House sale in progress help needed with restrictions on land registry title and creditors

[AndyOrch]

Hi Borris

 

As I have ready stated there is no such thing as post Judgment Statutory Interest..It can only be claimed up until Judgment.

 

As statutory interest on a debt under the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).

As statutory interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 or section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (formerly Supreme Court Act 1981) on a judgment sum for the recovery of a debt or damages.

Interest, simple or compound, as damages on claims for non payment of debts, other breaches of contract and in tort.

Section 69 of the County Court Act and section 35A of the Senior Courts Act

 

A claim for simple interest on a debt or damages under these statutes is discretionary. As it is for the court to award interest at such a rate and for such a period as it deems fit, it is always worthwhile challenging both the period and the rate of interest claimed.

 

What about the period for which interest is claimed?

 

In relation to claims which could and, arguably, should have been brought sooner, Claymore Services Ltd v Nautilus Properties Ltd is a useful authority. Here Jackson J summarised three principles relating to the period during which interest accrues:

 

“(1) Where a claimant has delayed unreasonably in commencing or prosecuting proceedings, the court may exercise its discretion either to disallow interest for a period or to reduce the rate of interest.

 

(2) In exercising that discretion the court must take a realistic view of delay… It is not reasonable to expect any party to take every litigious step at the first possible moment, or to concentrate on litigation to the exclusion of all else. Delay should only be characterised as unreasonable for present purposes when, after making due allowance for the circumstances, it can be seen that the claimant has neglected or declined to pursue his claim for a significant period.

 

(3) When determining what dis allowance or reduction of interest should be made to mark a period of unreasonable delay, the court should bear in mind that the defendant has had the use of the money during that period of delay.”

 

Jackson J held that the claimant was guilty of unreasonable delay between December 2004 and December 2005 and the interest payable to it was reduced by 50% during this period.

 

What about the rate of interest claimed?

 

Claymore is also useful authority when challenging the rate claimed. Claimants frequently argue that the judgment debt rate of 8% should be awarded, even though this rate properly applies to unpaid judgments (section 17, Judgments Act 1838) and is really therefore intended to be punitive. Particularly in the present climate, it is sensible for defendants to challenge such a claim.

 

In Claymore, the defendant challenged the claim for judgment rate interest, arguing that 1% over the base rate was the appropriate rate as this was the commercial rate of interest, namely the rate which the claimant would have had to pay to borrow the money. The court stated:

 

“The Judgments Act rate does not reflect the loss to the claimant from being kept out of its money…The Judgments Act rate is fixed for the benefit of unpaid judgment creditors. It is not normally an appropriate rate of interest to award in the context of a dispute between two businesses.” (emphasis added)

 

In deciding the rate to apply, the court took into account that Claymore was a small business within the meaning of the 1998 Act and the rate of interest that Claymore would have had to pay had it sought to borrow the claimed sum over the relevant period. In the exercise of its discretion, the court awarded a rate of 2% over the base rate.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Borris the Bold]

Hi Andy,

 

Thanks for the information. The guy at Horwich Farrelly is obviously using statutory interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984. Am I clutching at straws in thinking that the claim of this interest on the money owed must be included in the particulars of claim, i.e. 'The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [the date you are issuing the claim] of £ [put in the amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest].

 

Here's the timeline from the letters I have filed:

 

16 April 2004 - Capital One Letter - loan approval

 

20 April 2004 - Signed Capital One Credit Agreement

 

22 April 2004 - Capital One Letter - notice of direct debit payment details

 

30 April 2008 - Captial One Letter - informing of non-payment

 

07 July 2008 - Captial One Letter - default notice

 

19 November 2008 - Capital One Letter - sale of debt to Robinson Way & Co.

 

17 March 2009 - Claim Form

 

06 April 2009 - Interim Charging Order

 

12 August 2009 - Judgment for Claimant (in default)

 

06 October 2009 - Full Charing Order

 

09 October 2009 - General Form of Judgment or Order (The Defendant's application to vary an Order is dismissed.)

 

 

Regards,

 

Borris

[AndyOrch]

No your not clutching at straws if it ain't in the P.o.C then its not applicable to the judgment PRE Or POST or WHATEVER:wink:

[Borris the Bold]

Just checked the P.o.C box on the claim form and it only states:

 

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS MONEY DUE UNDER AN AGREEMENT BY WHICH THE DEFENDANT AGREED TO REPAY A LOAN WITH INTEREST BY INSTALMENTS BY REASON OF THE DEFENDANTS DEFAULT IN PAYMENT THE UNPAID BALANCE IS NOW DUE

 

I've just read this...

