Can solicitors disregard CCJ

[dulede]

Hi

 

I had a CCJ made against me at Telford Court in feb 2007. It states

 

'you must pay the claimant £15856.37 for debt (and interest to date of judgment) and £400 for costs (less 1132.37 which you have already paid).

You must pay the claimant a total of £15,124 by instalments of £25.'

 

My belief is that, as I cannot find any further mention of interest on the CCJ that all interest is frozen. On top of this my understanding is that if I receive any further claims towards this debt - using the original CCJ claim number - then it should all be related to the outstanding figure of £15124 which was the CCJ demand amount.

 

Yesterday, I received a letter from Shoosmiths Solicitors, working for Triton Credit Services who are themselves working on behalf of Natwest, to whom the debt was originally owed, and that I believe it is still owed to.

 

As yet I have not been able to speak to shoosmiths but the claim they are making is to go for a charging order in the amount of £15856 - which is the original debt amount above before court costs. It is not the £15124 minus nearly two and half years of monthly payments of £25. I have since receiving this letter spoken to Triton, who told me to deal with Shoosmiths, but have told me that the the amounts owing are related to loan 1, loan 2 etc.

 

My understanding has always been that once a debt goes to court for CCJ and is awarded to the claimant, that all payments etc come off the CCJ amount and as such the creditor can't revert to talking and claiming in terms of original loans. This is really messing things about for me and I need to find out if they can bounce out of the CCJ terms as and when it suits them.

 

Also, is there anyone who knows of a way to deal with Natwest direct and not go through their underlings - Triton and Shoosmiths - as if they have made a mistake by going back to the original debt amount!!! from 2 years ago, I feel unable to trust this sort of company.

 

All and any help is much appreciated.

Dulede

[ScarletPimpernel]

Neither Triton (who are NatWest's in-house DCA), nor a solicitor can vary an order of the court without permission.

 

Rule number 1 when dealing with creatures like this is to never phone them; do everything in writing so that you have a paper trail.

 

You need to write to Shoosmiths pointing out that the amount they are claiming is inaccurate and vexatious.

[I've got no money]

The other thing to say about Charging Orders - if there is an instalment order (as in your case) unless you miss a payment they cannot get a charging order.

 

Have you received a formal application for a Charging Order?

 

As SP points out it is best to stick with written correspondence and not to telephone them.

[diddydicky]

i think that there IS a danger that they could apply to the court for a charging order even though you are making the payments ordered

 

they will undoubtedly use the argument that it will take 53 years to pay the ccj ant a rate of 25 per month

 

it IS likely that the court will grant it

 

It MAY be preferable to get legal advice in this instance with regard to perhaps agreeing to a voluntary charging order with a clause preventing them from forcing a sale.

 

sorry to be negative but this is a common occurence when large debts are being repaid at a nominal rate

 

have your circumstances improved since you first had the ccj? if so is it possible that they have found this out?

[dulede]

Hi and thanks for replies.

 

Will be doing everything via written format but the time frame between their letter dated 2nd July and Charging order court date is only 7 days so I have to speak to them or risk not knowing how I stand.

 

No change in circumstances that are beneficial to my cash flow. Struggling now and probably will for foreseeable future. My understanding has been that charging orders are there to safeguard - in the majority of cases at least - the creditors interest if I should sell my home. No way I can do that as been on sick for past two years and couldn't get another mortgage if I tried.

 

I have underlying health issues, my Wife can't work extra hours due to my condition and we have a 13 year old. I have no objections as such to a charging order simply to ensure payment upon sale but the solicitors and debt collection agency working for Natwest have got their sums well mixed up as they have reverted to an amount that was current at time of CCJ being awarded in Feb 07. I will talk to them tomorrow and see if can get some sense. Also need to ensure they are not going for any forced sale on charging order - but all I have read up until now suggests that these are still only granted in quite extraordinary circumstances. Hope I'm right.

