Urgent advice needed re Interest on CCJ

[Last of the Mohicans]

Sorry to do this as its connected to my other set-aside hearing thread, but I'd like some advice / comment on whether I'm within rights to put this particular point forward!

Brief background: judgement given by default, I was out of the country which I can prove.

Be that as it may, and aside form that - the toe-rags claimed interest in their PoC and were granted it - without ever having shown an agreement of course.

 

I'd like to argue that this makes the judgement wrong in law and makes it necesarily have to be struck out.

 

Anyone have any thoughts / precedent on that, and / or my way of putting it below?

 

Cheers

 

Mo

 

 

 

Despite offering to the Court no evidence of an agreement upon which to base their claim, the Claimant claims the sum of £xxxx.yy is owed by the Defendant on a Credit Card Account, together with interest under the County Courts Act 1984.

 

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 clearly lays down where a Claimant may not claim interest as follows:

 

2. — (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgment debt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remains unsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which the relevant judgment was given.

(2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgment debt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at a later date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date.

(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevant judgment—

(a) is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

Notwithstanding that the Claimant has produced, and has further claimed to be unable to produce, any agreement to substantiate his claim against the Defendant, the Claimant has wrongfully claimed, and subsequently been awarded, interest on the amount claimed.

It is therefore the Defendants assumption that the Court, having been given sight of no evidence to substantiate his claim by the Claimant, has been willfully deceived as to the age, and therefore the eligibility, of the debt that the Claimant alleges the Defendant owes into wrongfully awarding that interest be payable by the Defendant.

 

The Defendant has not used, nor applied to use, any Credit Card for 6 years, and that therefore any Credit Card owned by the Defendant would certainly be regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

The Defendant avers that as such, and notwithstanding any other matter arising vis the Defendants inability to defend the original Claim, nor the Claimants inability or unwillingness to substantiate their claim with the lawfully required documents, that the Judgement made against the Defendant on XXXXXX is therefore wrong in law and cannot stand.

Edited April 21, 2009 by Last of the Mohicans

[palomino]

Being picky, the credit card itself is owned by the issuer.

 

and ...

 

Notwithstanding that the Claimant has not produced,

[Spamalot]

Probably not much use but .....

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 18 Interest Charges On A Consumer Credit Judgment

 

and this was posted on my thread....

note that on the POC the claimant sought to claim statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum. The claimant is not entitled to do so and attention is drawn to The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) Section 2 (3)(a) which sets out that this is the case as this claim is in relation to a debt regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Dunno if any of the wording in either will be useful.

 

Good luck.

[Last of the Mohicans]

Being picky, the credit card itself is owned by the issuer.

 

and ...

 

Ta

[Last of the Mohicans]

Probably not much use but .....

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 18 Interest Charges On A Consumer Credit Judgment

 

and this was posted on my thread....

note that on the POC the claimant sought to claim statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum. The claimant is not entitled to do so and attention is drawn to The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (No. 1184 (L. 12)) Section 2 (3)(a) which sets out that this is the case as this claim is in relation to a debt regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

Dunno if any of the wording in either will be useful.

 

Good luck.

 

Cheers Spam, its all good - I'm looking to give the fergers both barrels over this so I *really* want one of the Learneds to comment whether its right to ask for a strike out if interest has been wrongly awarded, or in a case where no agreement has been put forward, awarded at all.

 

My laymans thoughts are "Of course! its wrong in law." - but I'm a layman and I dont want to make a goose of meself