Natwest Overdraft and loan on 1 CCJ?

[Crapstone]

I have a charging order on my equity from a joint account and loan. My OH wasn't pursued but I'm informed that he is not statute barred because I admitted the debt. The debt is a loan and current account from at least 11 years ago, with legal action taken in 2003 resulting in a CCJ then a charging order made last year.

 

We both asked for the CCA agreements and I was told they don't have to provide mine because of the court action . OH was told they don't have the CCA and can't take legal action although it doesn't excuse him from the debt but then again neither does it excuse them from their legal duties.

 

This is a complicated question so stick with me please.

 

If his agreement isn't enforcable but it is still joint and several liability, not coming under statute barred, then would he be able to set aside all legal action including that in my name?

 

I can't see how one person can be liable when the other is discharged for lack of CCA when it's all under the same agreement and both are still j/s responsible.

[Guest liamgee]

Hmmm so admitting a debt absolves the financial institution from all obligation to have their CCA conforming to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. I like that one.

[Crapstone]

I want to stop paying this debt as more than half of it is charges and PPI but have been legally informed that I can't claim them back as it's been over 6 years since the last charge.

 

The company still acknowledge the debt and their fees so I can't see how a limitation only would work one way plus the unfair charging only came to light in the last few years so the clock should start from the awareness of rights.

 

They tried for an order of sale as we both own the home and the debt is joint names but retracted it when they couldn't find the CCA for OH.

 

Does this sound like grounds to have the charge removed? I think OH is in a better position than me to stop any action as he doesn't have a CCJ and they have no chance of gaining one.

 

Complicated but hopefully someone can comment.

[I've got no money]

When the original CCJ was obtained did you defend the claim or did they get a default judgment - likewise what happened with the CO application did you oppose it.

 

I would be inclined to have a go at a set aside of the original CCJ on the basis that the original agreement was unenforceable.

[Crapstone]

I admitted the claim, but obviously knowing what I know now would have defended it.

 

We defended the charging order in detail but nothing was taken into account. The claimants solicitor was told off because they hadn't got the correct paperwork and said it wasn't being contested by any interested party. Obviously it was as my OH was in court with me and defended the charge.

 

It was a real life Judge Judy that talked over the claimants solicitor and us without given anyone a chance to be listened to. It was rubber stamped from the start and even the young (probably just a legal executive) solicitor, was almost in tears and on leaving the room we agreed it wasn't a fair hearing for either party.

 

I'm tempted to play a risky card by not paying and letting them apply again for an Order for Sale. Then throw in that it's not enforcable as they still insist the debt is joint and several still and is not statute barred but they can't provide a credit agreement for my OH so therefore it cannot be j/s liability plus they are commiting an offence by not supplying it whilst issuing court documents that refer to my OH as being a joint account holder which they cannot prove.

 

It's going to be tricky to get a CCJ set aside from 2003 but it's worth a try.

[I've got no money]

 

 

It's going to be tricky to get a CCJ set aside from 2003 but it's worth a try.

 

It may not be straightforward but I'd agree its' worth having a go...there are a few CCA Cases where the CCJ's get set aside years after judgment was originally entered

[Crapstone]

Thanks for your support IGNM, it's appreciated

[I've got no money]

If you draft up your application and post it on here I'll make suggestions

[Crapstone]

Thanks and I'll do so over the next few days.

[andrew1]

I want to stop paying this debt as more than half of it is charges and PPI but have been legally informed that I can't claim them back as it's been over 6 years since the last charge.

 

 

I think you'll find crapstone, that it's 6 yrs from when you were made aware that the charges and PPI were incorrectly applied. There's a subtle difference. Someone else might correct me, but you couldn't claim for something you knew nothing about at the time. If you had known about these charges and PPI at the time and waited 6 yrs before claiming then it would be barred, the fact you have only realised now makes a difference - I think?

