Can Interest be applied post Judgment/urgent advice needed

[sequenci]

Yup, got it in one. That was the mechanisim that inserted s130(a). But you knew that already

[Flintstone1]

Thanks. One point, there Witness Statement was supplied minutes before the hearing, i didn't have time to digest it, the Judge asked if they had anymore to add for the next hearing they answered no. We were not asked, i need to reply to this now, do i need permission to do so? From Whom?

[AndyOrch]

If their WS was only exchanged minutes before then it should be disregarded, it must be exchanged at least 7 days pre hearing.

 

Andy

[Flintstone1]

I understand what your saying but would i not be seemed to be unreasonable to ask for it to be disregarded, as the judge has adjourned for a future date? Thanks

[AndyOrch]

If the WS was not taken into into consideration within the proceedings with no effect then you will have time to respond/prepare before the next hearing.If it was then you need to bring it to the Courts attention that you was served late.

 

Andy

[Flintstone1]

I believe it was considered by the Judge, as he referred to one part of it.

[Flintstone1]

Is the reference to "Further Interest on the Judgment Debt" on the application N379 s2 a reference to Stat Interest?

I do agree with you that this would be a angle but first i want to exhaust with regard to the notices, i.e. i know they never complied, they know they never but i have to think "outside the box" to prove it! With regard to the Charge they simply state that in the application N379 s2 states "Which includes further interest payable on the Judgment debt" and say this is the intention of this term, thus the PJI can be secured under this charge. With Regard to the PJI they simply put it is "Fact that contractual interest and a Judgment debt become merged is settled law." then quote FNB extracts.

[Guest]

....With Regard to the PJI they simply put it is "Fact that contractual interest and a Judgment debt become merged is settled law." then quote FNB extracts.

 

? isn't it the case that for there to be pjci it needs to be 'independent and not merged' with a judgment re the principal sum? wasn't this clearly stated in the fnb case? and isn't that what nat debtline etc say? which extracts do they rely on? ps, they would have to show on balance that they have sent the required notices. what irrebuttable proof did they have to substantiate the WS? none?

Edited March 1, 2012 by Ford

[hatesdebt]

I may have missed a point, or making this too simplistic but, would they not need to have been awarded pjci to make any form of claim for it?

 

It was in the poc, but it was not on the judgement, only the principle sum was awarded.

Even if it was awarded, it would still accrue in a separate pot anyway.

 

Am I barking up the wrong tree, or would this make a difference?

[Flintstone1]

Hatesdebt-With regard to there claim for pjci this is they state, to be covered by the wording in the charge application N379 s2 "which includes further interest payable on the judgment debt". Ford- You are correct with regard to the meaning of the Covenant which was debated over in the FNB case "independent and not merged" and i will raise this. I am determined more than ever after looking the claimant in the eye when the 130a notice requirements miraculous appeared in the w/s. Why were these not attached to his original charge application which would have been the norm when your debt that you are requiring to secure under a charge is PJI. So obvious.

[sequenci]

Don't get too wrapped up just in First National. Things have moved on a little bit since then. The 2006 Act is important IMO.

[Flintstone1]

I do understand your comments, and i am aware of the wording which exists in my contract which the claimant could argue is a clear Express Term.

[sequenci]

I do understand your comments, and i am aware of the wording which exists in my contract which the claimant could argue is a clear Express Term.

 

I have faith in you

[paulwlton]

The judgment debt is independant of interest charged under the contract. Note the creditor is seeking a full and final on the pj interest.

 

 

A CAB in Cumbria reported that a client had borrowed £3,000 in 1993. She subsequently fell into financial difficulties and the creditor obtained a money judgment for the debt. In 1995, the judgment was enforced by way of an attachment of earnings order payable at £50 per month. The client maintained the £50 per month payment until her circumstances changed. She subsequently applied to vary the instilment order to £4 per month. In 2002, the client asked the creditor for a statement of how much she owed. She discovered that she owed £13,900 as the creditor reinstated contractual interest in 1999. The CAB wrote to the creditor on the client’s behalf asking them to collect only the balance remaining under the judgment. The creditor responded that they would not do so, but would be allowing interest to continue to accrue, negotiating a full and final settlement on the interest when the judgment debt had been paid in full.

