Link charging interest on GE Capital debt subject to a CCJ

[stretch3336]

Hi all,

 

First time posting on this forum, I am after some advice.

I am paying my debts through a DMP with payplan, and am presently checking all my current creditors.

 

I have just questioned if Link Financial will stop applying interest to my debt as I have been paying through Payplan without missing payments for the last four and a half years,

they replied by saying that I was still under the original agreement term.

 

I then noticed that the original agreement was with GE Capital and this debt was subject to a CCJ (judgement date 15 June 2008) total amount £3,104.60

On the Judgement it states , You must pay £3,019.60 for debt (and interest to date of judgement) and £85.00 costs.

Total = £3,104.60. Installments of £20.39 until the debt has been paid.

 

The total that Link says I still owe them is £3175.00, I have paid a total of £1121.45 in payments of £20.39 as ordered by the court towards this debt,

this should leave a balance of £1983.15.

 

Can someone advise me if Link can apply interest on this deb,t if on the Judgment it stated, debt and interest up to date of judgement.

 

 

Want to get my facts before I approach them.

 

Thanks Neil

[dx100uk]

typical link trick

 

if post judgemental interst is not SPECIFICALLY detailed in the judgement they CANNOT CHARGE IT.

 

you need to tell the court they are.

 

incidently

 

i hope link are NAMED as the claimant?

 

if they are NOT

 

and its the original creditor or another solicitor tc etc

 

WHY are you paying them at all?

 

whomever you are paying MUST be the named claimant.

 

dx

[stretch3336]

Yes it is link who are the claimant, and I have just noticed at the bottom of the judgement that interest ( contractual or statutory can only be applied if the debt is over £5000).

 

Do I Inform the court ref this.

Edited January 10, 2013 by stretch3336

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Yes.

[bengateway]

Link are trying to spoof you.

They are attempting to use a term in the original contract refering to post judgement contractual interest.

A case regarding Office of fair trading vs 1st National bank (now GE money) deemed that such a clause in a consumer contract was fair.

It enabled the creditor to ask, I say again ask, the court for contractual interest to continue being added to the judgement debt, until the debt is paid in full.

And they would ask for this within there particulers of claim.

Your judgement supercedes the original credit agreement, and the courts decision to impliment, and carry over the interest after judgement clause was rarely granted within the judgement.

The terms and conditions within a cca no longer apply once a judgement ruling to repay has been entered.

Once in place both creditor and debtor are bound to it.

It is affectively the new agreement between you/them, and agreed through the courts.

Unless the post judgement interest is specificaly claimed and awarded within the judgement then it does not apply.

The claiment is the person on the judgement, thats who you pay NOT the DCA.

They would have to apply to the courts to have there name subsituted on the judgement in place of the OC.

They are a DCA they will try it on.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

A complaint to the court and to the DCA, you need to make the complaint to the Compliance Manager of the DCA.

[stretch3336]

Have sent a letter today to Link, by recorded delivery, with all the details of the CCJ and all figures of what the balance should be.

 

I also enclosed a £1 postal order and asked for a copy of the original CCA and also the terms and conditions for the date the loan was taken out.

 

Wait and see what they come back with.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Good move stretch.

[bengateway]

Also,

Even if post contractual interest had been awarded. (And clearly in your judgement it has NOT)

The clause that 1st National/GE money relied on, would state that such interest was to be claimed seperate from, and not to merge with the judgement debt.

So once again inflating your original judgement debt with interest this way is a big no no.

If, (and in your case this is just for information purposes)

Post judgement contractual interest was permitted.

The OC would need to claim it in a seperate claim through the courts, once the judgement debt had been paid.

And as for a third party interloper (DCA)??

[stretch3336]

So what you are saying is that, once the full amount of the judgement is paid £3,104.60.

 

If contractual interest were to be claimed (which there is nothing on the judgement to say this), this would be subject to a separate claim through the courts.

[bengateway]

So what you are saying is that, once the full amount of the judgement is paid £3,104.60.

 

If contractual interest were to be claimed (which there is nothing on the judgement to say this), this would be subject to a separate claim through the courts.

 

Thats about it.

The judgement states the amount you have to pay, end of.

If post judgement contractual interest was being claimed and awarded specifically to the terms of the cca.

Then under those terms you will find it states seperate to and not to merge with the judgement debt.

The DCA can't willy nilly add interest to a judgement as they feel fit.

And as we know, in any event post contractual interest has not been awarded on your judgement.

It clearly states interest up to the judgement, nothing about interest after, or the cca clause.

 

OH sorry I forgot ! Its a DCA so they are above the courts lol.

 

Also,

This is an extract from the National Debt Helpline website.

 

Extract from the national debt help line.

 

 

Paying off the county court judgement and further action for added interest

 

 

When you think that you have paid the county court judgement in full, you should check this with the creditor. Where the county court judgement has been paid in full you could choose to stop paying. You should write to the creditor explaining why you consider the judgement balance to be paid off. If you did not pay anything further the creditor would have to take you to court again to get the interest back.

Warning

If your creditor wanted to recover the interest from you where this has not been included in the county court judgement, we do not think that the creditor can do this. Your creditor may say they will take you to court again for the interest. We do not think they can legally do this and are not aware of any cases where this has happened. It may be more common for creditors to take further action to recover the interest on judgements made after 1 October 2008.

Edited January 10, 2013 by bengateway

[stretch3336]

Thanks

More information the better.

