CCJ Shoosmiths/Tesco Personal Finance - keep asking to up payments?

[ohdarn]

Hello,

 

 

we have one CCJ which is managed by Shoosmiths.

 

 

The CCJ was secured against our property and we pay £40 a month towards it as well.

 

Shoosmiths have recently written to us to say the the amount we pay each month is under review

and they would like us to fill in an income and expenditure form to adjust the amount.

 

We were under the impression that if monthly payments were authorised by the judge in the CCJ they were unalterable?

 

Could anyone offer any advice please on what to do?

 

Thanks very much.

[Bazooka Boo]

You are correct.

 

 

Only a judge can change the payments.

 

Unless these lot go back to court then the payments stay exactly the same just as the judge ordered.

It was these lot who secured the CCJ wasn't it?

 

I'd be mindful of reporting their contempt of court to the relevant bodies who police them too.

[dx100uk]

whats the debt all about please

 

 

shoes try these tactics all the time

 

 

so they got a charging order too?

 

 

tell us the full story please

 

 

dx

[ohdarn]

Thanks for the replies. I'll reply in more detail once I have a bit more time this evening but yes they did get a charging order.

Shoosmiths are acting on behalf of Tesco Personal Finance.

The letter says,

 

"We write further to your payment of £40 on 10 February 2015. We note we do not have an up to date Income and Expenditure form on the account and are therefore unable to enter into a formal arrangement with you at this time..............(Some wording that says we want you to fill out an income and expenditure form) with a view to accepting your offer of repayment on a formal basis."

 

I'll dig out the original CCJ forms this evening and post up what they say.

Thanks for your time.

[Bazooka Boo]

Pretty simple really.

 

Personally I would fire off a very short response, something along the lines of;

 

Dear Bill&Ben,

Thank you for your letter dated dd/mm/yyyy the contents of which have been noted.

In response to your request, I refer you to the court order that was made on dd/mm/yyyy, and your request is refused.

Should you continue with these frivolous letters you will be reported to the FCA, further more, to alleviate any

future protracted correspondence from yourselves, I will refer you to Arkell v Pressdram. I trust I have made myself

absolutely crystal?

Regards.

[dx100uk]

you say this is secured?

so they got a CO too?

[ohdarn]

Hello, yes they have a charging order.

 

 

However (I've mentioned this on the other thread) I'm now unsure if I've lumped together two separate CCJs

as it turns out two different CCJs from two different companies were taken out against us on the same date

and I'm slightly worried I've fused the two together s

 

 

o I need to go through it all again and find out which company has sent what.

 

Please bear with me. Thanks for your patience.

[dx100uk]

sure let it run.

 

 

dx

[ohdarn]

Okay I think I've figured it out (and I thought I was on top of this now, how wrong I was!).

 

 

The other paperwork had been 'filed' in a different folder as we must have thought they were duplicates (as we get letters in each of our names for joint debt).

 

It turns out that Shoosmiths gained a CCJ and subsequent charging orders on behalf of Tesco and Natwest at the same time.

 

 

The Natwest debt however was then transferred for some reason to Drydensfairfax whilst the Tesco debt stayed with Shoosmiths.

 

Okay, in some respects this is possibly a good thing as each creditor is less likely to go for sale order

as the money raised from a sale would have to be split between all creditors with secured loans on the property?

[dx100uk]

well the true secured loans first after any mortgage.

not the fake ones relating from any CO.

 

 

so this or these CO's

 

 

are they all joint debts and a jointly mortgaged property

 

 

dx

[ohdarn]

Yes they are joint debts on a jointly owned property.

Are Charging Orders not really secured on the property then?

[dx100uk]

yes they are but they don't necessarily get first dibs.

 

 

if you were to sell and your people were cute

it could be 'forgotten' about.

till its too late

but I didn't tell you that.

 

 

FWIW. how much are these poxy Co's for

against a property that's worth?

 

 

so you never defended or knew about them?

what are there dates?

 

 

dx

[ohdarn]

The charging orders were for £8000 and £11,000.

 

 

We bought the house for £49,000 and took out two secured loans with the mortgage provider which took the total to £69,000.

Unfortunately the house was considerably more dilapidated than we imagined,

we had a baby on the way and I lost my job which led to the two extra loans.

 

The house is worth about £64,000 now maybe £70,000 if you hide the leaking roof and the ancient boiler.

We've not paid off much of the mortgage but we've never missed a payment.

 

The CCJs were taken out in June 2013 and looking through the paperwork

they did inform us of both however in my stupidity I thought the Natwest copies were duplicates of the Tesco copies

(for some reason they addressed the Tesco copies to my wife and the Natwest ones to me

even though they were both jointly owned and

 

 

because they were in the same Shoosmiths envelopes delivered at the same time

I thought they were duplicates of a single claim.

 

 

It wasnt until Drydensfairfax took over the Natwest account that I started correspondence,

 

 

however they didn't mention in any of their literature that they had taken on the debt in the form of a CCJ,

they just kept asking for income/expenditure forms and rejecting any proposals we made.

 

We didn't defend the charging order (the one we knew about anyway)

as we classed it as a better option than bankruptcy at the time

(and also that we just didn't have the money for both of us to go bankrupt).

 

 

We didn't have spare income for a IVA or a DMP so this semmed the lesser of the evils.

[dx100uk]

the mortgage would come first

 

 

its interesting to note

that you don't have to pay off a CO.

 

 

as ofcourse they get their money from the eventual sale.