Paragon need some help to deal with them !!!

[trying to save]

Hi everyone i have finally began to get myself and OH debts into order and a new I & E has been prepared by the CCCS this is one slippery company judging by what i have been reading on here so i will now tell u the details and i hope that someone can advise me further.

 

OH took out an unsecured loan with Universal Credit in 1989 for £1000 over 3 years I do not have any paperwork to say how many payments he made i think it was about 1 to 2 years worth.

 

Then we ran into difficulty due to my husbands contract being reduced in hours so we did not make a few payments and we getting debt advice from the CAB anyway in June 1993 we received a judgement for Plantiff Acceptance of offer as we had agreed to pay them the amount of £15 per month the Debt was now £1967.97 for the debt and interest to the date of judgement and £153.50 for costs.

 

We made one payment and then the case was transferred to my local court as they put an attachment of earnings order in so the amounts were now £2106.47 plus attachment issue fee of £70.00 total of £2176.47 which since then have been paid off at a rate of £15 per month till 1997 and then £10.00 per month since 13/12/1997.

 

Anyway in Feb 2006 after seeing the CAB for a new financial statement we were advised to write to paragon to get a Balance which was as follows I can confirm that the bal outstanding under the judgement order is £601.47 and the balance outstanding under the contract is £25876.64 to date OMG !!! on the £10.00 payment they were adding £693.28 a month in interest !!!

 

We received a 1 statement in SEPT 2009 for 10/2008 - 09/2009 and the opening balance was £1198.00 and we have not received another statememt so I sat down last night and worked out that if OH owed £601.47 and has paid £10.00 per month since then he has now paid £650.00 and therefore cleared the judgement order.

 

CCCS have advised us to contact the OFT about this would welcome some advice please about how to go forward on this one.

 

Sorry for the lenghty post TTS

[cerberusalert]

What did the CCJ stipulate, unless it expressly stated that interest can be added then it can't.

 

When they obtained the CCJ it superseded the previous agreement, that agreement is now worthless.

[trying to save]

i have the the papers here shall i delete all the personal details and attach them would that be easier

[cerberusalert]

Yes stick them up.

[trying to save]

ok here are the two court documents that i have

Universal Credit Court Documents.pdf

[trying to save]

at the bottom of page 1 of the attachment it also says * if the judgement is for more than £5000 the plaintiff may be entitled to interest was cut off during scanning so should interest not been added to this judgement as it was under the £5000 originally ?

[BradB]

Hi, just a quickie as I am on my lunch.

 

The County Courts (Interest on Judgement Debts) Order 1991

 

4. Interest and Enforcement or other proceedings.

 

4.3 Where an administration order or an attachment of earnings order is made, interest shall not accrue during the time the order is in force.

 

In black and white there me thinks, interest can not be added.

[cerberusalert]

Do you have the original judgement?

 

According to the court document you uploaded the total amount due included interest & it makes no further mention that any more can be added i.e statutory interest at 8% per annum which would be the most a court would order.

 

It's only recently that a court has included the statutory interest so it's highly unlikely that it was included in the original judgement.

 

Paragon are trying it on with the ludicrous interest they've added, technically they are committing Contempt of Court by trying to vary its judgement & as suggested by CCCS you should make a complaint to the OFT along with Trading Standards & the MoJ.

[trying to save]

Thanks for the swift reply cererusalert and bradB the question i need to ask is the original judgement has now been paid + an extra £50 and i have just been looking through all of my papers here and i do not understand when they sent me a statement of mu OH's account in 2009 should my OH of received these statements yearly as we have only had one however the balance at top says opening balance of £1198.00 where has this appeared from are they wanting use to now clear this aswell as it shows our monthly £10.00 payments on here and £7-8 a month going back on in interest as the original judgement was still in place and the figures here are completely different.

 

TTS

[cerberusalert]

Stick to whatever the judgements stipulated, ignore what Paragon send because obviously they don't know their derrière from their elbow.

 

Make those complaints to the agencies I mentioned above.

[trying to save]

Thanks cerberusalert sorry for your name wrong in the last post i have a local trading standards that operate close to me would i just give them a phone to discuss this matter.

 

TTS

[Dial Square]

Your case is almost identical to mine. I also had an original loan with Universal which had a CCJ on it that was taken over by Paragon. They accepted my reduced monthly payment for a number of years until I requested a settlement balance.

 

They gave me the judgement balance and a further balance of £10,000 in contractual interest. I settled the Judgement balance in full and went to the CAB to see what could be done regarding the extra interest. They drafted a formal complaint letter for me mentioning the following points:Their lack of transparency regarding this additional interest and the fact that had I not requested a balance I would still be under the impression that no interest was being added and that the balance was reducing with each payment.

