Can Interest be applied post Judgment/urgent advice needed

[Flintstone1]

Hi all,

 

Hope you are all well, Update, the Creditor is refusing to agree to any disclosure or agree by mutual consent to a expert look at the computer which produced the PJI Notices.

Quite difficult to ask to be allowed to appeal as the Judge found as a matter of fact that the Notices were sent!

 

One other point which i know we have discussed in depth but goes to the core of the case and i know that CAB have raised this, everyone here and CAB seem to agree that PJI cannot form part of the Charge but the J never agreed (as the PJI is now secured by way of a charge) even my Counsel didnt agree with me when i raised this!

 

As the figure now is Staggering (i have tried every angle to stop it growing) then i may have one last crack if i could prove that the PJI cannot be secured by way of a charge.

 

Any ideas?

[Guest]

hi

not looking good!

did they end up sending anything at all re a sar and/or disclosure? was the ICO involved at all re sar?

what about your MP? a pro bono lawyer? FoS? etc

Time Order?

i recall you saying before judge said they may not have sent one or two notices? well if thats the case, then at least there can be no interest for those periods where a notice wasn't sent! that in itself could put the amount owed in dispute as well. just a ponder for input? plus, there is the points mike made re interest anomaly

are you now getting any such notices? or is the CO amount fixed?

Edited March 8, 2013 by Ford

[Flintstone1]

HI,

 

Nothing received regarding SAR request.

Pro-Bono unit still havent decided either way?

The figures involved now i would have thought cancel out the Time Order route.

 

Still unsure whether the Charge Order is a fixed amount at Judgment or grows with the PJI! and if the creditor would have to raise a new claim for the increasing amount.

 

I have been asked to get the Court Transcript with regard to my last post, as if it is correct that PJI cannot be secured by way of a charge then i need to look at the reason the Judge allowed it.

To be honest he never even read my Rejoinder which contained various papers by P Madge and various others supporting my argument, and stared blank at me when i raised these arguments.

 

Thanks

[Guest]

did you involve the ICO re sar?

i still think that there would need to be a separate action re pjci in the first place.

and, if it is still 'growing' would then still need to be notices as such?

just my opinion, as always.

[Mike_hawk]

Flint

 

The statement of account, its pleading, and ergo its notices are inaccurate.

 

The poc states a sum of circa 63k, original loan plus interest.

 

The poc further states that the account was terminated at same quantum.

 

Its statement of account identifies an additional interest application of circa 11k, prior to end of loan term and not reflected within default/termination notice or Poc.

[Flintstone1]

Hi all, hope you are well.

 

Any views on how the recent Case Chubb and Bruce v Dean and ANR {2013} EWHC 1282 (CH) would have a bearing on our situation?

[Guest]

for reference, this one?

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/1282.html&query=%22Chubb%22&method=boolean

[Flintstone1]

Yes, thanks

[Flintstone1]

Hi, I will try and put it another way to stir some interest.

 

If you can recollect one of my defences raised after confirmation here and after other research (P Madge, Advisor etc) was varies arguments that the Post Judgment Contractual Interest could not simply be added to the Judgment Debt, and also that it could not be secured by the charge.

These were, you could say dismissed by the Judge even though he didn't even open one of my Re-Joinders at one hearing and didn't understand.

 

As you know the charge was granted and after pursuing other routes the Interest is still accruing on the Judgment figure even though this was paid in full. I could post up the notice and it would make any other tv programme ,radio info we have heard lately on Payday lenders Claims seem miniscule, I seem powerless to stop it.

 

As a side note my original cast Iron defence was that the Post Judgment Notices were never sent (these were not 100%) the only entitlement of the claimant for PJI was to have sent the 130a Notices, it was quite plain for anyone to see as every other detail was in their "Particulars of claim" except these Notices, but were slipped in at the Morning of the hearing! Anyway the Judge agreed they had been sent, I have since requested a SAR (refused) a legal request (refused). But it is still in my mind but I would need some hard proof to be allowed to apply to leave to appeal.

 

Anyhow this is the first case I have seen to confirm this, extract below;

 

The Judge held, there was no power of the court in the claim to add any amount beyond the statutory interest to the amount of the judgement debt which also applied to post-judgement contractual interest. Relevant points from the case:

"a Judgement attracts interest only at the Judgement Act rate but there may be a continuing contractual liability to pay interest at a higher rate. Lord Millett and Lord Hope left open the question of whether the English courts have any power to do so. If there were a power to make such an order, one might think that it would be exercised relatively frequently, and that it might not even have been necessary to make provision in the County Court debts. I note in the very brief time that I have been able to look at the matter by way of further research that there is reference in the White Book at paragraph 40.8.3 to a case at first instance. Rocco Giuseppe & Figli v Trader Export SA [1984] 1 WLR 742, in which Jonathan Parker J held that there was no power to vary the rate set out in the Judgements Act. It seems to me that must imply that he considered the court had no jurisdiction of its own to award post-judgement interest aside from the provisions of the judgements Act. But it seems to me that, even if the power exists, it cannot be of assistance to the claimant in this case since it would of necessity be a power for the court to make an order for post-judgement interest in this court. on the first question, therefore, I hold that there is no power of the court in this claim to add any amount beyond the statutory interest to the amount of the judgement debt, and that applies to both the contractual interest."