 

Using the judgment interest figure

 

The appropriate simple interest rate for judgment debts is prescribed under section 17 of the Judgements Act 1838. Section 35A(5) grants a specific power to prescribe a rate for pre-judgment interest that is linked to post-judgment interest, but this has only been used in relation to default judgments. The Civil Procedure Rules state that interest may be awarded on default judgments provided that it is claimed in the correct way and that “the rate is no higher than the rate of interest payable on judgment debts”.4 At first sight the Civil Procedure Rules do not appear to require interest to be granted at 8%; they merely state that it should be no higher than 8%. However, default judgments are made without judicial intervention, as a routine administrative procedure. The court will not exercise a discretion over the rate: if a claimant claims interest at 8% in the correct way, it will be granted.

 

Although the link between pre- and post-judgment rates in default judgments is quite limited, it has an important influence on court practice. When a claimant first completes a claim form they will not necessarily know whether the claim will be defended. As far as interest is concerned, it would be sensible for claimants to

assume that the case will be dealt with as a default judgment and to claim interest at the highest rate available. Thus the Court Service’s information leaflet, How to

Make a Claim, gives advice on interest in the following terms:

 

If you want to claim interest, you must include it in your ‘particulars of claim’. Write your claim in the following way: ‘The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year, from [date when the money became owed to you] to [date you are issuing the claim] of £ [put in the amount] and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of [enter the daily rate of interest].5

Edited December 3, 2012 by Borris the Bold

[AndyOrch]

Told you so ha ha!!

[Borris the Bold]

The trouble is Andy, I don't think there's enough time to force the issue and get them to change the settlement letter because they won't roll over and except it that easily, especially as they know the house sale is imminent.

[AndyOrch]

I would proceed without them and sort it out after sale.

 

Further information:-

 

 

Since the Land Registry Rules 2003 took effect in October 2003, a charging order is registered as either an ‘agreed notice’ (shown on the register as an ‘equitable charge’) or a ‘restriction’. Prior to October 2003 where only one of the owners / registered proprietors was the judgment debtor, the order was registered as a ‘caution’. A caution served much the same purpose as a restriction. Any cautions registered before October 2003 will remain on the register.

 

A notice or restriction does not impose an obligation to make payment when the property is sold. However if the judgment debtor (or any one of the co-proprietors) attempts to dispose of the property, the District Land Registry will advise the claimant of the interest in the property. Prospective purchasers will be wary of buying a property subject to a notice or restriction and, more often than not, will want the notice or restriction removed before completing the sale. This is normally sufficient incentive for the judgment debtor to pay the judgment debt. Even where they do not do so voluntarily, the fact that they have received money and have failed to pay the judgment debt is valuable evidence in support of a request for a judgment summons.

 

The effect of the restriction The debtor and his joint owner’s freedom to sell the property is not affected by

such a restriction. They could sell the property as if there was no charging order against the debtor. All that was

required was that the new buyers or their solicitor write to the creditor informing them that they now owned

the property and then confirm to the Land Registry that they had given that

notice. Then the buyers could register the property with no further complications. The creditor, who is sitting back,

waiting to get paid, instead just receives a letter confirming that a sale has already

taken place, typically a week or two after the sale so there is little they can do to

get the debt paid. In theory the creditor could apply for

a freezing order against the debtor to try and obtain the cash from the sale

proceeds. However, most creditors will never make such an application: The cost of applying for such a

freezing order would run into thousands of pounds. The debtor might have spent the cash from the sale of the property before the freezing order was obtained so there is little, if anything, for the freezing order to bite on.

 

 

" The charging order wasnt made final because of mistake by a litigation executive in XXXXXXXX and as the judge ordered that the interim order that gave rise to it shall remain in place it means it should remain unenforceable.

I believe that anyone who receives notification of an interim charging order partcularly from XXXXXXX should check the application form to see if theirs too has been signed in advance. It is my believe, that because of my particular case XXXXXXX might stop a practise that they may have been doing for some time. Such is their desire to push the charging order through as soon as possible, the application (N379) is completed and signed when they receive information from land registry, Its then filed away until judgement details are completed in part 2 when known.

