Can I be taken back to court for an exsisting ccj

[the tinkerman]

Hi

Can anyone out there give me some advice please

Got an existing ccj which I have had for about 7 years now, DCA bought Debt just after ccj and I have never missed a payment, over the last few years DCA has been hassling me to increase my payments,asked me to get another loan to pay them off,started ringing me late at night, all the usual bullying tactics until I packed in my landline (BLISS) but I have now received a letter from a solicitors acting on behalf of this DCA asking for a income and expediture sheet as they are wanting me to increase my payments and if I dont send them one they will take me back to court to ask for a formal review.

My question is can they do this saying that I have never missed a payment and have paid the amount each month in line with what the ccj said I had to pay each month, and although it is not a lot and I will be paying it probably till I die it is all I can afford anyway.

[Ell-enn]

Hi there, only the court can change the amount of payments ! If I were you I would write to the court - quote the case number - and enclose any correspondence you have from the DCA asking you for more money. I have heard of judges ordering DCA's/original creditors into court to ask why they are harrassing debtors for more money than the original order.

 

If you need any help with a letter please let me know.

 

Do not pay any more money to the DCA - they have no authority to ask you to increase payments, you are complying with the original court order and that is all you have to do.

[Bazooka Boo]

As above;)

 

The so called "solicitors" acting on "behalf of" the DCA, would I imagine have some form of legal training, so that suggests it is extremely unlikely to be any solicitor asking you to supply that information, as they will know full well that only a judge can alter payments on a CCJ.

 

Well done for keeping up with the CCJ, this DCA is showing exactly the same type of greed that the banks did over the last few years and inevitably threw us into this recession:mad:

 

IMHO, report them for their actions.

Firstly (for waht it's worth!) to the OFT The Office of Fair Trading: Contact us

[email protected]

 

Financial Ombudsman Service

 

How to Complain

 

Solicitors Regulation Authority - Code of Conduct: contents

 

The last link you can enter the name of the "solicitor" see if they do exist, what they do, and then drop them in it, make them answerable for their threats:D

[cerberusalert]

The only thing you need to send them is a letter requiring a 'Statement of Account', which I think will be quite interesting to see particularly if they have been adding charges which have not been included in the original CCJ.

[the tinkerman]

Thank You all for your replys

I did notice that Ell-enn & Bazooka- Boo said only the court/Judge can alter your payments on a ccj so does this mean because I have told them I am not sending them a copy of my income & expenditure as I am making the payments set out by the original court order that they can take me back to court for a formal review & if so what is a formal review.

I was under the impression that once a ccj had been served that the only time they could take you back to court was if you defaulted on your payments.

Yes please Ell-enn I would appreciate some help with putting a letter together for the court regarding harrassment.

[the tinkerman]

Thanks ceberusalert

will send letter off tomorrow for SOA.

[cerberusalert]

Whilst you are complying with the court order they have little chance of obtaining a redetermination unless your income has increased substantially & they wouldn't know that particulary as you are not returning an I&E to them, only a court can demand that.

[diddydicky]

well it depends on how much the judgement was orignally for, how much you are paying per month and how much is left

 

if it is a large debt and you may be paying it for very many years then i disagree with the advice you have been given so far and would say that it is HIGHLY LIKELY that the court will consider the plaintiffs request for a review since it is reasonable for them to assume (unless you show to the contrary) that in the 7 years since the judgement was obtained that your circumstances may have improved

 

i suggest you do not take it lightly especially if the foregoing rings true and your circumstances have improved a lot and especially if you now have equity that you did not have before

 

they could well already have done a credit check and land registry check on you

 

not being alarmist but on the other hand dont treat this flippantly

[Bazooka Boo]

Yes I do agree dicky, but I am still inclined to think it is merely greedy DCA's wanting blood from a stone.

 

Whilst it is perfectly feasible for them to take you back to court to reassess the payments under the CCJ, I think the point here is that, the DCA has no authority to ask you to supply a I&E sheet with a view to alter the CCJ, only a Court can do that.