 

I had a ccj on a card debt too which was applied by a Northampton Bulk service and at the time in 2003 I was deep in depression following the collapse of my business and did nothing about it, buried my head and didn't even open the envelopes. I wrote to the solicitors who applied it Geoffrey Parker Bourne (dipsticks) and asked them what they had replied upon in court and they wrote back and said they hadn't got the agreement so would not pursue it. It recently dropped off my credit files, but it irritates me these Bulk service claims have no supporting documentation before they are granted judgment. I was told I could get it set aside, but with it so near to the 6 yrs and not likely to be wanting credit anymore I let it ride itself out.

 

I'd look into that subtle difference though above..good luck.

[Crapstone]

Thanks Andrew,

 

That's exactly what I thought. It is from awareness, as you can't act on something you know nothing of and accept as being lawful.

 

When I've spoken to solicitors they don't seem to know anything and want the quiet life and easy money. Don't we all! It seems that they stick to the 6 years or nothing.

 

My arguement is that if they (the company) can continue with enforcement of the debt then they must acknowledge the charges, which they did as they were included in the order for sale they tried to get. If it's still running with both parties involved it shouldn't be barred as it's all still current. The time the charges were put on may be barred but if it's still on the account it shouldn't be as they are acknowledging it by including it in the sum owed. Does that make any sense? That's a question, not a statement.

 

For example you have a loan and 7 years later they stick their fingers up at you and say, 'we charged you £50 we weren't entitled to but there is nothing you can do about it because 6 years have lapsed but it's still on the amount you owe us plus the interest so we can secure it on your property'.

 

To me, rightly or wrongly, if both sides acknowledge any sum owed it is not statute barred whilst it's still ongoing and the disputed sum still forms part of the current debt owing.

[andrew1]

It's all found here: Limitation Act 1980 (c. 58 )

 

Sounds about right to me, you should go after them..and hold your ground.

[Crapstone]

Thanks again Andrew,

 

My only worry is winning and then losing on any appeal as their legal costs will mount up, but then again I could use part 36 for damage limitation if it ever got that far. To be honest I don't have anything to lose, I'm not materialistic and it will be peace of mind that I've had the opportunity of a fair hearing instead of just sitting back and doing nothing.

[andrew1]

Thanks again Andrew,

 

My only worry is winning and then losing on any appeal as their legal costs will mount up, but then again I could use part 36 for damage limitation if it ever got that far. To be honest I don't have anything to lose, I'm not materialistic and it will be peace of mind that I've had the opportunity of a fair hearing instead of just sitting back and doing nothing.

 

Just study and take advice if you are putting a part 36 offer together and make sure you get it 100% right, I've had my fun and games with a Part 36 recently and it is littered with perils if you get it wrong. You can also get insurance against costs I believe. I don't know because I never went that route, but I gather you can if you speak to someone like pt you'll find out. Good luck. All I can say though is try and not take what you know literally. What I mean is that from my own experience and others I have watched when barristers get involved, and you can get a direct access opinion for circa £500 rather than going via solicitors which is what I did, they cut to the chase of the issues and leave out many of the things you and I might talk about on here. They know the way the courts and judges work and just because we all think we might have good fair cases doesn't mean you'll get a good fair Judge on the day, as I witnessed the other day, I've never met such an arrogant old f**t. a 30 minute hearing over in 2 That's what we taxpayers pay for - a right to a hearing and that's what we get dished up. On the other hand, I have been in front of a complete gentleman and a LIP's dream (I don't make a habit of going to court I might add ) So take opinion if you can afford it as it may save you a lot of money you might best be keeping in your pocket.

[Crapstone]

Strange goings on..

 

I pay the Charging Order by DD to Shoosmiths Solicitors. They have refunded the monthly amount due back to the account this month, under a different reference number and with 'closed' against it. They took the DD and then refunded the same amount back on a different transaction.

 

It's not a failed DD on my part or my banks, it's a payment they have made into my account, directly. I called my bank and they can't give me any explaination why it says 'closed' against the refund. The DD is still active.

 

Neither Shoosmiths or Natwest have written to me to say that a change in payments would happen and I haven't asked them for one.