 

I believe that there are doubts about whether a creditor with an existing judgment is permitted to commence fresh proceedings for recovery of interest charged after judgment. I am working together with the Citizens Advice Bureau who has taken further advice on the general issue of contractual interest.

 

I understand that where a creditor wishes to claim contractual interest after judgment, there are 2 methods available

 

1) Request an interlocutory judgment at the outset and include a specific claim for post-judgment interest to be assessed at a later date or

 

(2) Where the interest rate is fixed throughout the term of the loan, obtain a final judgment at the outset for the full amount owed under the agreement.Section 35 of the County Courts Act 1984 states that 'It shall not be lawful for any plaintiff to divide any cause of action for the purpose of bringing two or more actions in one or more of the county courts'. As a result, a creditor who fails to obtain the correct form of judgment at the outset is precluded from taking further or separate proceedings to recover that which s/he omitted to claim in the original action.I would also argue that a second action could constitute an abuse of process, due to the combined effect of CPR rules 7.3, 1.3 and 1.4 (2) (i). Such an action falls to be struck out on application under CPR.3.4 (2) (b).I pointed out that due to their lack of transparency and a lack of a legal basis to pursue this unlawful interest, I would not be pay8ing them another penny.

 

They wrote back informing me that whilst they could add this interest, as a gesture of goodwill and down to my personal circumstances (!!!!!!! That I know my rights?!), they had closed the account and would not be pursuing it any further. So they wrote £10K off just like that.I would do the same if I were you and send a formal complaint to Paragon. And stop paying them if the judgement has been satisfied.

Edited July 7, 2011 by citizenB

[Dial Square]

Sorry it all came out in one paragraph. That's not how I typed it and I can't edit it to make it easier to read so if you need clarification on anything let me know.

[trying to save]

Thanks for that dial square i do not think they will be getting any more off us the interest rate is ridiculous and do they think we r going to just pay it without question i think not !!!

 

Going to go and give trading standards a ring now for a chat catch u later.

 

TTS

[sillygirl1]

Don't forget that there is also the PPI issue, nearly all Paragon loans from this period had COMPULSORY PPI added and it was added UP FRONT and if your agreement shows this payment AHEAD of the loan amount it is reclaimable and clearly their original judgement was completely false.

[trying to save]

Just rang trading standards who transferred me to consumer direct who cannot help so will ring the CAB

[Dial Square]

If you need the CAB to look back over their case files for the information they gave me, tell them it was the City of London (St Pauls) office and the date was November 2007.

[cerberusalert]

Since the Government stuck their oar in and more or less closed Consumer Direct by withdrawing most of their funding complaints like this are now within the remit of the Trading Standards who report to the OFT directly.

 

Technically speaking the general public cannot complain directly to the OFT, they should go through TS. Another cause for complaint to the OFT.

[trying to save]

Thanks Dial Square just got off the phone to the CAB who have made a note on their computer can go to a drop in on Fri am at a branch i have not been to before or mon am at one where i have been before take along all my stuff and they will advise thanks for sharing your details with me i will let them know and i know how u feel cerberusalert if due to lack of funding these places are going how can us consumers make complaints to organisations like the OFT and the CAB are desperately underfunded as well cannot believe how many of them have closed.

 

Will keep u posted better go and ready for the gp's appointment.

 

TTS

[citizenB]

Sorry it all came out in one paragraph. That's not how I typed it and I can't edit it to make it easier to read so if you need clarification on anything let me know.

 

Have popped some spacing in for you. Sometimes you need to add an extra space to ensure a paragraph will happen

[cerberusalert]

Judgments - Director General of Fair Trading V First National Bank

 

16. The Court of Appeal differed from the judge on the question of unfairness. In the judgment of the court it was said ([2000] QB 672 at 688):

 

"In our judgment the relevant term is unfair within the meaning of the Regulations of 1994 to the extent that it enables the bank to obtain judgment against a debtor under a regulated agreement and an instalment order under section 71 of the Act of 1984 without the court considering whether to make a time order, or, if it does and makes a time order, whether also to make an order under section 136 to reduce the contractual interest rate. The bank, with its strong bargaining position as against the relatively weak position of the consumer, has not adequately considered the consumer's interests in this respect. In our view the relevant term in that respect does create unfair surprise and so does not satisfy the test of good faith; it does cause a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties by allowing the bank to obtain interest after judgment in circumstances when it would not obtain interest under the Act of 1984 and the Order of 1991, and no specific benefit to compensate the borrower is provided; and it operates to the detriment of that consumer who has to pay the interest." http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd011025/fair-1.htm

[Dial Square]

Have popped some spacing in for you. Sometimes you need to add an extra space to ensure a paragraph will happen

 

Thanks CB!Looks much better now.

[trying to save]

Been to CAB who took some details from me and need to go and have a follow up appointment with them will keep you posted