CCJ/CO debt sold on -what CAN a debt buyer REALLY do to you?

[DonkeyB]

A court judgment is just that – in theory it sets out what MUST happen next, unless it is challenged, set aside, appealed or somehow annulled.

 

However... very often judgments are vague and open to interpretation. Judges are fallible (and some, of course, are just useless – like in any walk of life).

 

For example...

 

Consider what might happen in the case of a default judgment (where no defence is entered). The claimant could claim anything, including interest it was not entitled to, and even the blood of your first born, which clearly would be nonsense but which in theory is given by default. Obviously the defendant would be foolish not to argue with such a judgment if the claimant tried to enforce. But if you fail to defend or appeal, you have a problem.

 

Nothing is written in stone. Things can change. You can challenge judgments and set precedents. The law is like a jelly – it moves with the times (and case law), and develops.

[bengateway]

So both parties would need a copy of the judgement from 15 years ago to establish this.

 

The court and case numbers are available, but how far back does the court archive details of the judgement.

 

And does asking the court for a copy ring any alarm bells, or flag anything up with the dca in any way.

 

Its the watching a hornets nest from a distance scenario vs poking it with a stick scenario if you get my meaning.

 

Getting facts up together before making the next move. (If any)

[DonkeyB]

From experience of previous cases, it’s unlikely the court will still hold any copy of the judgment that is easy to access. You can ask – it’s just an admin job for someone. The court is only interested in a dispute if you (or the claimant) pays a fee.

 

If the claimant (whether substituted or not) has no verifiable copy of the judgment, then they may have a problem with enforcement, let alone charging any interest at all. However, if there if a charging order in place, as a result of the judgment, that will not go away.

 

If the judgment has been sold on, then only the details of the judgment (rather than a hard copy) are likely to have been provided (eg. in the same way that CC companies pass on assignments – data on a disk). But yes, you need to exhaust all the options for finding out if there is a copy of the judgment.

 

A whole load of background to your case would also help. Piddling into the wind a bit here, without the full facts.

[ken100464]

Now this has become a really interesting thread and thanks to you both for taking onboard what Bengateway was trying to put across.

 

An interesting point for me is the charging order comment wont go away even if the CCJ is lost. Does the CO supercede the CCJ?

 

In my case I have a sold on CCJ and CO. I am not in the position of interest being added thankfully and feel for anyone who is.

 

However the DCA has not registered the CCJ and therefore presumably the CO.

 

So for me just being a layman I am in the ridiculous position of the OC having a CCJ and CO on my home.

This is a settled account as the DCA has purchased it.

So the OC has these two things on a settled account and a DCA has a debt which isnt secured to anything because they cant be bothered to pay and register it in their name.

 

The only connection is the original solicitor is still collecting as per the claim form.

 

The two entities have become separated.

I am sure it would be easy to rectify but it worries me that the DCA is offering discounts on the debt.

That isnt the sign of someone who is sure they have the CCJ and CO.

This is the sign normally of something being wrong.

Last offer was 25% off.

 

But the wasp nest and the stick is correct.

You just dont want to poke it to see what comes out

 

I think as time moves on and the credit crunch and problems associated with it matures more and more people are going to be in this weird position of being dragged through a court by an OC with all the stress of that only for them then to seemingly lose interest and sell you onto someone else who doesnt seem very interested in the court stuff.

 

Its a very bizarre feeling and am sure many are thinking wtf what just happened there,

[bengateway]

The interest has to be claimed and awarded by the court, because the CCJ supersedes any agreement under the CCA – in effect, the judgment becomes the ‘contract’, the chose in law. A claimant cannot arbitrarily charge interest after judgment if it was not claimed.

 

DB,

I believe the usual format for a judgement for claiment would read.

 

You have made an offer of payment which the claiment has accepted.

 

It is therfore ordered that you must pay the claiment £ xxxxx for debt (and interest to the date of judgement) and £xxx for costs.

 

You must pay the claiment a total of £xxxxx

 

By instalments of £xxxx

 

The first payment to reach the claiment by DD/MM/YY.

 

THATS IT. thats the judgement.

 

However, there is a standard template box with notes to the defendant.

Amongst those notes it says If judgement is for £5000 or more, (It's not) or is in respect of a debt which attracts contractual or statutory interest FOR LATE PAYMENT, THE CLAIMENT. (not the dca) MAY be entitled to further interest.

 

Now as said this is not a specific note relating to the judgement, but a bordered box which appears to be a standard part of the judgement for claim, form.

 

I would say its that box which may or may not cause a problem rather than the judgement itself. As you can see I have either bold printed or red highlighted the areas I consider to be questionable.

 

Also, when it states contractual or statutory interest for late payments, does that means late payments on the judgement debt.

 

Becuase late payment on the contract debt has already been listed as up to the date of judgement.

 

And as you say the judgement overides the original contract.

 

What do you guys think ???

 

Another thought !!

If the original contract states that post judgement interest should accrue seperately and not merge with the judgement debt. (and in fairness the judgement debt does have a fixed figure attached to it for payment)

 

Then surely the judgement debt, and any accrued interest are claimed seperately. ie the dca comes after you for the interest once the judgement debt is paid. You say I dont owe it and they take you to court for the interest as a seperate claim.

 

Now if a period of 6 years has passed between the start of the judgement debt, and the judgement debt being satisfied. Then the interest debt that has built up has sat in a dark corner unmentioned and not acknowledged by debtor or creditor ???

