Jump to content
Guardsman

Joint and several

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3670 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi

I've really tried but cannot locate the source of the rule or law concerning 'joint and several'. Specifically I need to find where there is clearly something laid down in law that states that when a creditor has made an agreement of a full debt repayment with one or more parties under a joint and several agreement then that creditor must not pursue yet other parties in the same joint and several agreement for the same debt (essentially thereby duplicating the debt repayment). It sounds incredible but it is happening. Of course I would be most grateful for assistance in this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When two people take out a joint debt together, and both people sign the credit agreement, they enter into a Joint and Several Liability agreement. Joint and Several liability provides the creditor with the assurance that each of the signatories will be held fully liable for the outstanding debt in the event that one of the signatories is unable or unwilling to continue making the scheduled repayments. Joint and Several liability agreements can be any type of credit agreement, and can be secured or unsecured, but most common occurrences would include mortgages, joint bank accounts and joint bank loans.

 

Other examples of Joint and Several Liability credit agreements would include joint tenancy agreements, Council Tax and secured loans taken out on jointly owned properties. Joint and Several Liability only applies to debts which have been taken out bymore than one signatory, and does not necessarily include agreements where there are two card holders for say a credit card. In the vast majority of cases, Joint and Several liability agreements are repaid without any problems, therefore never creating an issue for the signatories. In the event that a Joint and Several debt cannot be maintained, the creditor reserves the right to chase each or both debtors independently for the full repayment of the loan.

 

In the event that one signatory refuses to repay, the full amount of debt falls on the other signatory. Reasons for one signatory not maintaining a joint debt may include entering into an IVA or being made bankrupt. The law you would need to look into is probably Contract Law.


Some useful links.

FAQ's

Making Posts

Letter Template Library

Bank Contact Details

AQ Guide to Completion

Court Fees

Data Protection non Compliance

Witness Statements for Court Bundle

Banking Code Website

Limitations Act

Fast Track Costs

A-Z Index

Mis-Claim Tutorial

Step By Step Instructions

 

Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs-The Titanic by professionals.

 

Please click my scales if you find my advice helpful !

 

If your claim is successful, please donate 5% so that it can continue to help others.

 

Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

 

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

YOU CAN NOW COMPLAIN TO THE OFT ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your surprisingly rapid response. I'm hoping for a case judgment or two that I will be able to quote - I suspect it might be a big ask but someone just might know. The key point in my query is that a full debt repayment has been agreed in writing between the creditor and some parties to the joint and several agreement and this repayment schedule is in effect and in force. Nevertheless though the creditor is continuing to pursue other parties for repayment of the full debt thus seeking to duplicate the amount of the debt recovered. It sounds mad - to my mind it is mad but I need to demonstrate this in law. The creditor's view is that as it is joint and several they have rights to pursue all parties in the agreement irrespective of the fact that they are operating an agreed full and final repayment schedule with some parties to the agreement. I should perhaps note that all parties to the joint and several agreement are content with the repayment agreement and are perplexed by the creditor's view on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh i see. The case that comes to mind is Grepe v Loam. A Limited civil restraint order (formerly a Grepe v. Loam Order) where two or more applications totally without merit, are made in a single proceeding. No further application may be made in the proceedings without the permission of the court.

 

English courts have the means of escalating the sanctions against a litigant who makes applications to the court that are totally without merit. The litigant’s conduct has the hallmark of one who is content to indulge in a course of conduct which evidences an obsessive resort to litigation.

Edited by ukaviator

Some useful links.

FAQ's

Making Posts

Letter Template Library

Bank Contact Details

AQ Guide to Completion

Court Fees

Data Protection non Compliance

Witness Statements for Court Bundle

Banking Code Website

Limitations Act

Fast Track Costs

A-Z Index

Mis-Claim Tutorial

Step By Step Instructions

 

Remember: The Ark was built by amateurs-The Titanic by professionals.

 

Please click my scales if you find my advice helpful !

 

If your claim is successful, please donate 5% so that it can continue to help others.

 

Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, please seek qualified professional legal Help.

 

WARNING TO ALL

Please be aware of acting on advice given by PM .Anyone can make mistakes and if advice is given on the main forum people can see it to correct it ,if given privately then no one can see it to correct it. Please also be aware of giving your personal details to strangers

 

HAVE YOU BEEN TREATED UNFAIRLY BY CREDITORS OR DCA's?

 

YOU CAN NOW COMPLAIN TO THE OFT ABOUT THEIR CONDUCT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM UNFAIR TRADING REGULATIONS 2008.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is excellent and useful, thank you. I can now add to this to assist anyone else that might follow this thread but there is still something more specific that I'm after which I'll mention.

 

First, further useful information on Civil Restraint can be found here:

 

PRACTICE DIRECTION 3C – CIVIL RESTRAINT ORDERS - Ministry of Justice

 

and here

 

Repeat offence | Features | The Lawyer

 

 

The specific thing I'm after though is where a debt collector has made an agreement to settle for a full amount with one party but simultaneously pursues another party for the same debt - the parties having joint and several liability. I understand that debt collectors are entitled to pursue all parties for the full amount in a joint and several liability situation but I believe that it must be the case that if an agreement is in place for full and final payment with one party then it would be perverse to pursue others for the same debt.

 

I've very nearly got to it (I think! I would welcome advice I am no lawyer) with

 

JAMESON AND ANOTHER (RESPONDENTS) v. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY GENERATING BOARD (APPELLANTS) AND OTHERS (1998)

 

"But beyond all of that the basic consideration both of policy and principle must be that while those injured by a tort committed by others should be compensated through the processes of the law, they should not be enabled to recover damages twice over. Such a result offends the basic principles of reparation, and, while it was accepted as a possible consequence of the operation of section 4 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 it is not to be regarded as an acceptable consequence of an accord and satisfaction. The principle is recognised in England in, for example, Bird v. Randall (1762) 3 Burr 1345, in Australia in Boyle v. State Rail Authority (1997) 14 N.S.W.C.C.R. 374 and in the United States of America in Latham v. Des Moines Electric Light Co. (1942) 26 N.W. 2d. 853".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...