Old CCJ (1998) still valid + adding interest

[Dave_N]

I have a CCJ which I have been paying for about 13 years, now it is down to about £450.00 (4 years to go) I would like to clear it.

 

The problem is the DCA doesn’t recognise the CCJ - only figure including the Contractual Interest - which they are claiming through the terms and conditions on the agreement signed back in 1996. (Below)

 

 

 

 

Conditions:

 

9c: xxx shall give notice to the Customer of any costs charges or expenses incurred or claimed under sub clauses (A) and (B) above which, unless paid by the customer by the date specified in the notice shall bear interest 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).

 

I need them to confirm the CCJ amount just in case my workings out might be slightly out – I don’t want to run the risk that if I paid what I thought was the judgment in full then stop paying and the judgment has not been cleared due to my working out error, then the DCA could take action to recover the money. --- Same as if I overpay they may consider that I agree to the Contractual Interest.

 

I’m aware that once the Judgment as been paid in full, the DCA will try to recover the interest from me, but as it wasn’t included in the County Court Judgment, I don’t think that the DCA has a claim (maybe ‘Statue Barred’).

 

Any ideas on how I can obtain the correct CCJ amount from them?

Thanks

“For the avoidance of doubt, I have only been making payments towards the CCJ and at no time has this been intended to be apayment towards anything other than the CCJ”.

 

 

note:The DCA purchased my debt from GE Money back in 2004 (what they purchased I don't know - but they indicate it included interest - I have no way of telling.

 

 

 

Edited July 7, 2011 by Dave_N

[cerberusalert]

It doesn't matter what conditions there were in the original agreement, when a CCJ is obtained this supersedes any previous agreement... it completely re-writes it. So unless the judgement expressly stated that interest can be added then it can't & any attempt by the DCA to do so would be contempt of court.

 

Personally I would write to them and demand a Statement of Account and tell them unless one is forthcoming you will withold any future payment until they fulfill your demand.

[dx100uk]

why have you started another thread on this?

 

you already have one running......

 

dx

[dx100uk]

4 threads merged going back to may 2009.

 

please keep to one thread per issue

 

dx

[panther12]

Gosh this threads hard work. Presumably the op has the judgement order from the court in which case will know what the total figure and monthly payment details are and whether it allowed the claimant to add interest. I’m no expert on ccj’s but can’t you just deduct the monthly payments made to date against the figure stated on the original judgement order then you know the outstanding amount left to pay. Once all your payments have equalled that figure you have satisfied the court order and stop paying – or am I missing something.

[dx100uk]

yea i know

 

doesn't help the op has started 4 threads over the years all on the same subject and got the same advice each time

 

dx

[panther12]

Having looked into this a bit more, with that clause in the agreement I do fear the OP may have problems with this one but do hope I’m wrong.

This is an interesting read:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/fair-1.htm

 

I came across the below post on another message board which seems to give good advice on this particular situation (looks like it’s a reply to the OP’s actual case). It’s an interesting one this!

 

Hi, we’ve had three minds mulling over this today and we all agree it’s a tricky one.

 

So, the first thing to say is that it’s a complex situation and you need to get your own advice from a professional with whom you can share all the facts. Don’t rely on what we’ve said (or not said) here.

 

There is a possibility, we feel, that the debt to which your original agreement relates, and the interest arising from it, may be statute-barred and you may not have to repay it. The original agreement is more than six years old and it appears you have made no payments under this agreement, but only towards your two CCJs.

 

If you have not acknowledged the original debt in any way (and continue not to) then the debt under the original agreement may not be payable. The CCJs are themselves more than six years old, so it may be that they might no longer help the creditor enforce the original agreement. You have been paying the CCJ – so they can’t be challenged and you will need to continue to repay them.

 

You should note that if, when Link acquired the debt (or were appointed to collect it), they asked you to change payment details and, in doing so, made it clear this request applied to the original agreement, then this may represent an acknowledgment of the debt by you – even unwittingly. This would be an important area of doubt. Please get professional advice.

 

We think it is highly likely that Link have bought your debt and that they will be hoping to persuade you to repay as much as possible. Equally, they may recognise that the settlement of the CCJs you propose is a good deal (depending on whether they own your debt and how much they paid for it).

 

You might consider writing to Link. There is a useful template letter in our guide to the subject of statute barred debt – here: http://www.cleardebt.co.uk/debt-advic...

 

In that letter you should consider stating “For the avoidance of doubt, I have only been making payments towards the two CCJs and at no time has this been intended to be a payment towards anything other than these two CCJs”.

 

We hope this is been helpful – it isn’t definitive, you do need to get advice from someone with whom you can share every detail.