 

IMHO they can ask all they like, but until they bear the cost of taking you back through the legal system and getting a Judge to adjust the CCJ.

 

It will of course be favourable for every body concerned to pay the CCJ off sooner rather than later, the debtor especially as they will be free from the ball and chain, but if your finances haven't improved in 7 years then it will be to the detriment of the DCA, as the Judge will more often than not, look at reducing the payments for the debtor if circumstances have taken a backward step, or at the least leave the CCJ unchanged.

 

Boo;)

[sequenci]

In addition to the advice given above it is imperative that you stick to the instalments as per the court order. Any change (even if you pay more each month) could be viewed as a default of the order which could allow the creditor the right to consider enforcement action.

[diddydicky]

Yes I do agree dicky, but I am still inclined to think it is merely greedy DCA's wanting blood from a stone.

 

Whilst it is perfectly feasible for them to take you back to court to reassess the payments under the CCJ, I think the point here is that, the DCA has no authority to ask you to supply a I&E sheet with a view to alter the CCJ, only a Court can do that.

 

IMHO they can ask all they like, but until they bear the cost of taking you back through the legal system and getting a Judge to adjust the CCJ.

 

It will of course be favourable for every body concerned to pay the CCJ off sooner rather than later, the debtor especially as they will be free from the ball and chain, but if your finances haven't improved in 7 years then it will be to the detriment of the DCA, as the Judge will more often than not, look at reducing the payments for the debtor if circumstances have taken a backward step, or at the least leave the CCJ unchanged.

 

Boo;)

 

i fully understand your position and i am sure it "grates" to have to deal with the DCA, but unless you challenge the decision you have to accept that with the CCJ you lost the argument and the debt has to be repaid.

 

Whilst i am fully behind caggers who get into a mess it IS unreasonable for instance for a guy with a 15,000 ccj to expect to go on paying 20 quid a month for 62 years and not expect the plaintiff to whinge about it!

 

The DCA is merely i suspect trying to comply with CPR and come to an agreement without taking the matter back to court

 

you could for instance , if your circumstances have changed and you fear he may get much higher payments out of you, negotiate with the plaintiff to keep the smaller payments in return for a voluntary charging order with a condition that the plaintiff may not force a sale at any time

 

Obviously i dont know your personal circumstances so it is only outline advice

[diddydicky]

Yes I do agree dicky, but I am still inclined to think it is merely greedy DCA's wanting blood from a stone.

 

Whilst it is perfectly feasible for them to take you back to court to reassess the payments under the CCJ, I think the point here is that, the DCA has no authority to ask you to supply a I&E sheet with a view to alter the CCJ, only a Court can do that.

 

IMHO they can ask all they like, but until they bear the cost of taking you back through the legal system and getting a Judge to adjust the CCJ.

 

It will of course be favourable for every body concerned to pay the CCJ off sooner rather than later, the debtor especially as they will be free from the ball and chain, but if your finances haven't improved in 7 years then it will be to the detriment of the DCA, as the Judge will more often than not, look at reducing the payments for the debtor if circumstances have taken a backward step, or at the least leave the CCJ unchanged.

 

Boo;)

 

i think you will find that if your circumstances have not materially improved over 7 years to the extent that you cannot pay any more, AND there are still many years left to run on the ccj that the court may well do the opposite of what you think and will actually give the plaintiff the security of a charge on your property. (IMO)

 

sometimes we forget that the plaintiffs interests also have to be taken into account by the court- it is not all one sided

[spamheed]

i think you will find that if your circumstances have not materially improved over 7 years to the extent that you cannot pay any more, AND there are still many years left to run on the ccj that the court may well do the opposite of what you think and will actually give the plaintiff the security of a charge on your property. (IMO)

 

sometimes we forget that the plaintiffs interests also have to be taken into account by the court- it is not all one sided

 

 

This is entirely wrong as there is precedent and statute to dictate that if a repayment plan is up to date and no payment has been missed, then no further enforcement may be made.

 

It is not the responsibility of the debtor to prove that their circumstances are unchanged, but the creditor to prove that they have.

