Can Interest be applied post Judgment/urgent advice needed

[paulwlton]

He simply accepted they must have been sent at the correct time, stated "the possibility of not receiving one is possible but not all Four", he obviously again didn't understand the relevance of the First one (1st required Notice) anyway. Yes representation is viable and/or further opinion on the original Judgment (and/or unfair relations) and on the issue of PJI not being part of the Judgment. If my representations had come from a Barrister i feel would now be writing a complete different account!!

 

 

Would it be prudent to make application pursuant section 140 CCA 2006 contesting rights to interest payment and that this to be heard together at the next hearing.

 

IMO, Your main argument is Judgment wasn't interlocutory and did not allow for interest.

[AndyOrch]

Excellent point Paul

 

 

 

Andy

[Flintstone1]

Yes Can do, but the J had already accepted the Interest Arguments and when i raised that could the Interest Claim even be heard as this was a Charge Hearing to a Judgment debt that had been paid, i received a blank expression and he simply accepted that as the Contract states "Before and after Judgment" that it was correct that this point of Interest was applicable Post Judgment.

I raised the Interlocutory argument and at this point he then Adjourned to allow further submissions on this point.

So he is expecting both defence arguments next.

Would it be prudent to make application pursuant section 140 CCA 2006 contesting rights to interest payment and that this to be heard together at the next hearing.

 

IMO, Your main argument is Judgment wasn't interlocutory and did not allow for interest.

[Flintstone1]

Anyone have a SAR template in my case to use. Thanks

time limit for a sar is 40 days! would that be in time?

not sure re disclosure rules re a CO hearing?

what about cpr part 18 also? would that be applicable/of any use?

perhaps andy etc can confirm on that?

or your legal rep will advise

[Guest]

Would it be prudent to make application pursuant section 140 CCA 2006 contesting rights to interest payment and that this to be heard together at the next hearing.

 

IMO, Your main argument is Judgment wasn't interlocutory and did not allow for interest.

 

flints counsel opinion said that it would be regarded as not merged, post#176. and the judge seems to agree. but, they also said flint would fail on unfairness terms argument, but the J has hinted on pursuing s140. counsels opinion relied on s130.

anyway, as has been posted, technically a seperate claim re pjci should be needed. but, as posted, J has discretion to hear any matter in issue?

Edited May 9, 2012 by Ford

[Flintstone1]

You are correct Ford, the J is clearly looking at the Interpretation of the Term in the Contract. If my argument that the Interest cannot form part of the Judgment Fails, then; Paul, as the Judge has indicated that he agrees with the interest, would my application ask for the interest rate be varied and even reduced over what has been charged (London North Securities v Meadows Liverpool) so to be just to both Parties and not allow the Debt to run for to long. Could i also ask for a application for a time Order be heard at the same time? again trying to cover every eventuality, I felt the J was amazed at the Interest Rates and figures paid so if i proved he could vary i feel he would.

[paulwlton]

flints counsel opinion said that it would be regarded as not merged, post#176. and the judge seems to agree. but, they also said flint would fail on unfairness terms argument, but the J has hinted on pursuing s140. counsels opinion relied on s130.

anyway, as has been posted, technically a separate claim re pjci should be needed. but, as posted, J has discretion to hear any matter in issue?

 

The HOL precedent confirmed that If the court had power to award interest on the judgment balance (CCA regulated) at contractual rate their would be no need to bring separate proceedings to recover same. The judgment debt has been discharged therefore the creditor needs to sue for the interest accrued under the contract....you would then have an opportunity to defend using sec 140, the fact the judgment wasn't interlocutory, no notice, time order and the kitchen sink.

 

Paul

[Guest]

 

The HOL precedent confirmed that If the court had power to award interest on the judgment balance (CCA regulated) at contractual rate their would be no need to bring separate proceedings to recover same. ....

Paul

 

yes, as posted before #129/131 etc!

and, at a co hearing, j has discretion under cpr to hear and decide on any matter in issue.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Ford

[sequenci]

The HOL precedent confirmed that If the court had power to award interesticon on the judgment balance (CCA regulated) at contractual rate their would be no need to bring separate proceedings to recover same.

 

And then the 2006 act happened, which has changed a great deal.

[Guest]

Anyone have a SAR template in my case to use. Thanks

 

i think there is a general template in cag library, but may need editing to suit.

generally requesting copies of #all# data that they hold, then perhaps listing certain things as required eg transaction list, logs, agreement, correspondence, computer records,? etc but ensuring request is not limited to whatever's listed.

Edited May 9, 2012 by Ford

[Flintstone1]

Here is the latest from the Courts. I think the problem i have is that the Judge is simply going to look at the wording of the contract and the interpretation of the 130a, and the Claimant is simply driving him in that direction. I then am arguing as a LIP on Technicalities,without authorities.(there must be cases, reported or not but i cant find any) and am struggling- Not giving up by a long stretch though!!

Adjourned Judgment hearing May 12.pdf

[AndyOrch]

Its interesting to note that the Court as allowed permission to set a side the original judgment Flint.

[Flintstone1]

Yes and the Claimant Strongly opposed this at the hearing. Plus there were a couple of small loans from the same Company prior to this De-fault, so have SAR everything to look back over. May give the Creditor something to think over. Just that whole new ball game, once again need advice/ opinion, as i feel my last advice fell short, so am actively trying to find a chambers/Barrister with direct access and experience in PJI. I am North West/Manchester if any one knows of any, but will go further for right person. Thanks

[sequenci]

Have you contacted any of the law centres to see if they can help?