 

Take care and thank you all.

dulede

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

"I will talk to them tomorrow and see if can get some sense. Also need to ensure they are not going for any forced sale on charging order - but all I have read up until now suggests that these are still only granted in quite extraordinary circumstances. Hope I'm right."

 

Never talk to them IN WRITING ONLY - for your safety!

 

GK

[diddydicky]

"I will talk to them tomorrow and see if can get some sense. Also need to ensure they are not going for any forced sale on charging order - but all I have read up until now suggests that these are still only granted in quite extraordinary circumstances. Hope I'm right."

 

Never talk to them IN WRITING ONLY - for your safety!

 

GK

 

Have to agree with GTP and must STRONGLY advise you NOT to phone them and CERTAINLY do not mention forced sale 0- you will only confirm your fear of this outcome and BELEIVE ME they will pick up on it right away and you WILL regret the phone calll

 

WRITE to them and keep matters on the boil that way by disputing their figures

[JonCris]

deluded I suspect your being stitched in much the same way that Paul Walton & Sparkie to name but two of this site have been

 

Telford have been known to be very creative with their 'accounting methods' Can you tell me when you signed the agreement & do you have a copy?

 

Also send a SAR at once to Shoosmiths as follows

 

Date:

YOUR REF:

OUR REF: Special Delivery

SAR (Subject Access Request) DPA (Data Protection Act) 1998

Their Name & Address

 

Your Name & Address

Dear Madam or Sir:

RE: YOUR CLIENT

As per the DPA 1998 (Date Protection Act) I require that you supply me with any and all data in your possession which, in anyway appertains to myself including true copies of any properly executed agreements, statements of account, default notices, all internal and external correspondence, memo’s, telephone attendance notes, internal and external emails

If your client is not the original creditor please also supply a true copy of their letter of assignment or if acting on behalf of another a true copy of their predated authority to bring this action.

I enclose the statutory fee of £10 by way of a postal order and remind you that you have 40 days in which to comply

Also please note that for the avoidance of doubt and to expedite matters if you claim exemptions from the Data Protection Act under part IV section 35 I would respectfully remind you of the following:

Data Protection Act part IV section 35 (2) states "personal data is not exempt from the non-disclosure provisions" In addition Part II section 7 (legal guidance notes) "There are no exemptions from the right of access where civil legal proceedings are contemplated or ongoing"

If you should refuse I will, after notifying the court of my SAR (Subject Access Requests), ask the court for a continuance to allow time for both yours and your clients compliance

I await your responses

Yours faithfully

 

CC To all parties

[JonCris]

Also send a standard SAR to Telford

 

I can only reiterate that theres a lot going on at the moment regarding Telford & their practices about which it's perfectly possible Shoosmiths are unaware, however Cobbetts Solicitors who are Telfords other legal Muppets certainly are

Edited July 6, 2009 by JonCris

[dulede]

thanx for all input everyone.

 

Shoosmiths have gotten their facts ...correct... now having been pointed out the error. However, will keep a definite eye on things from now on as such errors are ridiculous given that they should never have been supplied with a figure from the original Claim against myself.

 

i'd been doing other things as this site gets you going and wanting to avoid so many things...which you simply felt were normal practice but would be frowned upon by FOS etc.

 

am awaiting result of the ccj hearing at moment but don't feel like a lamb to slaughter any more.

 

thanks again, dulede

[Belaflat]

am awaiting result of the ccj hearing at moment but don't feel like a lamb to slaughter any more.

 

Do you mean charging order hearing, I thought they already had judgment against you or has there been some movement behind the scenes since your last post...just curious.

