshly treated when I got my CO but yours is miles worse.

The crux of the matter is as you say can they issue proceedings, ccj etc to one party when clearly this is a joint debt. I am afraid I don't know whether they can or know any case law but surely if they are succesful it can only be for 50% of the debt.

You can pursue your ex through the courts and it seems that is what you need to do if they are succesful in obtaining the CO.

If I were you I would click on the red triangle and ask the site team if they think this thread would be better served in the legal forum as you would benefit from the legal 'caggers' in building your defence

 

Can anyone confirm if Mercantile Credit Co Ltd v Ellis is case law/legal precedent? If it is a legal precedent, I don't understand why the judge has said that each case is on its own merits. I also don't understand why NatWest didn't show up at the hearing. Where is the case being heard?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercantile Credit v Ellis (1987) is a very important case law.

 

It states that a charging order should only be made if the payments on a judgment are in arrears or you were ordered to pay the judgment in one lump sum immediately (forthwith) and didn't pay.

If you are in this situation and still have an interim charging order made, you MUST go to the hearing and take evidence that you have kept up with the instalments ordered and mention this case to the district judge.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just my opinion DB but the best thing I ever did was get out of home ownership. I know all the reasons that are put forward for owning property, and the problems with children especially if they are school age, but this debt is just going to rise. Now they have got a charging order they are going to eat away at your equity until there is little or nothing left, so what is the point? Get it sold give them the money, and keep the rest of the equity for your self. If there is no equity in the property then you have even less to lose, because the debt will eventually exceed any future equity, and you will still end up with nought. This is the problem with equity release schemes as I am sure you know. There is no shame in renting, in fact you may end up with somewhere better. I did. I am in a beautiful little cottage (well goody for me!) I would honestly consider it though. Take a (long) breather, and then decide what you what to do about that Ex. of yours if anything. Sorry if this is not what you want to hear, but the three options are sell up, or a long drawn out expensive court battle, or a rising debt that will leave you out of pocket. I genuinely hope I am wrong, but I dont think I am. Things will get better eventualy.

 

PS. Just read the thread above that arrived as I was typeing this diatribe, and there is some hope there if you want to take the legal route. Best of luck.

DR

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

........and make sure you apply for costs when have to attend on the 17th December as Shoosmiths are being totally vexatious by applying for an Interim Charging Order when a previous Interim Charging Order application has been dismissed.

Edited by supasnooper
"previous ICO" came up as Information Commissioners Office.....grrr

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...