The statement of truth signed at the end of the application for charging order (N379) in order to be effective must be signed no earlier than the day of judgment, in my wife's case had been signed 2 months prior to date of judgment when they received details from land registry.

In fact to anybody with a charging order already on their property, I would advise checking your copy of the application for charging order (N379)that the claimant is obliged to send a copy of, to see if its been pre signed. If it was, you too could well have grounds of appeal"

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Borris the Bold]

Here's an interesting post which is sort of similar to mine, albeit a bit long (bits in black seem relevant)...

 

Hi All

 

Not been in touch for a while had a bit of a breakdown over Christmas, was my day of reckoning yesterday this is what happened:

 

 

The Judge explained to me that I had to much information about certain technicalities that needed to be narrowed down, she asked both me and the Claimants solicitor to adjourn for half an hour whilst she decided what course of action she would be taking, once called back in she stated that the Claim needs to go back to the beginning as nothing has been sorted out in 3 previous hearings regarding the Issues and that all previous hearing should be struck out and that I need to now fill in a single application in numerical order for the court to consider along with a Witness Statement in support of my application, each is to have numbered paragraphs and a Statement of Truth as if I was doing it from the beginning listing all the issues I have regarding the Notice of Assignment, Statutory Interest being applied, The interest rate regarding the Original Credit agreement and the fact that this DCA did not appear to hold a Consumer Credit License for a couple of years whilst collecting this debt and why they should not vary the agreement.

 

The background being the now Claimant Merit Finance ltd bought this CCJ debt back in 2002 from a company called Orion Asset Finance Ltd then name changed to ICF Loans Ltd who Originally called bought the debt from the Original Creditor Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd as they went into administration and my CCJ payment has always gone to the solicitor, but I was only acknowledged in the way of a Notice of Assignment a year later back in 2003 that Merit had bought this Debt from ICF Loans Ltd, Then in December 2009 I received a notice of a application for a hearing with a date time but nothing else, so I sent a letter to the Court to ask what it was about in case I needed to form a defence and could I have it transferred to a Local Court.

 

The Court acknowledged receipt of my letter but I only received a copy of the Claimants application which was for Merit to be substituted as the new Claimant and witness statement the day before the hearing was about to take place thus giving me no time in which to form a defence so I rang the Court in a blind panic to explain this and ask could they at least adjourn the hearing giving me time to form a defence to which I was told that it would go before the judge.

 

Two weeks later I received a letter back from the court to inform me that the substitution has been granted in my absence (furious) so I then applied for a Set aside which was granted to be heard in my local Court as allot of things came to light in the claimants witness statement that either I did know about like the first sale of my CCJ from Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd to Orion Asset Finance ltd whom then had a name change to ICF Loans Ltd which up to the now Claimants Merits witness statement I had no prior knowledge of this sale either in the way of a Notice of Assignment or any letters from the solicitor, and what is strange is the fact ICF Loans Ltd you could take in short for the Original Creditor Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd yet they do appear to be two separate companies?

 

So all in all I wanted to question:

 

A.The Validity of the First sale as no Notice of Assignment was received by me yet as stated in the now Claimants witness statement that it was and when I asked for a copy of it they sent me chapter and verse of the Deed of Assignment from the first sale from Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd to Orion Asset Finance ltd whom then had a name change to ICF Loans Ltd but then stated seeing as Merit were not party to the first sale that they did not have a copy of the Notice of Assignment yet you would have though Merit would have had to have sight of that document to prove everything had been done legally from the first sale before they bought this judgement debt because my understanding of the LOP Act 1925 s136 & s196 is that unless you issue the third party a Notice of Assignment then the assignment is equitable and not absolute thus meaning that ICF Loans Ltd should not have sold this CCJ without the Original creditor Imperial Consolidated Financiers Ltd being a party to proceedings as the co claimant.

 

B.The validity of the statutory interest being applied to the CCJ.

 

and another two issues since which have been brought to my attention:

 

C. Merit bought this debt in 2002 to which they have been collecting on it ever since through their solicitor yet it appears that they only obtained a Consumer Credit License in 2003 to which also that Licence seemed to have run out in Aug 2008 and appears to only have been renewed nearly a year later in July 2009 ?

 

D.The extortionate APR OF 50% from the Original CCA.