[sleepingdog]

Hi dulede , I was able to fight off charging order attempt by natwest by stating that nothing had changed since CCJ granted other than the total amount owed had been reduced and that I had paid all instalments as the court had requested . The judge asked the sols if they thought that the previous judge had got it all wrong and when they answered no threw the case out and allowed me to get my costs back.I also stated that the legal costs involved in getting a CO would increase my debt and the judge asked the sols if Natwest would be footing the bill which they replied that it would indeed increase my debt to them. But I will add that natwest are still being silly about the account and when my time permits lots of complaints will be flying around , natwest does'nt learn from it's mistakes but will certainly be paying for them lol.

sleepingdog

[dulede]

Hi Belaflat,

 

I've already got CCJ in 2007 which went on to become charging order. Issue at moment is same debts going through CCJ but they're after my Wife this time as joint borrowers.

 

thanks, dulede

[Belaflat]

Ah, I see now.

Why did they not pursue you jointly at the 1st Court hearing in 2007.

It seems strange that having obtained a CO and thus securing the debt and guaranteeing a return, they should then try again against your Wife which will only increase costs further.

 

What was the exact outcome of the CCJ, ie terms, monthly payments, liabilitys etc and did they obtain a final Charging Order.

[dulede]

Just opened the only letter of the day. Response from court. £25 monthly instalments, so now they'll have £50 between me and missus each month. No idea they were going to come after my wife separately as when we put our detailed budget through CCJ process in 2007 we told them the original £25 was all we could afford jointly. However, our lifestyle has gone backward spending wise and we'll have to make further sacrifices to move up to £50 but will manage it. Going to make sure this one is paid every time on time.

 

I hope that I can cut back yet again though and find a way of actually saving... which ultimately is what happens when each creditor comes after more...just basically these court enforced payments could and should have been savings at my age but I may get to retirement still with this mill stone round my neck. poor decisions alas end in poor lifestyle.

 

thanx for everyone's input.

dulede

[sleepingdog]

Hi delude , am going through same process as you . joint accounts yet only my name on court papers and eventually CCJ , now they are going after wife for same debt. Always beleived that once they got CCJ against myself that would be the end of it . Guess I will have to fight them again and hopefully hit them with costs .

sleepingdog

[diddydicky]

if the account was in joint names you are both jointly and severally liable for the debt

 

that means that they can go after one, or both even at the same time to get the debt repaid

 

(i think i gave you that info on another thread!)

[dulede]

Hi Diddydicky,

 

Yes you did and it was this thread. I haven't disregarded it simply responded to replies by others. Thank you very much Diddydicky for your input. I would like to add something to this though as things are getting on top of me and I need to vent some frustration. Please bear with me on this.

 

I totally understand that they (Creditors of all shapes and sizes) can get charging orders but having discussed this with several agencies, even in today's fragile economic climate, they would still need my Wife to miss payments in order to go for charging order. This is my Wife's first and only CCJ summons and she's up to date and thats how it'll stay.

 

In the case of my CCJ, payments were a day or so late due to my being at the depths of despair in 2007, and wham, on went the charging order. Not going to make that mistake again as I am more focused now and things financial are becoming part of my life again. I completely agree with paying my dues and the only reason this thread was started was because they had the wrong amount on the claim form sent to my Wife. The amount claimed was over £1200 more than it should have been as they were claiming every penny owed at the time of my original CCJ. Obviously I have been paying off my instalments to the charging order for over 2 years now. So while I will own up and pay what I owe, albeit eventually, I won't pay more than that, no matter how much solicitors and banks feel they can get away with.

 

The issue which is closest to my mind at moment is that creditors are currently going for record numbers of charging orders. But there is the danger that once final charging orders are in place that they could come gunning for your home by way of 'order for sale'. Now I don't know about others but morals, ethics, whatever you call it ultimately must take second place as my first duty is to my Wife and Son - and the roof I promised I'd keep over their heads. I don't want luxury holidays, new cars or any such like. I just don't want to be turfed out because I've hiit troubled times - in my case mental illness severe enough to be granted DLA - no mean feat as it is quite heavily restricted.