[cerberusalert]

Judgments - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank

 

16. The Court of Appeal differed from the judge on the question of unfairness. In the judgment of the court it was said ([2000] QB 672 at 688):

 

"In our judgment the relevant term is unfair within the meaning of the Regulations of 1994 to the extent that it enables the bank to obtain judgment against a debtor under a regulated agreement and an instalment order under section 71 of the Act of 1984 without the court considering whether to make a time order, or, if it does and makes a time order, whether also to make an order under section 136 to reduce the contractual interest rate. The bank, with its strong bargaining position as against the relatively weak position of the consumer, has not adequately considered the consumer's interests in this respect. In our view the relevant term in that respect does create unfair surprise and so does not satisfy the test of good faith; it does cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties by allowing the bank to obtain interest after judgment in circumstances when it would not obtain interest under the Act of 1984 and the Order of 1991, and no specific benefit to compensate the borrower is provided; and it operates to the detriment of that consumer who has to pay the interest." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/fair-1.htm

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Excellent piece of information Cerbs.

[panther12]

Judgments - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank

 

16. The Court of Appeal differed from the judge on the question of unfairness. In the judgment of the court it was said ([2000] QB 672 at 688):

 

"In our judgment the relevant term is unfair within the meaning of the Regulations of 1994 to the extent that it enables the bank to obtain judgment against a debtor under a regulated agreement and an instalment order under section 71 of the Act of 1984 without the court considering whether to make a time order, or, if it does and makes a time order, whether also to make an order under section 136 to reduce the contractual interest rate. The bank, with its strong bargaining position as against the relatively weak position of the consumer, has not adequately considered the consumer's interests in this respect. In our view the relevant term in that respect does create unfair surprise and so does not satisfy the test of good faith; it does cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties by allowing the bank to obtain interest after judgment in circumstances when it would not obtain interest under the Act of 1984 and the Order of 1991, and no specific benefit to compensate the borrower is provided; and it operates to the detriment of that consumer who has to pay the interest." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/fair-1.htm

 

I’m still not too sure on this. Wasn’t that what the Lords quoted from an earlier court but the House of Lords found in favour of the Bank. It’s a bit easier to read from this link.

http://www.ipsofactoj.com/international/2002/Part06/int2002%286%29-004.htm

 

Or the cut down wiki version

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_General_of_Fair_Trading_v_First_National_Bank_plc

[bengateway]

I too have been under that impression, we need clarification from a legal bod.

 

Frustrating, that this very important issue for many has been left up in the air.

Is there any way that moderators, or site team persons can get together with those of a legel background and clarify exactly what the position is with this.

Does a third party intervener ie DCA have a right to this contractual interest.

Could such an action be deemed grossly unfair under some section of an act.

Does the courts have the power to halt this interest before its enforced, assuming it can be legally enforced.

Would a time order or variation of the interest rate to a proportionate or fairer rate than the contractual rate be possible.

Could the court order that the contractual interest rate is reduced to the courts statutory rate of 8 percent be considered if all else fails.

The Director of fair trading vs 1st national bank test case was a long time back and things may well have moved on to protect a debtor in a fairer manner these days.

So if someone does have one of these older 1st national contracts subject to a ccj, and it has been sold on to a DCA.

Where in as simple terms as possible do they stand.

And what can they do to defend themselves from this very shady and very kept under wrap build up of interest that 1st national seem to be using in such contracts. ???

 

If ever there was a thread that deserves an informative response this surely must be it.

Please mods look at the threads on the site and come up with some kind of conlusions that mere mortal and desperate people can turn to for general giudance.

 

Lets hope a wealth of informative responses is forthcoming on this.

[dx100uk]

the thread is 18mts old...

 

dx

[bengateway]

the thread is 18mts old...

 

dx

 

Appreciated DX.

But the issues raised by the thread are sadly still current. And the thread appears to have been left without any conclusions on how best to deal with those issues.

Is there a way out ofthis interest after judgement clause or are people finding themselves in this position well and truly stuffed ??

 

Feel after all this time it deserves clarification, and hopefully a conclusion. If this has been covered to a conclusion and reliable advice from the legal bods is available then a link to such threads would be very much appreciated.

I mention this because very often people running a google search will be guided to this site and threads just like this one. Unless the threads are concluded, then they will gain little by reading them.

 

Many thanks for any replies on this.

[unclebulgaria67]

Appreciated DX.

But the issues raised by the thread are sadly still current. And the thread appears to have been left without any conclusions on how best to deal with those issues.

Is there a way out ofthis interest after judgement clause or are people finding themselves in this position well and truly stuffed ??

 

Feel after all this time it deserves clarification, and hopefully a conclusion. If this has been covered to a conclusion and reliable advice from the legal bods is available then a link to such threads would be very much appreciated.

I mention this because very often people running a google search will be guided to this site and threads just like this one. Unless the threads are concluded, then they will gain little by reading them.

 

Many thanks for any replies on this.

 

Why don't you start a new thread in the legal issues folder.

 

I suspect that no definite answer was given, as it is a case of looking at the individual contract wording and then looking at the performance of the contract, issue of default notice, plus any termination notice. There can therefore be no blanket advice given.

[dx100uk]

there is already a massive great big thread on this

 

funny you chose this one...

 

dx

[bengateway]

there is already a massive great big thread on this

 

funny you chose this one...

 

dx

 

DX Where ?? I have started a thread in the legal section thinking that was the best way forward.

If there is a massive thread which is on the site, please could you place a link to it.

Many Thanks.