interest after CCJ Paragon Finance

[babymoon]

Hi can any one offer advice how to deal with this problem. After paying the ccj for many years it is near completion having requested a balance figure from Paragon the balance outstanding is £200 for the ccj and!!! £23000 for contractual interest!!! Something which I have never been informed of. Has any one else been in this situation and offer help how to deal with this Thanks

[tomterm8]

I would suggest sending a credit agreement request and a S.A.R. to Paragon. You need to find out exactly what the credit agreement said.

 

Edit: I would recommend Private Messaging sequenci http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/member.php?find=lastposter&t=101490

[dx100uk]

me thinks the electronics have had a hiccup somewhere

as far as i know

no interest at all can be added to a CCJ judgement

 

dx100uk

[sequenci]

Interest can be added to certain court judgments, it used to be that interest couldn’t be added to CCA regulatedcounty court judgments. Since the case of The Director General of Fair Trading V First National it was decided that this statutory interest can be added on CCJs. Firms such as First National and Paragon (and now Egg and probably others) have a clause within the agreement to state that they will still charge interest after the judgment. As far as I’m aware this would have to be claimed for in a separate court case although I’m only about 90% sure of this, I’ll try and do a bit of homework.

this fact-sheet is a useful read: take a click.

National Debtline England & Wales | Debt Advice | Factsheet 18 Interest Charges On A Consumer Credit Judgment

[dx100uk]

thanks seq, i was not aware of that

cheeky beggers

 

dx100uk

i'll have a read.....

[sequenci]

thanks seq, i was not aware of that

cheeky beggers

 

dx100uk

i'll have a read.....

 

damn right, it went all the way up to the House of Lords...

 

i'm not a fan of it at all but I can kind of see the creditor's position too; i must stress that some of them can be very sneaky and not inform the debtor that there is this second sum which is gathering in the background.

 

i would be inclined to try a CCA request or SAR to try and obtain a copy of the original agreement, that way we can scrutinise it and see if there are any flaws or if indeed they have the right to do this in the first place.

[NitrousOxide]

Hi,

I'm pretty sure I read that for interest to accumulate on a CCJ it has to be included on the original N1 form.

i.e. interest at 100% pursuant to clause 18.b of the agreement...

[buster642]

Hi can any one offer advice how to deal with this problem. After paying the ccj for many years it is near completion having requested a balance figure from Paragon the balance outstanding is £200 for the ccj and!!! £23000 for contractual interest!!! Something which I have never been informed of. Has any one else been in this situation and offer help how to deal with this Thanks

 

Certinaly one thing I would recommend is that once you have paid off the remaining balance of £200, that you do not pay off a single penny of the extra amount they are claiming without taking advice - to do so would be tantamount to admitting that you owe them the money.

 

I strongly recommend that you get some professional advice on this because they are probably adding compound interest which means you will never, ever, pay it off at this rate

 

Very, very nasty, but unfortunately legal.

[sequenci]

i'm still investigating bits and pieces to help you with this.

 

do you know if the additional money they state you owe is mounting up in a seperate account? i wonder if you can obtain a certificate of satisfaction for the original judgment?

[babymoon]

Hi I think the interest is on a separate account and it was a bit of a shock to find out without being informed at any stage by them and have never received statements from them. The original loan was with Universal Credit.

[sequenci]

once you've paid off the original judgment, ensure that you obtain a certificate of satisfaction from the court; it'll cost £15 but may be worth it later on down the line

[tomterm8]

Hi I think the interest is on a separate account and it was a bit of a shock to find out without being informed at any stage by them and have never received statements from them. The original loan was with Universal Credit.

 

How much was the loan for ? When did you take it out, and when was judgement made?

[babymoon]

Original loan was for £3000 judgement was 1993 I have a copy ofthe original judgement and it was for £3897 "for debt and interest" plus £142 for costs

[tomterm8]

Oh... is it possible to scan the judgment, remove your personal details etc and post? Or type it out?

[babymoon]

on the judgement it states that "if judgement if more than £5000, the plaintiff may be entitled to interest" The rate of instalments was £50 per month, however due to change in circumstances in 1995 Universal agreed to accept a lower payment of £20 per month this maybe why interest has been added

[tomterm8]

on the judgement it states that "if judgement if more than £5000, the plaintiff may be entitled to interest" The rate of instalments was £50 per month, however due to change in circumstances in 1995 Universal agreed to accept a lower payment of £20 per month this maybe why interest has been added

 

Yep, but i want the particulars of claim.

[sequenci]

Yep, but i want the particulars of claim.

