Hybrid installment orders allowing application for C/O help please

[Guest]

good point re costs! court gave them licence to apply for a co straight after the redetermination, at more cost to def, knowing full well that it would be applied for despite the continued inst order! as i mentioned earlier, why did J flippin order the instalments in the first place if it wasn't adequate and a co was just going to be applied. nothing's changed!

Edited March 14, 2012 by Ford

[Ganymede]

good point re costs! court gave them licence to apply for a co straight after the redetermination, at more cost to def, knowing full well that it would be applied for! as i mentioned earlier, why did J flippin order the instalments in the first place if it wasn't adequate and a co was just going to be applied. nothings changed!

 

 

If the Court set payments at £200 pcm it wouldn't be fair on the Defendant and the Claimant would default straight away and get a Charging Order against them.

 

If they Court sets the payments at something silly like £1 pcm then it could take the Defendant hundreds of years to repay which isn't fair on the Claimant.

 

A balance has to be struck somewhere...

[Ganymede]

If the Court set payments at £200 pcm it wouldn't be fair on the Defendant and the Claimant would default straight away and get a Charging Order against them.

 

If they Court sets the payments at something silly like £1 pcm then it could take the Defendant hundreds of years to repay which isn't fair on the Claimant.

 

A balance has to be struck somewhere...

 

Sorry I meant the Defendant would default, not the Claimant.

 

I can't edit posts on my phone.

[Guest]

yes, i understand that. claimant got a co anyway! just saying, if inst order 50£/mth was not adequate to pay debt off then why make it (presume cred refused it, and J then ordered it. or did cred actually agree it in first instance upon admittance? which would be worse!). why not just say in first place inst offered would not pay off debt, cred go away and apply for co unless def can up the payments.

 

ps you mention 'overriding objective' and case management powers. a court should not be able to override the express provisions of statute. even if there was room for interpretation, the first port of call should be what parliament says. and the min of justice has recently commented on their views!

Edited March 15, 2012 by Ford

[Shocktactics69]

Im with you on that one Ford......I can understand both sides and agree there has to be some benefit for both.

However I only got my judgement for installments in November, then they had me back for redermintation as they were not happy with installments in december and then back again in March for C/O. Four months hardly gives me time to get in a better position financially and I now have all the costs added to my debt. So in four months my debt has increased by over £500. Not a bad return in my view.

[Guest]

shock

you mention before that you are looking to sell anyway. and that the debt isn't disputed.? would it be an option to see it off in the sale (provided there is no negative equity)? would then be clear of the debt?

Edited March 15, 2012 by Ford