Nationwide judgement by default

[greenk04]

Hi Guys

 

I have been paying Nationwide for a cc which I defaulted on last year

but set up a payment plan with KPR at £20 per month.

 

 

They sent me court papers to ccj it presumably with a view to co.

 

 

I filled in the papers and sent them back to Nationwide who are saying they didnt receive them so had the judgement by default.

 

I rang the court who told me fill in the forms etc and have it redetermined which I did.

I enclosed copies of letters etc one which is of KPR offering me a 75% reduction yet when I rang them they denied it!!

 

I have today received forms back from the court saying I need to pay £40 as it was never determined in the first place so cant be redetermined.

I feel loathed to pay them £40 for an error on Nationwides part.

 

Nationwide have written to me since saying they are willing to accept monthly payments if a co is granted.

 

Do I pay the £40 and have the judgement relooked at or do I carry on paying the £20 every month and wait until they ask for the charge order and then produce my papers etc and hopefully get a payment plan.

 

I have since been advised if it happens again to only send the paperwork to the court.

 

Feel so down over this Nationwide are so callous in the way they work they already have 2 ccj on me but have spread them over a year so it feels that ist has been going on forever.

 

All help is much appreciated.

[Andyorch]

Hi Greenk

 

I assume the judgment was a forthwith therefore you needed to submit the N245 Application to vary.This also costs £40 and you should include an up to date I&E and an your fisrt offer and payment.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[greenk04]

Hi

 

yes it was set to forthwith. I haven't stopped making the payments at all.

 

I dont really have the £40 either...

 

Feel very conned by nationwide and there unethical way of working.

[greenk04]

please help!!!!!

[Ganymede]

Hi,

 

The fee is usually £45 but if you can prove that you are on a benefits/ very low income etc you will not have to pay it.

[greenk04]

Hi

Nationwide have issued a ccj for a loan which is being paid on a monthly basis.

 

I had to have it redetermined due to northampton bulk centre setting as a ridiculously high amount.

 

The judge was fantastic and set it to the amount I requested.

 

He also denied the request to change it to forthwith as he said that Nationwide shouldn't keep demanding more from me and applying more charges which just increase the debts.

 

They have a ccj which has been paid and he saw no reason for them to be then able to put more charges on to seek a charging order. He also refused costs!

 

Today I receive a letter from Nationwide saying that the law changed in Oct 2012 so they can apply for the charging order anyway this to me makes a mockery of it all.

 

Just wondered if they will stand a chance of having this rejected to if or if they are being successful in getting the order.

 

Thanks in advance.

Edited September 10, 2013 by citizenB
formatting

[citizenB]

Hmm, I am not sure what they are saying is totally correct.

 

Yes, the law did change in 2012 and Charging orders can indeed be applied for automatically.

 

However, I think this would only apply if a claim has been issued after that date.

 

I will flag this question for those with more legal knowledge to also respond to. Please note that most of the advisors on CAG have day jobs, so it might be later today or tomorrow evening that you receive an answer

[dx100uk]

yes I think so too.

 

its not retro

 

 

dx

[Ganymede]

The OP needs to tell us the date of issue of the CCJ.

[greenk04]

it was only ccj in june this year

[Ganymede]

Then I'm sorry to say they are right and that you won't be able to stop the Charging Order.

[Andyorch]

Section 1(5) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 provides as follows: ‘In deciding whether to make a charging order the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, any evidence before it as to :-

 

(a) the personal circumstances of the debtor, and

(b) whether any other creditor of the debtor would be likely to be unduly prejudiced by the making of the order.’

 

A debtor who is insolvent in asset terms but is making pro rata payments from his surplus income to his creditors will often seek to argue that it is unfair that one creditor should effectively be able to barge to the front of the queue. That, on the face of it, is an attractive argument. Why, after all, should a creditor who refrains from taking proceedings because he is already receiving a fair instalment payment be disadvantaged by his forbearance? Is such a creditor not ‘unduly prejudiced’ by the making of the order?

 

Having said that, there is anecdotal evidence that some creditors may seek to use the threat of a charging order and its enforcement by an order for sale as a means of extracting a larger instalment payment than a pro rata division would justify. This is capable of unduly prejudicing other creditors. And the growing practice of waiting until the last possible moment to serve the interim order (presumably seeking to give the defendant as little opportunity as possible to be awkward) appears to be a clear breach of the Civil Procedure Rule 23.7(1)(a).

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Ganymede]

Section 1(5) of the Charging Orders Act 1979 provides as follows: ‘In deciding whether to make a charging order the court shall consider all the circumstances of the case and, in particular, any evidence before it as to :-

 

(a) the personal circumstances of the debtor, and

(b) whether any other creditor of the debtor would be likely to be unduly prejudiced by the making of the order.’

 

A debtor who is insolvent in asset terms but is making pro rata payments from his surplus income to his creditors will often seek to argue that it is unfair that one creditor should effectively be able to barge to the front of the queue. That, on the face of it, is an attractive argument. Why, after all, should a creditor who refrains from taking proceedings because he is already receiving a fair instalment payment be disadvantaged by his forbearance? Is such a creditor not ‘unduly prejudiced’ by the making of the order?

 

Having said that, there is anecdotal evidence that some creditors may seek to use the threat of a charging order and its enforcement by an order for sale as a means of extracting a larger instalment payment than a pro rata division would justify. This is capable of unduly prejudicing other creditors. And the growing practice of waiting until the last possible moment to serve the interim order (presumably seeking to give the defendant as little opportunity as possible to be awkward) appears to be a clear breach of the Civil Procedure Rule 23.7(1)(a).

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

 

Hi Andy,

 

Can you expand on your last paragraph please because it is the Court that serves the ICO and sets a hearing date for the FCO.

[Andyorch]

Hi Andy,

 

Can you expand on your last paragraph please because it is the Court that serves the ICO and sets a hearing date for the FCO.

 

But its the claimant that makes and serves copy of the application (N244)

[Ganymede]

Ah ok I see where you're coming from now Andy.