 

good call tom! i didn't think of that.

[babymoon]

The document I have is "Judgement for Plaintiff" (acceptance of offer)

[buster642]

Hi I think the interest is on a separate account and it was a bit of a shock to find out without being informed at any stage by them and have never received statements from them. The original loan was with Universal Credit.

 

If it is in a separate acccount, then I would claim that the interest is a separate debt completely, for which the Limitation Act should apply as it dates back to 1993.

 

You haven't been made aware of it - you haven't acknowledged it - and six years have gone by. All payments are being made towards the judgement debt, not the interest debt, so payments don't count as acknoeledgement either.

 

So while the charging of interest may be legal, they can no longer take you to court for it, because it is more than 6 years. Note: That's just how I would treat it - I'm not an expert.

 

Do not acknowledge it and do not pay a penny of it without getting some clear professional advice.

[sequenci]

If it is in a separate acccount, then I would claim that the interest is a separate debt completely, for which the Limitation Act should apply as it dates back to 1993.

 

You haven't been made aware of it - you haven't acknowledged it - and six years have gone by. All payments are being made towards the judgement debt, not the interest debt, so payments don't count as acknoeledgement either.

 

So while the charging of interest may be legal, they can no longer take you to court for it, because it is more than 6 years. Note: That's just how I would treat it - I'm not an expert.

 

Do not acknowledge it and do not pay a penny of it without getting some clear professional advice.

 

each accruing piece of interest would be subject to it's own limitation period; time would start running from that point, therefore the last 6 years would NOT be statute barred.

[tomterm8]

each accruing piece of interest would be subject to it's own limitation period; time would start running from that point, therefore the last 6 years would NOT be statute barred.

 

Can interest that is statute barred be included in the principal of subsequent accruing interest?

 

And is this actually interest on a judgement debt, or interest founded on a simple contract? That is, the scope of the original debt has obviously been decided by judgement, but my understanding is that the interest actually arises as a contractual benefit for the IP, and not as a result of the judgement per se.

 

Edit: one of the obvious differences is that if the debt interest is interest automatically added to a judgement debt, then that interest should be enforceable without need for a new judgement.

[buster642]

each accruing piece of interest would be subject to it's own limitation period; time would start running from that point, therefore the last 6 years would NOT be statute barred.

 

Wouldn't that apply to any kind of debt with "recent" charges !!! If a debt is statue barred, surely that can't just add on some more interest and say "ah, this was added within the past six years".

 

I suppose the difference is that the interest is being based upon an admitted judgement debt.

 

I guess you could argue that interest could only be charged on the judgement amount outstanding at the time over the past six years and not compounded interest. Given that this debt dates back to 1993, I think the majority of it is compound interest, so that would bring down the figure significantly.

 

You really have to get some professional advice.

 

Also it's important to remember that in most cases, you don't have to be 100% right legal-wise, just show that you have a valid point that you're prepared to put up a meaningful fight.

 

Predators tend to go after the weak first. If the prey fights back, they often back down for fear of being hurt and look elsewhere.

 

Creditors are no different. You just have to show them you have some balls and that you aint simply gonna roll over for them.

[buster642]

damn right, it went all the way up to the House of Lords...

 

i'm not a fan of it at all but I can kind of see the creditor's position too; i must stress that some of them can be very sneaky and not inform the debtor that there is this second sum which is gathering in the background.

 

 

I too can understand that if a creditor gets paid over 15 years, then they have effectively been paid less than the judgement amount due to the time value of money, so can why they might want to ensure that they are not penalised.

 

However, I suspect that they have been charging contractual interest at full rate, not merely at the rate that protects the original cash value of their investment.

 

Therefore they are trying to make a significant profit out of the judgement itself, which is clearly wrong from a moral point of view and does go against the principle of court action which is to recover the money you are owed and nothing more.

[buster642]

Edit: one of the obvious differences is that if the debt interest is interest automatically added to a judgement debt, then that interest should be enforceable without need for a new judgement.

 

The national debtline site indicates that contractual interest is not part of the judgement and that they have to take out a separate CCJ for the interest.

 

Makes sense if you think about it. The court merely approved the debt amount at the time. Ongoing contractual interest wouldn't have been discussed, therefore a new CCJ is required for this.

 

Not sure if the standard CCJ terms of 8% interest on CCJ's over 5K works the same way, but this debt was for under 5K anyway.

[sequenci]

there are a few points raised so far that i'm investigating. i've been away for a few days so apologies about not getting back to people. i'll reply in more detail this evening