 

I have no problem in doing that and the Judge seem to take on board that yes questions do need to be answered by the Claimant in relation to those issues I had raised but I need to condense them more in my Application in fact she was very nice really, Question is what form do I fill in for this as the Solicitor asked the Judge is Merit still the Claimant and she relied "yes" So, is it still a N244 that I fill in and and again ask for a Set Aside of the Substitution of Merit taking place in relation to the issues that I am raising or is it something completely different? Bit miffed that I have to pay for the Application again to as I was not given the chance to defend the substitution in the first place!

 

 

 

Their Solicitor seemed a bit miffed by all of this and when I asked especially about the statutory Interest the Claimant was applying and mentioned about the The County Courts interest on judgment debts order 1991and therefore it seems that s2(3) of the order is applicable in my case, he quoted that only applied to grants, the landlord of a dwelling house, or the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includes a dwelling house a suspension order for possession as below?

 

The general rule

2.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Order, every judgmentdebt under a relevant judgment shall, to the extent that it remainsunsatisfied, carry interest under this Order from the date on which therelevant judgment was given.

 

(2) In the case of a judgment or order for the payment of a judgmentdebt, other than costs, the amount of which has to be determined at alater date, the judgment debt shall carry interest from that later date.

 

(3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevantjudgment—

 

(a)is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreementregulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974(1);

(b)grants—

(i)the landlord of a dwelling house, or

(ii)the mortgagee under a mortgage of land which consists of or includesa dwelling house,

a suspended order for possession.

(4) Where the relevant judgment makes financial provision for thespouse or a child, interest shall only be payable on an order for thepayment of not less than £ 5,000 as a lump sum(whetheror not the sum is payable by instalments).

 

For the purposes of this paragraph, no regard shall be had to any interest payable under section 23(6) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973(2).

 

 

 

But as I read it (3) Interest shall not be payable under this Order where the relevantjudgment— (a)is given in proceedings to recover money due under an agreementregulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974(1);

Regardless and that sec 3 (b) and 4 where Just other cases in which interest shall not be payable under this Order, the Claimants Solicitor then went on to state that the Act only applied to Judgements of £5,000 or less.

The Judge stated that it did not need to state on the Original Judgment about Statutory Interest and that the Claimant can apply it under section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, but when I mentioned about the The County Courts interest on judgment debts order 1991 and showed this what I had found below

 

House of Lords Session 2001- 02

Publications on the Internet

Judgments

 

Judgments - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

HOUSE OF LORDS

Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Steyn Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Millett Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

 

OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT

IN THE CAUSE

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FAIR TRADING

 

(ORIGINAL RESPONDENT AND CROSS-APPELLANT)

 

v

 

FIRST NATIONAL BANK PLC

 

(ORIGINAL APPELLANTS AND CROSS-RESPONDENTS)

 

ON 25 OCTOBER 2001

 

[2001] UKHL 52

 

LORD BINGHAM OF CORNHILL

 

My Lords,

 

1. First National Bank plc ("the bank") is licensed to carry on consumer credit business. It is a major lender in the market and has lent large sums to borrowers under credit agreements regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Such agreements are made on its printed form which contains a number of standard terms. The Director General of Fair Trading ("the Director"), in exercising powers conferred on him by regulation 8 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1994 (SI 1994/3159) ("the regulations"), sought an injunction to restrain use of or reliance on one such standard term on the ground that it was unfair. The bank resisted the Director's application on two grounds. The first, rejected by Evans-Lombe J at first instance ([2000] 1 WLR 9 and the Court of Appeal (Peter Gibson, Waller and Buxton L JJ) ([2000] QB 672), was that the fairness provisions of the regulations did not apply to the term in question. The second, accepted by the judge but partially rejected by the Court of Appeal, was that the term in question was not unfair. In this appeal to the House the bank again relies on both these arguments. The Director seeks to uphold the decision of the Court of Appeal but contends that the term was more fundamentally unfair than the Court of Appeal held it to be. Thus there are two broad questions before the House:

 

(1) Do the fairness provisions of the regulations apply to the term in question?

 

(2) If so, is the term unfair and, if it is, on what ground?

 

2. By its standard form of regulated credit agreement the bank agrees to make a sum of money available to the borrower for a specified period in consideration of the borrower's agreement to repay that sum by specified instalments on specified dates with interest at a specified rate. Condition 4 of the bank's standard form provided that:

 

 

"The rate of interest will be charged on a day to day basis on the outstanding balance and will be debited to the Customer's account monthly in arrears . . ."