 

In making demands such as this the creditor is effectively questioning a court enforced judgement, it is not the debtor who needs to be questioned by the creditor but the courts.

 

Hence the process already exists for a creditor to take a debtor back to court for a reassessment of their financial means and potential change to the repayment schedule.

 

I would send them a letter telling them that until a change is notified by the ciourts, then I will be paying the ordered amount and nothing more

[diddydicky]

This is entirely wrong as there is precedent and statute to dictate that if a repayment plan is up to date and no payment has been missed, then no further enforcement may be made.

 

It is not the responsibility of the debtor to prove that their circumstances are unchanged, but the creditor to prove that they have.

 

In making demands such as this the creditor is effectively questioning a court enforced judgement, it is not the debtor who needs to be questioned by the creditor but the courts.

 

Hence the process already exists for a creditor to take a debtor back to court for a reassessment of their financial means and potential change to the repayment schedule.

 

I would send them a letter telling them that until a change is notified by the ciourts, then I will be paying the ordered amount and nothing more

 

I am sorry but i disagree totally with your argument

 

if you read the court rules it is perfectly acceptable for either party to go back to court on ccj and ask for a review of the payments (up or down)

 

clearly the court never intended that (for example) a ccj for 15,000 be paid for 62.5 years at 20 per month

 

the time order was made in the light of the circumstances at the time the CCJ was issued.

 

the plaintiff (dislikes aside) is following the CPR and is in fact entitled to demand a I & E from the defendant before a hearing

 

it is clearly nonsensical for people who often expouse on these forums how dastardly it is that creditors never give them information unless they force them to through the court, should then get uppity and insist they will only provide the I & E if (as they will if the plaintiff makes an application) if the court directs.

 

i can ASSURE you that if a person who has paid a ccj for 7 years on a low payment and still has for example another 10-20 years of payments at this level that the court WILL in all probability (if asked for) give the plaintiff the security of a charging order if the defendant is proposing that he can offer no more in the payments.

 

 

 

 

 

we have opposing views- i respect your view but think you are wrong

[spamheed]

I am sorry but i disagree totally with your argument

 

if you read the court rules it is perfectly acceptable for either party to go back to court on ccj and ask for a review of the payments (up or down)

clearly the court never intended that (for example) a ccj for 15,000 be paid for 62.5 years at 20 per month

 

the time order was made in the light of the circumstances at the time the CCJ was issued.

 

the plaintiff (dislikes aside) is following the CPR and is in fact entitled to demand a I & E from the defendant before a hearing

 

it is clearly nonsensical for people who often expouse on these forums how dastardly it is that creditors never give them information unless they force them to through the court, should then get uppity and insist they will only provide the I & E if (as they will if the plaintiff makes an application) if the court directs.

 

i can ASSURE you that if a person who has paid a ccj for 7 years on a low payment and still has for example another 10-20 years of payments at this level that the court WILL in all probability (if asked for) give the plaintiff the security of a charging order if the defendant is proposing that he can offer no more in the payments.

 

we have opposing views- i respect your view but think you are wrong

 

This exactly my point, it clearly states that either party can return to court, it doesn't state that either party can harry the other, harrass or make demands for information from the other, they can however take them back to court.

So their business is with the courts, not with the debtor, this is what I believe I said and meant

 

I beg to differ, the view/opinion I made absolutely agrees with your own as stated above, logic would dictate that we are right or we are wrong????

 

My point is simple, (and very clear) if the court orders that XXXXX must pay YYYYY £xxx per month/day/week. this doesn't need the word clearly because it is written as a judgement of the court, there is nothing "clearly" implied or meant other than the wording of the judgement.

 

irrespective of what either XXX or YYY may feel about the matter of the judgement or any of the conditions surrounding it, any arguments regarding the judgement must be made before the court, any demands or threats made outside of the courts is at best harrassment and at worst showing contempt

 

As for the refusal to give them information until ordered to do so by the courts, I think you will find that this comes under the banner of debt collectors making empty threats, providing information to a DCA isn't right and without a court order, isn't legal, they have no entitlement to this or any other information unless it is under CPR or court instruction

[sequenci]

This is entirely wrong as there is precedent and statute to dictate that if a repayment plan is up to date and no payment has been missed, then no further enforcement may be made.