[Guest]

hi flint

had a brief look

that case seems similar and acknowledges re First National, and as discussed on thread, any contractual PJI would be a separate matter and subject to separate proceedings to recover. then for the court to decide, maybe unfair. and in any event any PJI should stop once the judgment amount has been paid, then to be the subject of the separate claim said. and contractual PJI is something that the english courts can't award on a judgment. note s74 county courts act, which references the 91 Order and s17 Judgments Act. also CPR Practice Direction 70 (6). the 91 Order para 5 which refers to stat interest only being awardable on a judgment. etc. looks like maybe judge erred in your case then? a poss ground for appeal?

furthermore, there should not have been any contractual pji anyway due to the lack of the required notices.

will have a further look again later, but does that seem correct?

did you complain to the ICO re the refusal to do a sar?

what about the press, and/or your MP, any options there?

what are your advisors now saying (if able to post up)?

Edited January 20, 2014 by Ford

[Flintstone1]

Thanks, seems a glimmer of hope in regard to this case.

Notices are the most frustrating aspect, suppose just unlucky with the Judge, but in hindsight I should have requested at court that they prove without doubt with there Metadata or similar.

I have pondered on the press with them being quite a high profile "Shark" which is expanding at a high rate after being taken over, and the current press interest. Not sure!

Thanks

[Guest]

according to statute mentioned, that was mentioned in that case, eng cty cts can't award contractual PJI on a judgment debt! your J seems to have erred?

know what you mean, without your disclosure they wouldn't have known! your J seemed to have been blase? did you get a transcript of the hearing?

re sar refusal, did you complain to the ICO?

do consider your MP, never know they may have some weight.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Ford

[Flintstone1]

I am a little surprised at the lack of responses, as this case could have major bearing on future PJI Claims, and as this is what has always been stated on this Forum by many here, but now can be seen proven!

 

I would welcome other views how they see it assisting our case.

[Flintstone1]

Hi,

 

I am pursuing in light of this case. But if that was to fail, where do I go from there?

I could pursue the "unfair relationship" avenue but would be costly and the recent cases I have seen have failed.

The most frustrating point is that interest is accruing still, we have no way of paying yet it grows like a "Monster"! The amount of Post Judgment Interest they are pursuing is staggering!!

 

 

I may repeat myself here, but if you recall they have were successful in gaining a charge to secure their Judgment figure plus PJI (the Judgment figure was subsequently paid),

now when the charge was given the figure of PJI was X and in the courts eyes the figure of X is now secured, can I have any views on whether the further PJI which they apply monthly is still secured by the charge thus in effect the charge figure grows?

Thanks

[Flintstone1]

Just a quick one, I may have missed it but my last post didn't seem to flag up on "New Posts"?

[Guest]

flint

as has been suggested on thread, it seems that any CPJI would need to be subject to a separate action (claim form to judgment on it), and that seems to be the view of the court in that case you mentioned? therefore, your current charge should be re the judgment amount only (plus any SPJI (but they didn't claim that?))? so, a separate claim and judgment re CPJI would then be separate and so need a separate charge if judgment?

as the judgment amount has been paid shouldn't any interest on it cease (save any outstanding compound interest)? and thats when a claim should be made re CPJI? surely it can't be neverending?

my thoughts

as mentioned, maybe your J erred? did you manage to get a transcript of your case re what the judge said re CPJI?

did you complain to the ICO re their failure to do a sar?

[paulwlton]

flint

as has been suggested on thread, it seems that any CPJI would need to be subject to a separate action (claim form to judgment on it), and that seems to be the view of the court in that case you mentioned? therefore, your current charge should be re the judgment debt only (plus any SPJI (but they didn't claim that?))? so, a separate claim and judgment re CPJI would then be separate and so need a separate charge if judgment?

as the judgment amount has been paid shouldn't any interest on it cease (save any outstanding compound interest)? and thats when a claim should be made re CPJI? surely it can't be neverending?

my thoughts

maybe your J erred? did you manage to get a transcript of your case re what the judge said re CPJI?

did you complain to the ICO re their failure to do a sar?

 

Your post seems to outline the salient points which are a matter of fact and there's really not more I could ad.

Regards

[Guest]

Your post seems to outline the salient points which are a matter of fact and there's really not more I could ad.

Regards

 

cheers

 

#385 also re statute etc

[Flintstone1]

Thanks

 

Yes I have all relevant Transcripts of the hearings.

 

You are correct and yes it seems "Never-ending" up to this point and if I was to "Bury my head in the sand" so to say and not contest it, it would seem to continue the same

until a Order of Sale is applied for i assume!

But that is not the case as i will exhaust every avenue.

[Guest]

flint

have you checked your land registry details? what amount is the charge on it, is it the amount of the judgment? presume is a fixed amount? so any amount above whatever it currently is would need to be separately claimed on anyway ie it would have no charge standing atm?

whats the general gist of your advisers opinion?

[Flintstone1]

Hi Ford.

 

Thanks for your input.

I have the land registry will check. Does the figure of a charge show not sure. Anyway I have raked over this point many times and goes back to the core of a purpose of a charge to secure a judgment debt.

How on earth can any more monies be covered by the charge which are neither admitted or have had an opportunity to be defended/disputed.

 

I have asked/researched this point many times with very little conclusion.

 

Thanks

[Guest]

flint

your pm box is full, so couldn't reply to yr message. you need to clear some messages, so can reply.

[Guest]

hi, no worries. just coincidence

tried to reply but yr pm box is full

[Guest]

flintstone

how are things going? whatever happens do let thread know.

[HP Mum]

Interested in this. Subbing