 

I don't want to be mentally ill but I can suffer mood swings that can be quite distracting to others and episodes have caused my behaviour to be something I am more than ashamed of. Its taken a long time for me to have any real interest in anything at all again. Finances are sadly not top of my list as I haven't got an interest in doing anything. However, that doesn't mean I can simply forget the fact that I need to look after my family - though it seems that they now look after me. It is at times like this that banks bring out their big guns and blast away at any stability you may have managed to hold onto. This isn't a tirade against the call centre workers as many are as good as they can be but its aimed at the structure of profit at all cost. I believe in profit - but never at all cost.

 

I believe that most people, myself included borrowed money in all good faith with full expectation of paying back everything as per the loan agreement. Given opportunity I would do so now as there is peace of mind in having your debts under control.

 

However, I would imagine that most people taking out personal loans do so to avoid securing the loan on their home even though the interest rate would be better. Now I'm the same as most and went through figures and settled on a personal loan. Never was it mentioned to me that my new unsecured loan could be turned in short measure into a very promising security on my property via a charging order. I think that side of it all is disgusting as the 'your home is at risk if you do not keep up repayments' quote shouldn't just be part of the spiel for secured loans - but for all loans that could potentially end in CCJ / Charging Order. Shock to my system it was as I expect it is to most non financially savvy borrowers.

 

I can't believe its acceptable, it shouldn't even really be considered moral, for the banks to be allowed to charge high interest rates on 'non secured' personal loans etc. When all the time they know they can later manipulate these contracts quite successfully and rapidly through the courts. Our legal system has basically given the banks a heads we win, tails you lose coin that they now use indiscriminately. Naive I may be but I always believed that the high interest rate was the extra return the banks got for taking a higher risk - making their bet somewhat safer.

 

Its so shameful in my view but I guess many would disagree.

 

I just hope that I don't lose my home over a personal loan I never would have taken had I known the real deal regarding 'unsecured' borrowing. I'd have found other options when my debts were lower and more controllable. 'Bank and solicitor' demons could have been faced at a time when I'd have had that much more greater chance of success and opportunity to make affordable instalments that the bank would have been happy with.

 

Now, unfortunately, we're up to our necks and grabbing any bit of driftwood to help keep us afloat. Part of that driftwood is the advice and wisdom of the people on this remarkable site. So glad its not the times of debtors jail because I don't think I'd see the light of day again if the banks had their way.

 

With thanks and best wishes to you all. This rant was never meant to be this long. Sorry.

dulede

Edited October 15, 2009 by dulede

[diddydicky]

if it is at all possible i would strongly advise you to get your payments up to the stage where they are a month in advnace

 

that is to say- when you have made the october payment- make the november payment a couple of days after- then make the december payment a couple of days after the november payment was due etc

 

if you are on direct debit - change it to a standing order.

[Belaflat]

What I find confusing..( I may have missed something) you have 1 debt for which you are jointly liable but they have pursued you for seperate judgements. Is the sum total of the judgements more than the original debt.

When your wife makes a payment, it should reduce your liability also.

What was the judgement against your wife for in monetary terms and how is it affecting the amount on your judgement.

[dulede]

Hi,

 

Good idea diddydicky and I'll check with DCA to ensure it counts as following months payment and not simply as a reduction of the debt and still expect additional instalment. I've had that happen with non CCJ or Charging Order debts before now and therefore ending up having to find money twice.

 

Belaflat. Regarding the way its worked with us over the past few years the complex answer which you may find interesting as you've made me notice something of importance is below. Here is the basic answer though.

 

My CCJ in 2007 was to pay

£15856 (less 1132 already paid - plus costs etc)

______

£15124

This is the amount of my CCJ in Feb 2007 (includes large joint debt and small debt in my sole name)

 

My Wifes October 2009 CCJ is for

£14721 - this is just our joint loan debt plus costs of CCJ

 

So no idea why the new CCJ only now but mine is larger because of my own Natwest 'Credit Zone' overdraft balance which made up part of the original 2007 CCJ.