 

You're absolutely correct. However, a creditor is more than able to make an application to vary the terms of the judgment whenever they like. This could mean that the instalment order gets changed to forthwith OR an unreastic and unaffordable instalment. I've seen this happen plenty of times - it's becoming more and more commonplace.

 

It is not the responsibility of the debtor to prove that their circumstances are unchanged, but the creditor to prove that they have.

 

If asked the debtor should resubmit their budget sheets every now and then, it's perfectly reasonable to ask.

 

Hence the process already exists for a creditor to take a debtor back to court for a reassessment of their financial means and potential change to the repayment schedule.

 

Absolutely, and this is what they should be doing via the variation route - NOT by calling the debtor on an informal basis.

 

I would send them a letter telling them that until a change is notified by the ciourts, then I will be paying the ordered amount and nothing more

 

exactly.

[sequenci]

Edit: just seen your next post too!

[diddydicky]

This exactly my point, it clearly states that either party can return to court, it doesn't state that either party can harry the other, harrass or make demands for information from the other, they can however take them back to court.

So their business is with the courts, not with the debtor, this is what I believe I said and meant

 

I beg to differ, the view/opinion I made absolutely agrees with your own as stated above, logic would dictate that we are right or we are wrong????

 

My point is simple, (and very clear) if the court orders that XXXXX must pay YYYYY £xxx per month/day/week. this doesn't need the word clearly because it is written as a judgement of the court, there is nothing "clearly" implied or meant other than the wording of the judgement.

 

irrespective of what either XXX or YYY may feel about the matter of the judgement or any of the conditions surrounding it, any arguments regarding the judgement must be made before the court, any demands or threats made outside of the courts is at best harrassment and at worst showing contempt

 

As for the refusal to give them information until ordered to do so by the courts, I think you will find that this comes under the banner of debt collectors making empty threats, providing information to a DCA isn't right and without a court order, isn't legal, they have no entitlement to this or any other information unless it is under CPR or court instruction

 

thanks comes down then i think to being "reasonable" with the plaintiff

 

IF for instance it was me in the position that i outlined as a scenario and i could not offer more and it was likely the the plaintiff was likely to go to court for a variation

 

i would be talking directly to the plaintiff and suggesting that in return for continuing to make low payments that i would agree to a voluntary charging order with conditions that the plaintiff could not force a sale.

 

this in my view would be better than allowing him to seek a charging order in court with no restrictions

[spamheed]

thanks comes down then i think to being "reasonable" with the plaintiff

 

IF for instance it was me in the position that i outlined as a scenario and i could not offer more and it was likely the the plaintiff was likely to go to court for a variation

 

i would be talking directly to the plaintiff and suggesting that in return for continuing to make low payments that i would agree to a voluntary charging order with conditions that the plaintiff could not force a sale.

 

this in my view would be better than allowing him to seek a charging order in court with no restrictions

 

My viewpoint would be that a lot of peoples experience has shown that these companies will rely heavily on people being scared and backing down and will take everything right up to the wire before they themselves back down.

 

Although I appreciate the viewpoint that both you and Sequenci have mentioned - that there is a real risk of being re-assessed with a forthright or unreasonable repayment order. In the case of a person breaching a repayment order, or failing to honour an agreement I would fully agree (about the reassessment, not the harrassment) as would I with a house repossession, or mortgage default but not on the subject of unsecured debt

 

In the current financial climate and with the banks and OFT being the way they are (up the creek) I would doubt very much that any judge, being faced with a creditor who has a repayment plan in place and a debtor who has not missed a payment, would allow the debtor to be penalised further and I reckon the same judge would happily grasp the statutes and precedents which disallow him from penalising the debtor in this manner at his earliest convenience.