 

So now, I'm left wondering why and if I'm technically in default because of this refund. If Natwest have dumped Shoosmiths (or the other way around) I would still imagine they'd pass the money on and not just refund it. Why does it say 'closed'? If they want a variation in the CO they should apply to the courts and not refuse or refund the payments they asked for.

[I've got no money]

That is bizarre - it may be that Shoosmiths have been sacked or may be a mistake on their part or you may have paid it off.

 

In terms of the original Order - who were you ordered to pay - was it Shoosmiths or the OC? If they've refunded the payment that is not going to put you in breach.

 

Personally I would write ASAP, either by fax or recorded delivery, to Shoosmiths and ask them what's happening?

[Crapstone]

I was ordered to pay to Natwest originally but when they started an eviction order they changed it to DD via Shoosmiths and the debt certainly isn't paid off yet. They dropped the court action for eviction on condition that the DD was set up.

 

If it's a mistake, it seems a very strange one to make. If they had been sacked then any money taken would have surely been passed on and a letter sent out for new arrangements.

 

I might leave it another month and see what happens then. It can only strengthen my position against them to challenge the CO especially if they are refusing payments and failing to contact me.

[andrew1]

I was ordered to pay to Natwest originally but when they started an eviction order they changed it to DD via Shoosmiths and the debt certainly isn't paid off yet. They dropped the court action for eviction on condition that the DD was set up.

 

If it's a mistake, it seems a very strange one to make. If they had been sacked then any money taken would have surely been passed on and a letter sent out for new arrangements.

 

I might leave it another month and see what happens then. It can only strengthen my position against them to challenge the CO especially if they are refusing payments and failing to contact me.

 

Might sound like I'm teaching you how to suck eggs, but just hang on to the money and try not spend it, makes it doubly hard to catch up again - learned that from bitter experience

[I've got no money]

I personally would still be inclined to contact them and ask them what's happening - I've been in Court where Judges' have criticised Defendants for not contacting Claimants in similar situations.

 

Im the meantime as Andrew points out - make sure that you hang onto the money

[Crapstone]

The account the money has been paid from and refunded to is my OH's sole account. I wrote it as 'mine' for simplicity and eyes in the sky.

 

Natwest, Shoosmiths and the judge agreed to this arrangement in court so if my OH hadn't told me I wouldn't have known.

 

This could get really complicated as if could be seen that they have taken money due to the debt but have given my OH money.

 

If they have put money into his account they would have no right to reclaim it without going to court because it's no longer his debt and the reference number is different. They could of course ask for it or contact the bank to say it was a mistake. And I can prove that they have taken money under the reference number for the debt I owe.

 

Hopefully you can see why I didn't post all this from the start.. it's confusing.

 

Don't worry, the money is put aside as it's the only payment going out of the account and a transfer set up from another to cover it every month. So if they don't take it or they refund.. it sits there with interest adding.

[I've got no money]

I suppose that one of the questions that you are sort of asking - is if you pay them some money which they receive and they then refund it - should the money paid be treated as reducing the debt even though they have refunded it.

 

In all honesty I don't know...

 

Personally I would still ask them what's going on?

[Crapstone]

Well the next payment is due on 20th so it's worth waiting for. They are in the wrong so sitting it out isn't a hardship and gathering enough info to use against them is a pleasure.

 

What have I got to lose? They can't say I've broken the court order.

[I've got no money]

Well the next payment is due on 20th so it's worth waiting for. They are in the wrong so sitting it out isn't a hardship and gathering enough info to use against them is a pleasure.

 

What have I got to lose? They can't say I've broken the court order.

 

What you do is of course a matter entirely for you - I personally would not, where my home was at risk, just leave it.

[Crapstone]

What you do is of course a matter entirely for you - I personally would not' date=' where my home was at risk, just leave it.[/quote']

 

Neither would I unless it was carefully examined. I'm not an ostrich and wouldn't advise anyone else to do the same if I were on the outside looking in.

 

I'm intrigued as to how they are going to address this and nothing ventured is nothing gained. My home isn't at risk at all but their beneficial interest is .

[Crapstone]

Shoosmiths have taken their usual amount again so I just have to wait and see what they do in the next few days.