[AndyOrch]

Pro Bono ? http://www.barprobono.org.uk/

[Guest]

 

..am actively trying to find a chambers/Barrister with direct access and

experience in PJI. I am North West/Manchester..

also,

http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/instructing-a-barrister/public-access/

 

i think john pugh chambers in nw has been used before by an ex? cagger (pt2537)? they do public access, and for eg acted in the successful brandon appeal case on sols instruction i think. i don't know them, and am not making a 'recommendation' as such, or anything. just mentioning it. mods will delete/edit if inappropriate to mention.

 

what about a solicitor? re poss no win/no fee?

Edited May 16, 2012 by Ford

[paulwlton]

Good advice on applications etc and also backs up our arguments. The last paragraph is interesting.

 

If you do intend to obtain counsels written opinion it may be prudent to forward content of below for consideration.

 

Jonathan Rule in Warrington is direct access.

 

Paul

 

 

 

http://www.i-m-a.me.uk/QuarterlyAccount/magazines/182/182%2029.pdf

Edited May 16, 2012 by paulwlton

[Flintstone1]

Paul, now here is where i have a little confusion, i have several similar pieces and articles by P Madge/Sally Coles etc but not all refer to the CPR 16.4 (1) (b) paragraph here in this article, Is it Ms Walkers Interpretation that as long as the Creditor follows the Practice direction in the POC it automatically entitles them to PJI? Even if the Judgment is silent on this?

[Guest]

re order - from what you previously said flint that claimant did not have any 'proof' of s130's being sent yet J seems to have been quite ready to accept 'on balance' from claimants statement alone that they had been served? para 3.1?

as has been posted, at least j has left other avenues open.

Edited May 17, 2012 by Ford

[Flintstone1]

Yes you are correct, my relatives ex-partner Swore on Oath that they had not been received, i raised that they were not in documentation supporting his claim for a charge instead he simply included a account statement, and after the "First required notice" the others have to state the amounts and interest rates so it would have made obvious sense to for the claiment to include them as a big chunk is made up of PJI anyway! The Judge simply dismissed this, in this day and age it is ridiculous that creditors are not required to get proof of postage, my case is clear why this should be the case. Have found a couple of "Log book loan" Cases which dealt with the unfairness test but Failed, am actively searching, but most are unreported any ideas on county court level where i look?

[paulwlton]

When were you first aware that PJI was being applied?

[Flintstone1]

Not sure if he was aware, but i have found a Statement 4 months after the Judgment that shows interest being applied. Then only received a Arrears notice (86b) October of last year(with OFT guidance notes) after he had paid £123k (which he thought settled the Judgment debt but interest had been added for the 2 months leading up to the Court hearing) so this was settled shortly after. But dont forget the Judge has mistakenly accepted that the 130a notices were sent.

[Guest]

goes back to earlier posts

is there deemed to be a pjci term? counsel opinion said yes. j seems to have said yes. so, it follows then that it cannot be merged (as paul also alluded to just now) as a pjci term has to be 'ind and not merged'. so, technically separate proceedings required re pjci. judgment amount has been satisfied so co not possible on that as pjci separate. would need to be a 'judgment' re the pjci, and then a co application on that. but, according to cpr, j has discretion to hear any matter in issue or order a trial on any matter. now, from what you say, j seems to regard the pjci as part of the judgment. does he mean merged? if deemed merged, then the judgment amount is final. nothing more to pay.

then, assuming pjci, would consider s130a. counsel said no s130a notices served. no s130a notices = no pjci for any period of non service. j said have been sent and all that is required is for claimant to serve copies of the associated legislation to show that it has been served! what's that all about? talk about giving the claimant a hand! (even pjsi would be separate? but, wouldn't need a judgment on that cause it is deemed by statute.)

but, j has left open poss s140 unfairness, and set aside.

or have i got it all wrong there?

Edited May 19, 2012 by Ford

[Flintstone1]

I think you more or less grasp it correctly. The Claiment has even stated in his WS that "Contractual Interest and a Judgment Debt become merged is settled law" taken from FNB case, i raised this in my rejoinder but the Judge didint even read it. The problem i have is that the Judge unless i can show him some case law is going to view it as a lay would. i e. It states interest "before and after Judgment" in the Contract, in the POC and he has served the 130a notices so interest can apply. Full Stop. Has anyone viewed Goode on Consumer Credit?

[Mike_hawk]

The Claiment has even stated in his WS that "Contractual Interest and a Judgment Debt become merged is settled law" taken from FNB case

 

Hi Flint

 

Either party can cherry pick for effect, I don't suppose they mentioned para's 47 - 52 [Lord Hope of Craighead]

 

Do you have copy particulars [original pleading] and copy judgment available to post on here for reference please?

 

Forget the above [re; copies]........... found them attached in your earlier post

 

I'm having some trouble working out the stated monthly interest; Historical and recent statements of account generate 6 columns with a single column only for applicable interest rate. Whilst I believe they've unintentionally corrupted the figures the monthly rate for 2011 is expressed at 0.0292351%. Whether they transposed monthly with daily is something you should be putting to them.

 

Not entirely sure why they chose to witness their p.o.c as a defence either?

 

Phil

Edited May 20, 2012 by Mike_hawk
Added a couple of lines