 

Regards,

dulede

[dulede]

Hi belaflat,

 

Here's the more complex and detailed fuller answer.

 

I have in my own name 3 CCJs and all have interim charging orders. The natwest one is going to be turned into final charging order next month unless I can put a defence forward. As I said though only concern is later order for sale and not disputing monies owed.

 

As for my / our agreements with Natwest:

 

My CCJ was ordered in Feb 2007 for a sum of £15856 (minus what I had paid up until then and this left a total owing at that time of 15,124 which included the newly added CCJ costs) So in Feb 07 I owed a total of £15124. Since this I have made monthly instalments at £25 each month and about £300 went to it as lump sum. Now when I speak to the DCA the figures still work out that I owe a total of £15267 which is made up of a joint loan of £14660 and my own loan of £607. These approximate figures but within a pound or so.So having paid off about £800 over past two years I now owe nearly £150 more than I started owing. Remember that no interest or other charges are meant to be going onto this figure, everything is meant to be going downwards.

 

On top of this they reapplied to get this money from my Wife in September and this initially came through with the claim amount £15856 which is an ancient number - see first line of previous paragraph. Now I informed Natwest this was wrong and they reclaimed a lower amount taking into account all payments that I had been making on our Joint account through my own CCJ / charging order. So now my Wife's CCJ is through her one contains the same value owing for our joint account as I owe on it myself. So If I pay £25 per month and she pays £25 per month the debt for the Joint account will be going down at a rate of £50 per month. Ultimately, its a case of being very careful how they take money off as my £25 per month is currently coming off my individual debt of £607 and once this has been paid then will be applied to the joint loan element of the CCJ / charging order.

 

We would only pay the debt once in each case so the individual loan will take a total of 607 and 14660 for joint loan.

My charging order is currently for approx £15266

Wifes CCJ approximately £14660

 

No idea why they've taken two and half years to go after Wife but as long as payments are maintained it should stop extra charging order and therefore keep all problems tied around my half interest in home. It can be so infuriating to find though that the debt doesn't seem to be going down at all, even as above going up. I didn't realise this until I started writing this reply so thanks for the shove.

 

I am also going through process of them taking interim charging order to final charging order but all monetary details again relate to the 2007 figure of £15856 so I'm well confused.

 

Regards,

dulede

[diddydicky]

Hi,

 

Good idea diddydicky and I'll check with DCA to ensure it counts as following months payment and not simply as a reduction of the debt and still expect additional instalment. I've had that happen with non CCJ or Charging Order debts before now and therefore ending up having to find money twice.

 

Belaflat. Regarding the way its worked with us over the past few years the complex answer which you may find interesting as you've made me notice something of importance is below. Here is the basic answer though.

 

My CCJ in 2007 was to pay

£15856 (less 1132 already paid - plus costs etc)

______

£15124

This is the amount of my CCJ in Feb 2007 (includes large joint debt and small debt in my sole name)

 

My Wifes October 2009 CCJ is for

£14721 - this is just our joint loan debt plus costs of CCJ

 

So no idea why the new CCJ only now but mine is larger because of my own Natwest 'Credit Zone' overdraft balance which made up part of the original 2007 CCJ.

 

Regards,

dulede

 

i would write to the creditor copy the court as to what you are doing and why- that way there can be no doubts

[dulede]

I thought the courts didn't really come into things afterwards but I'm probably best to do as you say. At very least it shows courts our willingness to adhere to order fully. Thanks

[diddydicky]

I thought the courts didn't really come into things afterwards but I'm probably best to do as you say. At very least it shows courts our willingness to adhere to order fully. Thanks

 

the courts (and the creditor) can do what they like with the letter- but the fact that you have it on file and proof of posting will be enough if at a later date someone tries to claim that it was not the next payment you were making!

 

which is also why i recommend scrapping any DD (which the lender can control) and changing to a SO (which you control)