Does a ccj supersede the original cca

[verminhater]

Hi Guys,
Trying to clear a point in law, the implications of which could be far reaching regarding post contractual interest.

A) Does the terms of a county court judgement overwright ie, take precedence over the original consumer credit agreement ?
In affect the judgement becomes the chose in law.

B) If post contractual interest is in the original terms of the agreement. Does it need to be claimed in the particulers of the claim, and also awarded in the judgement to be valid ?

C) If a debt collection agency purchases a debt that has received a ccj from the original creditor.
Would any claim they made for contractual interest be deemed unfair as they were not the people who loaned the money.
Therefore claiming interest on an amount that they never loaned out ??

Often referance is given to the Office of Fair trading vs 1st National Bank Case.

But is there any cases where a dca has ever been succesful in making these post judgement interest claims stick?
As said the original creditor could possibly have a genuine claim provided the amount claimed was deemed fair and proportional.
But a dca must surely be a different matter.
They only purchsed the debt through assignment, so would be claiming interest on mere paperwork NOT monies they had loaned to the debtor.

The bottom line as I see it,
If its not mentioned in the judgement, then it's not there to be claimed.

Appreciate your comments on this,
I'm sure its been thrashed out many times but is there anything conclusive on the subject ??

[Curlyben]

Re: Does a ccj supersede the original cca

In short YES.
The CCJ sets the terms for future recovery of the debt.

[verminhater]

Re: Does a ccj supersede the original cca

In short YES.
The CCJ sets the terms for future recovery of the debt.

Thank you very much for your prompt reply CB.

That being the case.
The terms of the consumer contract including that of contractual interest would no longer apply, unless specifically mentioned within the judgement agreement.
Its my guess that DCA's try to fleece contractual interest by quoting terms from the original contract, when in fact it no longer exists.
The OFT vs 1st National case is often mis interpreted for this very reason.
Something that needs clarity I'm sure you would agree.

Once again,
Many thanks to you, and although slightly late,
A very happy new year.

[stevread1]

Re: Does a ccj supersede the original cca

Once its gone to CCJ the court has decided how much you can afford to pay thats why its important to fill out your summons correctly. Both parties then have to stick to this. You can voluntary pay more if you want to at a later date to clear the debt but they can not pursue you to pay anymore. So sometimes a ccj can work to your advantage as you could end up paying less than your cca.
But rember if you break your side of the ccj then they can take you back to court to start recovery procedures. Thats when things start to get nasty.
If you are a home owner, this could involve the application for a charging order against your property. Alternatively your creditor could apply for an attachment of earnings so that the CCJ payments are taken directly out of your wages. Or bring in the balifs.
if you need to change your payments to fit into a debt mangement plant you need to make a formal application to the Court to change the payment structure using an official application form (N245).The court will review your application and if they agree that the payment amount should be changed, they will issue you with what is known as an instalment order.

[verminhater]

Re: Does a ccj supersede the original cca

Many Thanks for the info to both of you,
The ccj has been running for a while.
Being a first national bank agreement passed to a dca some time back, I have just continued with the ccj payments, following the terms of the ccj to the letter.
The courts decided to award a repayment to which I have adhered.
Some day I would like to be able to settle but I like to know where I stand before.
I have no idea if the dca has informed the courts of the change of ownership or even if they are legaly obliged to do so. My guess would be probably not.
My main concern was the possibility of the dca referring to the original cca and the clause relating to post judgement contractual interest.
But if the ccj supersedes this, and the judgement makes no mention of post contractual interest (It doesnt) then they shouldnt have a leg to stand on.
In fact the judgement states the claiment agrees to the payments by installments and interest up to the date of judgement. The claiment claims £xxxxx and was awarded zero costs.
As said would like to get it cleared but who wants to poke a bear with a stick ???
And despite them stating the debt has been assigned to them, would the courts see it that way ??
Always so many twists and turns with these situations and we all know how slippery and deviouse a dca can be in there quest to fleece us legal or not.
Thanks again fellas, God bless you and the help you give.

[Curlyben]

Re: Does a ccj supersede the original cca

All in all, if tey want to play dumb feckers, let them.
Then simply pull out the original CCJ as full defence to any action.

Who are we talking about here ?

[verminhater]

Re: Does a ccj supersede the original cca

Original ceditor 1st national bank (Who no longer exist) believe they are now GE money.

Respect and Thanks to you.

[stretch3336]

Re: Does a ccj supersede the original cca

Hi all,

having the same problem with Link financial original debt was with GE Capital
But debt passed to Link and it was these who got CCJ against me
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.

I have written to Link about this interest, the details of the judgement and have also enclosed £1 and asked for a copy of the original Consumer credit agreement and the terms and conditions at the time I took the loan out

Sorry if I have hijacked verminhater's thread just thought it was relevant.