 

I agree that debts should be paid, but the law is there and has been written and precedents set for a bl@@dy good reason. but to trust a DCA with your property? I would be of a mind to walk away from my home (negative equity) should a DCA obtain a charging order. declare myself bankrupt and start again in 6 years

[diddydicky]

I agree that debts should be paid, but the law is there and has been written and precedents set for a bl@@dy good reason. but to trust a DCA with your property? I would be of a mind to walk away from my home (negative equity) should a DCA obtain a charging order. declare myself bankrupt and start again in 6 years

 

 

all the more reason to negotiate a voluntary charging order with him and get the no forced sale clause in there than to let him ask the court where you would be unlikley to get the same agreement

[sequenci]

 

all the more reason to negotiate a voluntary charging order with him and get the no forced sale clause in there than to let him ask the court where you would be unlikley to get the same agreement

 

Even in a non-voluntary formal charging order hearing you should be abel to have conditions attached to the charging order such as 'no order for sale with instalments'

 

If the property is jointly owned an order for sale is very difficult to obtain anyhow - especially if children live there too.

[diddydicky]

Even in a non-voluntary formal charging order hearing you should be abel to have conditions attached to the charging order such as 'no order for sale with instalments'

 

If the property is jointly owned an order for sale is very difficult to obtain anyhow - especially if children live there too.

 

true

[diddydicky]

i just think sometimes that some jaw jaw is better than war war

[the tinkerman]

Hi all

Once again that you for all your comments seems a case where i dammed if i do & i dammed if i dont the only reason i did not send them an income & expenditure sheet was because the first letter i received from this solicitors said it is some time since my financial positon has been reviewed & accordingly we enclose an income & exp sheet for my completion & if they do not hear from me within 10 days the client will apply to the court for a formal hearing & will show this letter to the court as evidence of our clients efforts to reslove this without court action, i then sent then a letter back asking who actually owns this debt as the original company the debt was with went into administration back in 2002 & i received a letter from a solicitors back in 2001 saying that Notice Change of Solicitors and confirmed that the original has been filled with the court & from this point all payments made to clear this ccj must be made to the new solicitor.

Then in 2003 i recived a letter from a company saying they are acting on behalf of another company ? (YET SAME ADDRESS) who have insructed us with regards to your default under the loan agreement entered into with the original company & please take note that by assignments dated October 2002 the original company assigned to this another company absolutely all amounts due under this agreement & our client is now entitled to the sum due and outstanding and as i am aware, legal action has previously been commenced against me for the recovery of the balance due under this agreement with interest & cost & our clients have retained the same solicitors and any payment arrangements i have with them should be left in place.

Then a year later back in 2004 i received another letter from this company

who the debt had been assigned to saying they had changed their name since than i have had nothing but grief off this company i hope you all follow so far,the letter i got in response from the solicitors was in relation to my comments regarding the original company was that this debt had been assigned to another company HOWEVER when proceeding were issued & judgement obtained, the original company still had the rights to to recover this debt but that still does not tell me whether this company have bought this debt or not and they went on to add we trust the information provided to me is now sufficient for me to put forward an increase repayment offer & please note that as judgement was obtained for over £5000 statutory interest at a rate of 8% per annum contines to accure on this debt so my payments do not cover the monthly interest therefore the outstanding balance is increasing and our clients require a significant increase to my monthly payments so following on from my point as to the reason i did not send them an income & exp sheet i thought what is the point as i can still barely afford what i am paying now as i have a wife & 3 children and have had since this sarga started & the only reason i got into this situation in the first place was because i lost my job so from my point of veiw they would still take it back to court anyway as they are asking for something i cannot give them, and following on from that i did write back to them to say that if the client asked the court for a formal reveiw then i have no objections at all in issuing the court a copy of my income & exp details as i have nothing to hide along with a note of all the harrassment this client has been giving me over the years.

[diddydicky]

well now you are giving a lot more information

 

i have a feeling that there has to be a court approval for the ccj to be assigned

 

may i suggest you put this point to the site team i think you might find some more informed opinions on the transfer of the CCJ