[paulwlton]

Below seems about right.

 

 

http://www.bournesdebtsolutions.com/interest-after-judgement.php

[Flintstone1]

Thanks Paul, good reading. Can i source in more detail from the OFT? I am also trying to source any cases that can assist mine. Thanks

[hatesdebt]

I can't remember if this was posted before (sorry if it was)

 

 

Many creditors seem not to add the post-judgment interest to the original judgment, instead they state that the interest would accrue separately and that they can bring separate action to recover it at a later stage. The Lords in the First National case assumed it was possible to do this although that particular technical argument was never discussed as part of the case. Rule 7.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules states that a single claim should be used to cover all legal arguments; this would allow everything to be conveniently disposed of in the same proceedings. The overriding objective also states that all parties should present the court with all issues to be dealt with in one action. Any failure to comply with this should be argued as an abuse of process and the case dismissed or struck out.

 

 

...Abuse of process and unfair contract term.

[Guest]

flint

re s130a notices

if not seen already, here is the required form/wording etc

see eg regulations 34/35, and schedule 5 of The Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of

Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/1167/contents/made

[Flintstone1]

Thanks, have used this in my defence last week. I now move on and i need to still raise 2 defences; to raise doubt that the 130a Notices were ever sent, and if they are reliant on the 130a notices then PJI Interest must be separate as the creditor can charge PJI only after Judgment and after the "First Required Notice" is given and thus PJI cannot form part of the judgment as he would have no entitlement to PJI at that stage, even if it was in his POC. The Prescribed words "Interest will be charged from the day you were given this notice (i.e. when the notice is deemed to have been delivered to you in the ordinary course of the post) onwards . This means that......." is very clear by this wording that PJI does not form part of the Judgment. Its took me a while but with all your help on here i am not just replicating what i read but am gradually understanding it. Thanks

[Flintstone1]

I havent found the "Quartely Account, Mary Sullivan 1999" it quotes yet, but assume the position of the OFT was reversed by the findings in the FNB case ?

Below seems about right.

 

 

http://www.bournesdebtsolutions.com/interest-after-judgement.php

[paulwlton]

I havent found the "Quartely Account, Mary Sullivan 1999" it quotes yet, but assume the position of the OFT was reversed by the findings in the FNB case ?

 

Sorry, I should have singled out the fourth paragraph. We now know that a pji term is not an unfair term.

[Flintstone1]

All, 2nd hearing a short time away, have my reply in hand, i understand now the one point they raised where they claim that "Contractual Interest" can be applied in the Charge Order, but they are incorrect as this reference to Stat Interest and this will not apply in this case. I have been trying to find cases similar to assist mine, have been searching Baili but without success any ides for ones reported or not?

[sequenci]

All, 2nd hearing a short time away, have my reply in hand, i understand now the one point they raised where they claim that "Contractual Interest" can be applied in the Charge Order, but they are incorrect as this reference to Stat Interest and this will not apply in this case. I have been trying to find cases similar to assist mine, have been searching Baili but without success any ides for ones reported or not?

 

Drop me a line on Monday squire, I'll see if I can find something for you.

[Flintstone1]

Just tweaking my response. One point the Claiment has responded to my point that my Interest here cannot be secured by way of a charging order, he responds with "THE FACT THAT CONTRACTUAL INTEREST AND A JUDGMENT DEBT BECOME MERGED IS SETTLED LAW." he simply then quotes and attaches the FNB case (Lord Bingham extract) Now we know that the S17 2006 Regs changed this, but could i use this and agree with them because if then my Post Interest is Merged then no debt. or would i be seen to be taking advantage of his mistake and it backfires.

[Flintstone1]

Hearing shortly One question if it goes against us what are my choices? Can i request to appeal? Can i request a time order to pay the debt in instalments and ask the Judge to freeze, vary and reduce the interest? If he accepts instalments that no order of sale unless in de-fault.