 

So this interest debt is seperate, and has at no time been acknowledged for a period which exceeds 6 years !!!

Also all payments have been towards the judgement debt not the interest.

 

It may be a technical point but !!! Limitations act ????????

Edited December 19, 2012 by bengateway

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

bengateway Why don't you do some research your self the come back with the answers you have found.

CB is correct.

[bengateway]

bengateway Why don't you do some research your self the come back with the answers you have found.

CB is correct.

 

I have researched as best I can Brig.

I am not a litigation expert nor would I claim to be.

 

I am just asking questions that more experienced people (such as yourself) may or may not have answers to.

 

Those answers, if they are forthcoming.

Can prove invaluable to many who are being fleeced on a regular basis by dca's who often aren't even entitled to the money they take.

 

What I, and many have to be careful of is incorrect interpretation.

Sure we can research, but consumer law is a very complex issue.

If you research and get your facts wrong, your in harms way.

 

Any answers given to questions asked here can only serve to educate people into knowing there rights.

If you dont ask the question, your not going to get an answer.

If you have an answer to the questions Brigg not for me, but for others, please share them.

 

I have seen many of your posts and you appear to be very knowledgeable.

 

Respect to you, and all the good work you do.

[bengateway]

This link provides some useful information. And its fairly easy to follow.

 

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/england_wales/factsheet.php?page=18_interest_charges_on_a_consumer_credit_judgment

 

It would appear that claims for post judgement contractual interest rarely go to court once the judgement debt has been satisfied.

Or that would be my understanding.

 

No doubt a judge would consider how fair such a claim would be.

Especialy if the claiment was a third party interloper ie a DCA.

 

What needs to be remembered is that the DCA is not the original creditor.

As such they would not be disadvantaged in the same way, I will explain.

 

The original creditor is the person who loaned you the money.

Lets say its £4000 and you default on this.

 

It goes to court and a judgement is entered against you.

Judgement includes interest to date plus costs.

 

But the creditor has a clause that says it can claim interest after judgement at the contractual rate, until the judgement is paid in full.

You could argue that the contractual rate is set too high, and was designed for a shorter repayment period as per the original contract.

 

For example if the period should have been 4 years, and the interest rate was based on that assumption.

You get into financial difficulty and default.

The repayment term as a result of a court judgement is set to one you can afford.

Now it has taken you 20 years to repay.

 

That higher interest rate which was perfectly acceptable to you when you signed the contract over a 4 year period, is now grossly unfair if maintained over a 20 year period.

 

As such a judge may or may not agree with you and reduce the interest rate accordingly.

(To one that is deemed fair and proportionate)

This is to provide the creditor with a fair compensation for the extra time that you had his money.

 

But what if a DCA is attempting to make the same claim. Now thats different.

 

The DCA is a third party interloper.

He did not lend you the money.

 

What he has done is bought the rights to either the original cca agreement or the ccj.

 

He never loaned you the money, but he has paid the original creditor for the paperwork, (the debt is assigned to him)

So the OC has now washed his hands of the debt. (written it off)

 

If you pay the DCA the balance of the judgement debt. Lets say the £4000.

 

Would it be deemed fair for THEM to charge contractual interest over that 20 year period.

(I think not and I will tell you why)

 

The DCA have paid the original creditor a fraction of the amount owed (lets say £600)

once the judgement has been settled with them, they are £3400 up. (Thats a nice profit)

if interest as per the original creditor is in place to provide both a means of profit, and in the event of default.

 

Compensation to the person who loaned you that money ie post judgement interest because you have had that money longer than you originally agreed.

Why would or should a DCA be entitled to the same form of compensation ??

 

They already have there profit within the settlement of the judgement debt.

So in this instance, any claim for post contract interest would be for monetary gain only.

 

Not for compensation or to ensure that the DCA isnt left financialy disadvantaged.

With this knowledge, and with these points raised for a judges attention,

 

I feel that a good case can be presented with regards to an unfair relationship existing between the debtor (US) and the creditor (the DCA)

 

I hope now that I am adding something to the thread rather than just asking questions.

And yes I admit it, I am after Brigs approval. (I dont want to be a chocolate tea pot) lol.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I am still at loss as to why you are reviving this old thread???

I have also monitored you * click comment.

[bengateway]

Brig,

There is nothing ominus or any bad intentions from my postings.

I honestly cant see what exactly you find a problem.

What exactly do you mean by click comment ??

You say the thread has been revived but I feel its a good thread to follow and what you may not realise is it comes up often under a google search.

I am trying to establish what rights a DCA may or may not have regarding contractual interest on a judgement debt.

I have put up as much information as possible and replies are being received.

I have also tried to add some of my own views not just for my benefit but for others who may be in similar positions.

If the thread now needs to be left alone, and thats what you want, then I will add no more comments.

Hope I have explained myself to your satisfaction.

If I am causing a problem for some reason don't stress, I will sign off now and you will not hear from me again.

Edited December 19, 2012 by bengateway

[Elfet01]

Apologies for reviving this very old thread but these "sales" are still continuing and no definitive advise. I have an O/D with HSBC CCJed with a C/O now sold (the "sale" is specified in correspondence from HSBC) to DCA and their pet solicitors are informing that I should now pay them. The main questions are, does the court have to be informed and the judgement altered, who can enforce the C/O, can the DCA take this back to court for enforcement.

[dx100uk]

need to start a new thread of your own

this thread is 5yrs old and now closed

to stop newbie re-openings