 

and provided that the rate of interest might be varied. Condition 8 of the agreement was in these terms:

 

 

"Time is of the essence for making all repayments to FNB as they fall due. If any repayment instalment is unpaid for more than 7 days after it became due, FNB may serve a notice on the Customer requiring payment before a specified date not less than 7 days later. If the repayment instalment is not paid in full by that date, FNB will be entitled to demand payment of the balance on the Customer's account and interest then outstanding together with all reasonable legal and other costs charges and expenses claimed or incurred by FNB in trying to obtain the repayment of the unpaid instalment of such balance and interest. Interest on the amount which becomes payable shall be charged in accordance with Condition 4, at the rate stated in paragraph D overleaf (subject to variation) until payment after as well as before any judgement (such obligation to be independent of and not to merge with the judgement)."

 

Emphasis has been added to the last sentence of this condition, since it is to that sentence alone that the Director's objection relates. I shall refer to this sentence as "the term".

 

3. The bank's stipulation that interest shall be charged until payment after as well as before any judgment, such obligation to be independent of and not to merge with the judgment, is readily explicable. At any rate since In re Sneyd; Ex p Fewings (1883) 25 Ch D 338, not challenged but accepted without demur by the House of Lords in Economic Life Assurance Society v Usborne [1902] AC 147, the understanding of lawyers in England has been as accurately summarised by the Court of Appeal at p 682 of the judgment under appeal:

 

 

"It is trite law in England that once a judgment is obtained under a loan agreement for a principal sum and judgment is entered, the contract merges in the judgment and the principal becomes owed under the judgment and not under the contract. If under the contract interest on any principal sum is due, absent special provisions the contract is considered ancillary to the covenant to pay the principal, with the result that if judgment is obtained for the principal, the covenant to pay interest merges in the judgment. Parties to a contract may agree that a covenant to pay interest will not merge in any judgment for the principal sum due, and in that event interest may be charged under the contract on the principal sum due even after judgment for that sum."

 

4. To ensure that they were able to recover not only the full sum of principal outstanding but also any interest accruing on that sum after judgment as well as before, it became the practice for lenders to include in their credit agreements a term to the effect of the term here in issue. If such a provision had not been included, a lender seeking to enforce a loan agreement against a borrower in the High Court would suffer prejudice only to the extent that the statutory rate of interest on judgment debts at the material time is lower than the contractual interest rate, because the High Court has, since 1838, had power to award statutory interest on a judgment debt until payment.

 

5. But a lender seeking to enforce a regulated credit agreement is in a different position. He is obliged by section 141 of the 1974 Act to sue in the county court. Until the Lord Chancellor, exercising his power under section 74 of the County Courts Act 1984, made the County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991 (SI 1991/1184), the county court lacked power to award statutory interest on any judgment debt and, when such a general power was conferred by the order, judgments given in proceedings to recover money due under agreements regulated by the 1974 Act were expressly excluded from its scope. It was further provided in the order:

 

"3 Where under the terms of the relevant judgment payment of a judgment debt -

 

(a) is not required to be made until a specified date, or

 

(b) is to be made by instalments,

 

interest shall not accrue under this Order -

 

(i) until that date, or

 

(ii) on the amount of any instalment, until it falls due,

 

as the case may be."

6. Thus a lender under a regulated credit agreement who obtains judgment against a defaulting borrower in the county court will be entitled to recover the principal outstanding at the date of judgment and interest accrued up to that date but will not be entitled to an order for statutory interest after that date, and even if the court had power to award statutory post-judgment interest it could not do so, in any case where an instalment order had been made, unless there had been a default in the due payment of any instalment. The lender may recover post-judgment interest only if he has the benefit of an independent covenant by the borrower entitling him to recover such interest. There is nothing to preclude inclusion of such a covenant in a regulated credit agreement, unless it falls foul of the fairness requirement in the regulations.

7. Section 71 of the County Courts Act 1984 conferred a general power on the county court, where any judgment was given or order made for payment of a money sum, to order that the money might be paid "by such instalments payable at such times as the court may fix". The 1974 Act also conferred on the county court three powers relevant for present purposes. First, the court was empowered to make a time order. Sections 129 and 130 of the Act, so far as relevant, provided:

 

 

 

To tell you the truth after them reading the above, I don't think nobody neither the Judge Or the Claimants Solicitor new then whether or not this 1991 Act applied to my Judgment or not Which reading it I think it definitely does, after all mine is a regulated credit agreement and I am at a loss as how you could read it any other way, what is anyone take on this please hard facts if possible.