[stretch3336]

Hi all

Just found this interesting read,from Feb 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/08/debt-management-plans-adding-interest

What are your views, relates entirely to my CCJ

 

Comments please

[bengateway]

Hi all

Just found this interesting read,from Feb 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/feb/08/debt-management-plans-adding-interest

What are your views, relates entirely to my CCJ

 

Comments please

 

A good read that proves these interest after judgement clauses can have a nasty sting in the tail.

No doubt the experts will be along to comment on that article.

From your perspective, it has to be whats written on your judgement.

Looking around this site at different threads mentioning this kind of scenario, you will find that site team and moderators often state that.

The court judgement overides the original agreement. I believe one term used was the judgement becomes the chose in law.

Once a judgement has been enterd into. The terms of that judgement have to be strictly followed by both parties.

Unless post judgement contractual interest has been specifically mentioned within your judgement, then it cannot be claimed no matter what it says in the terms and conditions of the original cca.

A judge will look at each case, and may well enter a judgement that allows post contractual interest to be added.

Assuming such a clause exists in the original cca. (With GE money that clause does indeed exist)

For this to happen,

A) The creditor would need to apply for it in there particulers of claim.

B) Most importantly, it would need to be granted in the final judgement.

Your judgement makes no such provision. It clearly states interst up to judgement, nothing about post judgement interest.

Thats how I understand your particuler situation to read, and is based on information and opinions given by Mods and site team here.

 

If that is in any way incorrect.

Then I would urge the moderators and site team members to comment as a matter of urgency.

I feel its important that information and advice is accurate and factual, and i am confident that all will agree.

 

If what I am understanding is correct, then please say so, If not, let us all know.

 

Stretch I am sure you will agree with me as would many in similar positions.

 

Many thanks.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The judgement order superceeds all Ts & Cs, the claimant may ask the judge to allow PJI even if it is in the TCs& Cs it can be denied.

 

Others will look in when available.

[stretch3336]

Brigadier can I pm ref another debt, which at this time I do not want to put public, until advice has been given

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Brigadier can I pm ref another debt, which at this time I do not want to put public, until advice has been given

 

Yes please do I'll look at asap.

[bengateway]

The judgement order superceeds all Ts & Cs, the claimant may ask the judge to allow PJI even if it is in the TCs& Cs it can be denied.

 

Others will look in when available.

 

Thank you Brig, appreciated.

[stretch3336]

Thanks for all the help,

Sent a letter to the court(£5 included) and have requested they send me all documents relating to the Judgement, POC etc.

 

Has anybody ever seen, written down in law where it states that the Judgement supersedes the original CCA and t&c's.

 

Just after as much written down info as possible to send back, when Link write to me saying they are allowed to charge contractual interest even though it is not stated on the Judgement.

[bengateway]

Thanks for all the help,

Sent a letter to the court(£5 included) and have requested they send me all documents relating to the Judgement, POC etc.

 

Has anybody ever seen, written down in law where it states that the Judgement supersedes the original CCA and t&c's.

 

Just after as much written down info as possible to send back, when Link write to me saying they are allowed to charge contractual interest even though it is not stated on the Judgement.

 

Absolutely,totaly agree with you stretch, thats EXACTLY whats needed.

Opinions and personel views are all well and good.

But hard concrete facts are a must if you have to either argue your points with a DCA or worst still argue in front of a judge.

Hopefully Brigs views are shared, and he will give his learned friends in the legal know the nudge.

Be nice if they can get back with some positive comments, fingers crossed.

Knowledge is power, but to be confident you need to know you have your facts right.

[cerberusalert]

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991

 

The general rule

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)

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

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/1184/article/2/made

[stretch3336]

Thanks that's a start,

I think this is what I paid ref to in my letter to Link (debt was under an agreement of the consumer credit act), and under £5000.

[bengateway]

The County Courts (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991

 

The general rule

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

(a)

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

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1991/1184/article/2/made

 

Thanks Cerb,

 

With such a clause (highlighted in red) relating to a consumer credit agreement.

 

I have to wonder why the Director General (Office of fair trading) went to such great lengths in there fight against first national bank (GE money) to have the interest after judgement clause removed within there consumer credit agreements ??

From what you have pointed out, surely the consumer was already protected from such a clause.

And yet there have been many articles relating specificaly to 1st National/GE money and link financial charging this after judgement interest.

It seems the question is and always will be. Have they got a legal right to that interest if its not specificaly mentioned in the Judgement order.

Brig has already said no they have not. And Stretch is asking if there is anything written to that effect ie they cant claim post judgement interest regardless of if its in the original terms and conditions unless its specifically mentioned in the judgement. Because the judgement suprcedes the original agreement.

Is that definately correct. Thats the main crux/question being asked I believe.

Sorry for being so stubborn on this point. But that really is the bottom line in this particuler case.

[stretch3336]

That exactly what I am after, as I am 100% certain that when Link write back to me , they will say they are entitled to contractual interest and quote the case Director General (Office of fair trading) v National Bank.

 

I would like to be able to fire something back at them ,preferably something written down in law ref Judgement superceding the original agreement and the T&C's at that time.

[stretch3336]

I found this while trawling through the internet.

It is a house of Lords publication (Court of appeal) by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, ref the Director General (Office of fair trading) v National Bank case.

Can somebody look at it and see if there is any relevance to my post, the one thing that interests me is paragraph 16.

 

I don't know if this the original case or an appeal

 

Thanks

Edited January 11, 2013 by stretch3336
add