Egg Banking/Drydens Charging Order

[alu1000]

Hello all

 

I’ve posted on hear in the past regarding my continued relationship with Egg Banking and Drydens. I had a loan account with Egg dating back to 2004. In 2006 I began experiencing major credit problems and entered into a DMP with the CCCS. At the time Egg agreed to the reduced monthly payments that the CCCS had put to them. I then received a letter from Dryden Lawyers acting for Egg indicating they intended to peruse a Charging Order on my property (which is jointly owned). Having filed the relevant paperwork with the County Court and providing them with a breakdown of my income and expenditure which the CCCS had compiled the Judgment for Claimant determination was set at an unrealistic monthly amount, this was in March 2007. I then asked for a redetermination at my local County Court. The redetermination was heard on the 24 May 2007, after the first payment for the initial determination was due, and although the Judge agreed that I should only pay the amount initially set out by the CCCS, I had failed to pay the difference between that amount and the amount the initial determination had set for that one payment, this difference was £77.85! I was of the understanding that because I was appealing against the initial determination the payments would not have taken effect until the appeal was heard, how wrong I was!! Therefore, because of the shortfall of £77.85 for that one payment the Charging Order was granted at a later hearing.

 

As there was no prospect of my financial situation improving in the foreseeable future I filed for Bankruptcy in October 2007, my partner entered into an IVA because he had collateral in the property where as any collateral I had was taken by the charging order. Both the Bankruptcy and IVA have now ended.

 

It has been over a year since the redetermination and I have been paying the monthly amount that was set out by the judge. However, today I have received a letter from Drydens stating the following:

 

“Our client previously placed this matter on hold in light of your financial circumstances. As you have not notified us of any changes in your circumstances, our client has asked us to review your situation.

We attach an income and expenditure questionnaire for you to complete.

Please note that our client is no longer prepared to hold this matter in abeyance and your payment proposals are required. As you are aware, a Final Charging Order was obtained on the 27 June 2007, the debt is therefore secured against your property”.

 

 

What I would like to know is can they insist I pay more each month even if a Judge has set the payments, as I said previously I have paid the amount set out in the redetermination each month without fail.

 

I am currently a full time university student and work part-time approx 16hrs per week so my proportion of the household income is much less than my partners.

 

Sorry for the long winded explanation.

 

Any advice would be gratefully accepted, thank you!

[popeye1]

Did the account have a CCJ in the first place,

[alu1000]

Yes the account had a CCJ due to the shortfall of the initial monthly payment that was set at the Judgment of Claimant hearing. It is maddening, as I said it was only granted because of the shortfall of that one payment, obviously if I knew that the initial determination was still upheld until the redetermination was heard I would have paid the shortfall, but I was of the understanding that it would have been put on hold until the redetermination had been heard.

[alu1000]

(((Bump)))