Got the Impression I hit a nerve or two with the questions I raised, especially in relation to the The County Courts interest on judgment debts order 1991 regarding Statutory Interest you pointed out to me, not to mention the other issues,also got the impression though that their solicitors will try and do there best to come up with a reason why this act does not apply to me, but at the end of the day as I said to their solicitor it either does or it does not full stop.

 

 

Regards

[Borris the Bold]

Hi CAG members,

 

Can anybody please give me any assistance with the following extract from my ToCs:

 

If you are late paying the whole or part of any instalment you will pay us, if we so require, interest on the instalment from when it was due until when it is paid, at the rate of the APR shown. This applies before any judgement against you and afterwards if the judgement allows you to pay what you owe in instalments and states that this agreement should not be changed because of the judgement.

I would like to know if this could be used as proof to apply any type of interest, i.e. pre-, post-, stat, cont.

 

If the creditor is claiming interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act and it is not described/mentioned in the P.o.C, could a judge overturn this on a technicality. I read everywhere that claimants must not only mention this in the P.o.C. but must also be particular with the wording.

 

Regards,

 

Borris

Edited December 4, 2012 by Borris the Bold

[Borris the Bold]

Hi CAG members,

 

Just thought I'd bump this up because I'd really appreciate some of your views and comments on the previous post.

 

Regards,

 

Borris

[Borris the Bold]

Hi CAG members,

 

Still no reply to my letter, but it would seem that my creditor could be claiming discretionary interest, which apparently places the onus on the debtor to show that interest should not be awarded. Just when I thought I was getting to grips with interest claimed either pursuant to a contract or pursuant to statute, discretionary interest pops up.

 

How does discretionary interest fit into things?

 

Does discretionary interest have to documented anywhere, i.e. in the P.o.C, etc.?

 

Regards,

 

A confused Borris

[Borris the Bold]

Hi CAG members,

 

I finally received a response from Horwich Farrelly (please see attachments). This is what they use to claim interest. It looks like (see no. 14) that a lot of acts and their provisions which are quoted in this forum to support cases of debtors are now useless!

 

Regards,Borris

[AndyOrch]

Very nice and official but if its not in their T&Cs and its not in the particulars then its not valid.

 

 

Andy

[Borris the Bold]

How on earth can this be valid...

 

14 Repeal of existing powers to award interest The following provisions cease to have effect—

 

(a) section 17 of the Judgments Act 1838 (judgment debts to carry interest);

 

(b) section 44 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (power to specify rate of interest on judgment debts) and section 44A of that Act (interest on judgment debts expressed in currencies other than sterling);

 

© section 35A of the Senior Courts Act 1981 (power of High Court to award interest on debts and damages);

 

(d) section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 (power of county courts to award interest on debts and damages) and section 74 (power to specify rate of interest on judgment debts etc) of that Act.

 

Regards,

 

Borris

[Borris the Bold]

Hi guys,

 

Please, I need really urgent advice. For those who have been following, I have court on Wednesday for a redetermination hearing. The judge is expecting to hear cases from both sides in order to decide whether or not I should be paying more than 7 pounds a month against my 12k CCJ debt (restriction). However, the judge will not know that the claimant has sent a settlement figure to me on request by my conveyancer as I am selling a property, although this is looking doubtful at the moment. The judge will also not know that this settlement figure carries a shocking amount of interest. I believe now that I should have entered a witness statement to contest the hearing, but that's only if it was about the settlement figure and it's not. As the two issues are related, would i be allowed to raise it during the hearing? Will the judge be able to settle the dispute by offering him/her the original claim form, ToCs, judgment for claimant document etc, all of which are posted here. What's really scaring me is that I could possibly be exchanging contracts next week almost at the same time as the hearing, which would mean that the settlement figure on the day would have to be paid to the claimant (so says my conveyancer). I guess then I would have to bring the claimant back to court afterwards via an N244 to reclaim the interest back, that's if it's ever been done!

 

Regards,

 

A really worried Borris

[Borris the Bold]

Hi all,

 

Could really do with some advice on the above post. Many thanks.

 

Regards,

 

Borris